[lbo-talk] Why Democrats Can't Blame Bush for 9/11

[John Adams]

On Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 08:20 AM, Christian Gregory wrote:

> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>> So I think the American people have this one right.  Don't play blame 
>> games
>> for 911 itself-- have a real debate about what we should have done 
>> and need
>> to do now to protect Americans from terrorism in the future.
>
> So how can you disentangle "blame" or at least responsibility for 9/11 
> from the "real debate" you talk about? Clarke's point is that the 
> Bushies were so obsessed with Iraq as to ignore the threat of Al 
> Queda. That point is clearly right--Rice in her testimony as much as 
> admitted that in any number of ways, but especially when she said that 
> it wasn't until the 34th meeting of the National Security prinicpals 
> that AQ and terrorism were on the table. (And Iraq, as we know, was on 
> the table in the very first meeting.) Even if you don't believe there 
> was a "magic bullet" for preventing 9/11, you _do_ have to believe 
> that, were the administration disposed to concentrate, 9/11 _might_ 
> have been foiled or delayed, even if not entirely intentionally. If 
> you don't believe that, then there is no point in the debate you talk 
> about.
>
> You have to be schizophrenic to believe that the two issues can be so 
> nicely separated--which is why the American people have done it so 
> nicely.

I think you misunderstand Nathan's argument because you miss (or 
possibly contest--it is contestable) a point of fact on which it rests: 
A large segment of the American people, particularly moderate 
Republicans and swing voters, are giving very serious thought to 
ripping George Bush a new asshole over this. We don't need to jiggle 
their elbows.

Maybe I'm wrong,

	John A