Our biggest adversary

Sep 14, 2004

Our biggest adversary

Today, five widows of victims of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks endorsed John Kerry. Kristen Breitweiser was one of them, and she told CNN's Judy Woodruff why:

I think my own personal experience in the last three years, where I'd hoped that President Bush - someone that I voted for, that my husband voted for - would have been my biggest ally in trying to correct the problems that occurred on the morning of September 11th and trying to make this nation safer.

And what I found out, for the last three years, is that he was our biggest adversary. And I'm very disappointed.

-

With regard to the 9/11 Commission, President Bush: fought the creation of the commission; fought the legislative language to make sure the commission was set up in a bipartisan manner; fought the funding of the commission; fought an extension for the commission; fought access to individuals and documents.

This commission was very important because it was going to make sure that we learn from the mistakes that occurred in 9/11 and, in a sense, honor the lost lives by making sure that in the next attack - which we know is going to happen - more lives would be saved.

-

I have not flown in an airplane since 9/11. When I see planes in the sky, I have flashbacks of the plane entering my husband's building. I have committed to the campaign that I will travel. I want to get the word out. I want the people in this country to understand that national security must be a priority - a priority in action, not just in words. And I'm willing to get on a plane. And assuming I can do that, I will do that. And that is how committed I am, and how much I believe in Senator Kerry being our president.

-

And I can tell you from my heart, I reached out to the Kerry campaign. I reached out after the Republican convention that was in New York, and I felt that listening to people talk about 9/11 as incessantly as it was done during the campaign - or the convention in New York, if you're going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11. And that's not being done. If you're going to use 9/11, if you're going to be impassioned about the lives lost on 9/11, then do so by making us safer. Don't use 9/11 to go to war in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 - not on my husband's name. The war in Iraq has increased recruitment of al Qaeda. It has increased animosity and hatred toward Americans.
http://www.democrats.org/blog/display/00010991.html

Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?

'The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.'

It is reviewed by The New York Review entitled BUSH's MESS

Excellent summations by Elizabeth Drew and Thomas Powers

What has not been reported in the news is the arrogant interference from the White House about wording that might reflect badly on its occupants.

The White House set up a special committee to 'clear' staff reports, strongly objected to the staff report about how the administration behaved on the morning of September 11, 2001. Gonzalez in a letter 'proposed substitute language that portrayed the President's performance that morning in a more positive light.'

After 'resting' for those famous 7 minutes, 'the focus was on the President's statement to the nation' - his 'message' - rather than on taking charge of the nation's response to the attacks.

And there you have it, the President who has convinced 46 % of the electorate that he will protect them from terrorism. He will not because he is only a political animal in the time of great crisis.

There's more...

Welcome back, you spent all that time reading the report. Congrats!

'opinionated review' is a redundancy. These reviews bring more to the table than the actual report. They bring things that were excluded from the report in order to appease the White House.

Could you be more specific, like which individual from the left reported what.

that we absolutely needed the 9-11

Oh it did dig up evidence (evidence is not 'dirt' as you put it.) that Bush ignored 36 PDB's mentioning al Qaeda before 9/11. (search if you will his speeches and statements from Jan. - Sept. 2001 and see how many times he mentions them.) And it flatly reported that Bush failed on 9/11 without making the statement. It let the evidence speak for itself.

Proof that you read the report but failed to pick up the underlying implications against Bush. They had to be 'underlying' in order to achieve a unanimous report but they are there. Maybe you don't 'do nuance.'

'Thomas Kean said that the attacks might have been prevented. And Lee Hamilton said on 'Meet the Press' in April, 'If you'd had a little luck, it probably could have been prevented.' According to some of Kean's colleagues, the 'blowback' from the administration was FEROCIOUS. (my emphasis)

What does that tell you?

'The final report presents a clear picture of the Bush administration in the months leading up to September 11 as not much engaged with the problem of terrorism and unresponsive to clear warnings that something was afoot.'