[BlackGriffen]

If this pans out, it may not. I'm not saying that Bush is responsible, but the American electorate has been known to reach conclusions on its own with little to no evidence before (Iraq Al Qaeda ties).

Is this going to blow up on Bush? He's already dodged more more political bullets than I can come up with a clever reference for. Will his luck run out on this the issue he's built his presidency on? Or will the incompetent Democrats hand him another pass?

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

What's the connection between that and the thread title?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What's the connection between that and the thread title?

I'm pondering if this will make the Iraq war moot for Bush's chances at reelection.

Sorry for being too subtle.

BG

[zachs]

The fact that Bush could have prevented the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11 will be his downfall. When this gets out in the rest of the media (right now, nobody except CBS is reporting, as expected), people will turn against Bush.

I except Bush & Co. to pin the blame on Bill Clinton, which will be typical of them. Everything is Clinton's fault, of course. Nevertheless, the fact that Clinton could have possibly done more doesn't change the fact that Bush had prior, repeated warnings about an imminent, "spectacular" attack on U.S. soil, and did nothing.

See this WaPo article.

Treason, just like the Valerie Plame scandal. (BTW, who was responsible? )

[SimeyTheLimey]

Don't you think this is a little desparate? The didn't connect the dots line was last year.

[BlackGriffen]

Difference is that this time the official in charge of the inquiry himself is saying it.

BG

[thunderous_funker]

While I'm glad we are finally going to discuss how preventable it was, I'm not convinced the blame for failing can be laid at the feet of the president.

Yes, lots of middle and upper management at the CIA, FBI, INS and others, as well as members of the cabinet seem to have had a clear hand in ****ing this up. They should be fired for incompetence.

But I'm not convinced that the "blame" rests with Bush.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
While I'm glad we are finally going to discuss how preventable it was, I'm not convinced the blame for failing can be laid at the feet of the president.

Yes, lots of middle and upper management at the CIA, FBI, INS and others, as well as members of the cabinet seem to have had a clear hand in ****ing this up. They should be fired for incompetence.

But I'm not convinced that the "blame" rests with Bush.

I agree with this, but I would point out that the subsequent coverup, or if you prefer, obstruction of investigation DOES rest at the executive office's feet (or perhaps more accurately Cheney's)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I agree with this, but I would point out that the subsequent coverup, or if you prefer, obstruction of investigation DOES rest at the executive office's feet (or perhaps more accurately Cheney's)

Absolutely.

Hopefully, the Bush picked chairman going public with this pronouncement will like a fire under the administration to do some necessary housecleaning.

Certainly Karl Rove is smart enough now to realize that further obstruction is going to hurt Bush in an election year. But then again, I'm constantly amazed at how disdainful of transparency and accountability this administration continues to be.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
While I'm glad we are finally going to discuss how preventable it was, I'm not convinced the blame for failing can be laid at the feet of the president.

Yes, lots of middle and upper management at the CIA, FBI, INS and others, as well as members of the cabinet seem to have had a clear hand in ****ing this up. They should be fired for incompetence.

But I'm not convinced that the "blame" rests with Bush.

I'm not asking where the blame should be, I'm wondering out loud where the blame will be.

BG