no wonder they want it suppressed
The Bush administration's resistance to the 9/11 commission is beginning to make more sense. This Miami Herald story indicates the report will contain "explosive" revelations, including more details of the warnings the Bush Administration received prior to the attacks.
The report will show that top Bush administration officials were warned in the summer of 2001 that the al Qaeda terrorist network had plans to hijack aircraft and launch a ``spectacular attack.''
Hill would not discuss details of the report, but said it will contain ''new information'' about revelations made last year, when the joint House-Senate investigation held nine public hearings and 13 closed sessions.
The final report was completed in December. Since then a working group of Bush administration intelligence officials has ''scrubbed'' the report, objecting to additional public disclosures.
I've long been irked at conservatives' resistance to acknowledging Bush's spectacularly obvious failure to protect the nation on 9/11. It's long been public knowledge that Condoleeza Rice warned Bush scarcely a month before that al Qaeda planned a hijacking of a US airecraft, and yet Bush did nothing apparent. (The defense is usually, "What could he have done?" to which my basic response is, "It's his job, not mine, to figure that out.") And most of the Administration's defense has been a variation on the misleading statement "we didn't know the planes would be used as missiles!" (Memo to the geniuses in the Administration: skyjacking is bad and should be prevented no matter what, even if the terrorists are so unkind as to not send an engraved invitation with the date and time.) But if these indactions are correct, Bush's incompetence is much worse than even I'd amagined, and blows the Administration's feeble excuses right out of the water.
So now the question is, will the American public -- let alone conservatives -- hold Bush accountable for his failure in his duty to defend this nation?
At the very freakin' least, isn't it high time we put to rest this faith in a President's willingness to "delegate"? It's abundantly clear by now that this hands-off management style simultaneously creates foul-up after foul-up while insulating the President from responsibility.
Oh, wait, never mind...I can see now why the GOP likes it. Contemptible.
(via Eschaton, where one of the comments points out that these revelations are in the redacted version of the report, no less.)