Bush II's Aggressive Removal of Protections a Catalyst 9/11 :: Ultimate MMORPG Gaming Community & Trading Zone

Banzai
Guest

Posted: 07/26/04 - 13:54 Post subject: Bush II's Aggressive Removal of Protections a Catalyst 9/11

Quote:

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Margie Burns

The report of the 9/11 Commission is being read, in a split-the-dif way, as faulting "both" the Bush and the Clinton administrations, as though they were the only administrations pertinent to an inquiry into the attacks of September 11, 2001. Actually, there are three administrations involved: Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

There is, as they say, plenty of blame to go around. Even taking "national security" and "counterterrorism" on their own terms –- that is, setting aside any broader questions about foreign policy -- all three administrations committed errors. But the errors of the two previous administrations -– Bush I and Clinton -- were largely mistakes of omission, the results of typical bureaucratic infighting or inertia, typical lack of knowledge or lack of resources. In other words, they tended to be normal, humanly understandable mistakes.

The difference with Bush II is that the mistakes went from passive to aggressive. The two previous administrations, following the end of the Cold War, had their lapses and failed to maintain some protections. But the current Bush administration aggressively took down existing protections, partly with a view to benefiting financial interests and partly with a view to launching an attack on Iraq:

* Reduced the position of National Security Adviser to less importance than before; and appointed a former academic and Chevron company director whose national security experience dated from the Cold War;
* Upped the profile and importance of a group of Deputies, including the Deputy National Security Adviser; and appointed to sensitive security positions Deputies with a known "neocon" agenda in Iraq;
* Abolished the inter-agency working groups (February 13, 2001) in the first National Security Policy Directive, and thus impeded coordinating among agencies;
* Maximized disarray at the top of the Army by not announcing an Army Secretary until April 24, 2001; Secretary Thomas E. White, an Enron executive, then resigned after clashing with Rumsfeld; the Army’s Chief of Staff, General Eric K. Shinseki, also retired after clashing with Rumsfeld; and the office of Secretary of the Army is currently vacant;
* Left the top of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office in maximum disarray for most of 2001;
* Accelerated "outsourcing" and "privatizing" in government agencies, including security agencies, and in the military, including security contracts, even where the contractors also service foreign governments and foreign companies;
* Politically impeded reforms or tightening of oversight over financial entities to prevent money laundering, financing terrorism, or offshoring;
* Steadfastly opposed any move to diminish dependence on Middle East oil; and failed to support developing alternative energy;
* Politicized or left vacant critical positions in Near East affairs;
* Failed to tighten or to enforce regulations regarding entry of foreign nationals into the United States by visas;
* Failed to implement any of the improvements in aviation security recommended by the Gore Commission;
* Changed the protocol regarding "shoot-down" orders, increasing the time involved and impeding communications up and down the chain of command.

Every one of these policy moves, taken singly, had the potential to maximize security failures. You have to wonder why any one of them would have been adopted, much less all of them.

Bush II's Aggressive Removal of Protections a Catalyst 9/11

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK