Re: Foreknowledge of 9-11

Regular correspondent Frank Helderman writes:

In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor there were years of congressional hearings, and both the Army and Navy commanders in Hawaii never again commanded troops.

The difference, I believe, is in the nature of the response of those bodies being investigated. The Bush administration has stonewalled every single attempt to look behind the curtain of the administration, and has laid the groundwork for accusations of cover up to stick. Although I am not a scholar of the Pearl Harbor inquiries, it is my understanding that they received what one would consider the full co operation of the administration and the War Department, considering, of course that there was a very big war going on. I strongly suspect that getting the Bush administration to co operate fully with an investigation into 9-11 would be like bathing a cat. I strongly suspect the administration will have a great deal of trouble with the now inevitable investigation into 9-11, both from its (possible and by no means proven) misdeeds and its own temperament.

The two things that have so far been revealed that most stick in my craw are Ashcroft’s decision to not fly on commercial aircraft in the second half of the summer, and Bush’s avoidance of the White House in the aftermath of the attacks. Sure, they are important men, and if, God forbid, the worst happened, they would be sorely missed. But Bush and Ashcroft are not irreplaceable. In fact, there is a line of succession for their posts enshrined in the constitution. I wonder if, while Bush was in an undisclosed location, there was not someone vacuuming the Oval Office, someone who might not have a line of succession laid out for what would happen if they were to tragically die. If Washington, D.C. was not a safe enough place for a couple of grown men surrounded by the secret service, surely it was not a safe place for all the women and children who reside in that city. John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, U. S. Grant, Andrew Jackson, and George Washington, and for that matter George Bush the Elder, all demonstrated at at least one time in their lives that they understood leadership means accepting the danger one asks others to accept. The actions of Bush and Ashcroft look, to this writer, craven in comparison.

I really don't have anything to add; the regard of members of the administration for their own personal safety seems all the more selfish when compared to their lack of concern for ordinary citizens. Ashcroft looks worse than Bush to me; after all, the President was already out of the city when the attacks occurred.