Defending America

[Tactical Progressive]

isn't the same thing as 'going after al Qaeda'.

I've been watching Condi and the rest of the right-wing flacks evade the question of their negligence on 9/11 by conflating these two activities. Offense and defense are not the same thing. While they can overlap and interact, they are easily distinguishable most of the time. As warnings of terrorist attacks on American soil were coming in from sources all over the world, Bush and Cheney and Rice did virtually nothing to protect America. That is the issue of 9/11.

Condi, when faced with such questions, always redirects them by rhetorically substituting an intention to attack al Qaeda overseas later, with protecting America under threat of attack now. Questions about inattention to domestic threats are immediately morphed into responses about 'fighting terrorism' in general, and she rambles on from there. From that rhetorical perch, 'Previous administrations couldn't capture bin Laden', so by extension the Bush administration is no worse. From there, 'Bill Clinton had eight years while Bush had only eight months'. Eight months to what? To protect America from attack - in response to the question? No, eight months to somehow defeat terrorism internationally - in response to no question. It is a rhetorical deception almost identical to the one they used to tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11 by constantly talking about them as if they were the same thing. It is one of the big lie techniques.

The 9/11 Commission members, and Democrats more generally, have to keep asking the question and insisting on an answer until it becomes obvious that they have no answer. What specifically did Bush and Cheney do to protect America from domestic terrorism when warnings were coming in from everywhere, Condi? What exactly did you do to prevent airliners from being hijacked? What did you do to increase airport security? How did you step up FBI domestic operations? What measures were taken to facilitate inter-agency intelligence coordination? Etc, etc etc. Always focused on the real question:

What did you do to heighten America's defense against an impending attack?

Plans for a 'more robust response than previous administrations' to 'fight terrorism' in some future overseas operations is non-responsive to the question.

This is probably the single most important issue of this election based on Bush's media-promoted, but highly undeserved, reputation as some kind of successful protector of America. Half of America still thinks that George Bush has been 'strong on terrorism', when nothing could be further from the truth. Condoleeza Rice testifies now and it really seems to me that Democrats need to catch up to the spin that she and her flacks have been exercising continuously, and spin it back. Democrats have to get tough and force specific answers to the questions that everyone deserves to have answered. In the 9/11 hearings, on DU and everywhere else.

What did you do TO PROTECT AMERICA, Condi?

[MajorFlaw]

1. I would really like to ask her

if, knowing what she knows now, someone with her qualifications was a good choice as NSA.

[Tactical Progressive]

2. These people never admit when they are wrong

let alone admit that they are insufficient.

Condi is there to spin, and the media will play up whatever lie she chooses to tell as a valid representation of the truth.

I'm just hoping that those three Democrats hit her hard. The Republicans on the 9/11 Commission are pure whore. 100% Republican cover-Bush's-ass hacks. They'll take up half the time giving Condi softball questions and propaganda diatribes posed as questions. The commission is an absolute disgrace. After this they get nothing from the administration, with Republicans helping to write the Report and BushCo editting it.

And America's 'journalists' helping them to do every single bit of it.