American Politics Journal -- Why Didn't He Act?

Why Didn't He Act?
Bush's latest debacle is still reverberating in the UK
By Nicola Mitchell

May 27, 2002 -- LONDON (APJP) -- So he knew, or at least he received several credible warnings about threats of "conventional hijackings." The big question being asked in Europe, as in the US, is what exactly did he know, and more importantly, why didn't he act?

The other main question being asked is can Dubya survive the speculation being levelled at the administration?

Until now the atrocities that took place on September 11th have been described as crimes so unimaginable, so earth shatteringly unthinkable, that there was no way they could have been predicted, let alone stopped.

And in some ways this is true.

When you have people willing to kill themselves in order to achieve their goals it is almost impossible to stop them, especially when there is always 10 more people ready to take their place. But despite the sheer drive and determination that led to the horrific events of 9/11, the emerging picture is that the administration committed a series of fatal blunders that simply cannot be ignored.

We now know for a fact that an FBI agent based in Arizona identified the threat of terrorists linked to Osama Bin Laden who were taking lessons in US flight schools, a warning which went unheeded. We also know that Bush received information about a real threat of hijackings while holidaying on his Texas ranch. We also know that Rumsfeld blocked new counter terrorism spending on Sept 9th, preferring instead to spend it on his beloved NMD -- a system which could in no way save America from the horrors it was about to befall.

That Bush received warning while holidaying on his ranch is seen as particularly damaging to many in Europe who have long criticised Bush as a part time president. However, the most condemning evidence of all comes in the shape of reports that contradict Condoleezza Rice's defensive claims that the attacks could not have been prevented after the emergence of a government study in 1999 that claimed Al Qaeda suicide bombers wanted to crash aircraft into a number of significant Washington targets.

So, with the evidence stacked against them, what we all want to know was why didn't they act? At the very worst several UK commentators have surmised that it looks as though Bush thought it OK for Americans to be held hostage and perhaps killed in "conventional hijackings" rather than raise security. Several newspapers have also pointed out that the big business president was reluctant to appoint high-level security because of the cost implications involved to the aviation industry -- but just look how they are suffering now.

So what the Bush administration claimed as a military victory that have silenced their critics for the past 8 months has come crashing down around them, and in its place is a sense of panic. In the past few days I've lost count of how many times I've seen warnings of potential terrorist attacks issued by the White House, in fact this is a policy they have adopted ever since 9/11. After the attacks the administration was accused of scare mongering, but now we know why they did it -- to ensure they never get caught with their pants down again.

But as I'm sure the people of New York are all too willing to testify, this is too little too late.

Dubya is touring Europe at this time and the administration has been on the offensive for over a week. In interviews with several European newspapers, Colin Powell has accused Europe of "America bashing", but no matter what criticism is being levelled at the European commentators the administration can no longer hide from the facts. Of course they will always have their allies here in Europe, with the right wing press playing up the theory of a political witch-hunt by the Democrats eager to bring down the President in any way they can.

For its part, perhaps now the American media will finally come out of its patriotic period that Dan Rather appeared on UK TV last week to criticise. They now appear to have found their voice again and returned to its footing as the Fourth Estate. Congress too finally seems to have got its act together and hopefully we will see an enquiry that will get to the bottom of the facts and answer the question on everyone's lips:

Could 9/11 have been prevented?