Everything That Rises Must Converge
I borrowed my title from Southern gothic writer Flannery O'Connor because her depictions of skewed lives lurking just below the surface fits the following.
On a recent show, pundit Jon Stewart proposed impeaching George W. Bush for his seven minutes of inaction after being told that America "was being attacked" (10/28/06). Stewart's reasoning was that if this were a nuclear attack, then a delay of seven minutes would be catastrophic. In other words, the President failed to demonstrate decisive leadership in a time of crisis. Though I agree, I don't believe this meets the criteria for impeachment outlined in the Constitution.
I would, however, like to add a few observations not raised by Stewart.
First: The official White House version of the President's actions on 9-11 has changed seven times. Bush morphed from being a deer caught in headlights, to a Churchillian hero as the story evolved. Churchill, as we all know, was the real deal; he actually killed men in combat with his pistol. I don't believe Bush qualifies to be included in that echelon.
Second: Is it possible that the President already knew what type of attack was actually taking place? Possibly he didn't act because he knew it wasn't a doomsday attack.
Third: Several of the 9-11 hijackers lived in Sarasota, the site of the President's schoolroom meeting the morning of the attack. I don't know if there is a connection, but I just don't believe in coincidences.
I do not often dwell in the territory of conspiracy theorists; but as I've said, an analyst collates and synthesizes the facts, entertaining all possibilities. I believe GWB should be impeached, but for reasons different than those proffered by Stewart
On a recent show, pundit Jon Stewart proposed impeaching George W. Bush for his seven minutes of inaction after being told that America "was being attacked" (10/28/06). Stewart's reasoning was that if this were a nuclear attack, then a delay of seven minutes would be catastrophic. In other words, the President failed to demonstrate decisive leadership in a time of crisis. Though I agree, I don't believe this meets the criteria for impeachment outlined in the Constitution.
I would, however, like to add a few observations not raised by Stewart.
First: The official White House version of the President's actions on 9-11 has changed seven times. Bush morphed from being a deer caught in headlights, to a Churchillian hero as the story evolved. Churchill, as we all know, was the real deal; he actually killed men in combat with his pistol. I don't believe Bush qualifies to be included in that echelon.
Second: Is it possible that the President already knew what type of attack was actually taking place? Possibly he didn't act because he knew it wasn't a doomsday attack.
Third: Several of the 9-11 hijackers lived in Sarasota, the site of the President's schoolroom meeting the morning of the attack. I don't know if there is a connection, but I just don't believe in coincidences.
I do not often dwell in the territory of conspiracy theorists; but as I've said, an analyst collates and synthesizes the facts, entertaining all possibilities. I believe GWB should be impeached, but for reasons different than those proffered by Stewart
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:42 PM
4 Comments:
Ranger and Lisa,
A bunch of good posts over the past few days.
Just writing to let you know that your knowledge and insight are appreciated.
Thanks for the posts.
Dear K.W.,
Getting back in the saddle again after a week on the road. Thanks for appreciating. Jim
Was it Jon Stewart who made that claim?
I thought it was Bill Maher on "Scarborough Country".
Semper Fi,
Thanks for keeping me honest. I actually caught this in a hotel room afterleaving a blizzard in WY, and as I don't have cable at home, all the talking heads kind of run together for me. No excuse for inaccurate attribution, and apologies to Mr. Maher.
Post a Comment
<< Home