Gore on 9/11 & Bush
The following bit of exchange is between one Lisa DePaulo, for GQ Magazine, and Al Gore, from an interview ("Al Gore: Movie Star") published online. I will admit that I was not overwhelmed by the depth of the questions asked by Ms. DePaulo, but I found this exchange illuminating:
Okay, on to 9-11. What were you really feeling? Was there a part of you that felt a sense of relief that you weren’t in charge that day?
You mean a sense of relief that I didn’t have to deal with it? Oh no. Not at all. Not for one second. Not for one second. Why would I? I mean, well first of all, it just didn’t occur to me to feel anything like that. What did occur to me was to feel what every American felt, the outrage and anger and righteous anger, and support for the President at a time of danger… And, honestly, I was focused on the reality of the situation. And I wasn’t president, so, you know, it wasn’t about me. Now, I do wish, now that we have some distance from the events, and we have all this knowledge about what this administration did do, I certainly feel that I wish that it had been handled differently, and I do wish that I had somehow been able to prevent some of the catastrophic mistakes that were made.
Do you feel that we would be safer today if you had been president on that day?
Well, no one can say that the 9-11 attack wouldn’t have occurred whoever was president.Really? How about all the warnings?
That’s a separate question. And it’s almost too easy to say, “I would have heeded the warnings.” In fact, I think I would have, I know I would have. We had several instances when the CIA’s alarm bells went off, and what we did when that happened was, we had emergency meetings and called everybody together and made sure that all systems were go and every agency was hitting on all cylinders, and we made them bring more information, and go into the second and third and fourth level of detail. And made suggestions on how we could respond in a more coordinated, more effective way. It is inconceivable to me that Bush would read a warning as stark and as clear [voice angry now] as the one he received on August 6th of 2001, and, according to some of the new histories, he turned to the briefer and said, “Well, you’ve covered your ass.” And never called a follow up meeting. Never made an inquiry. Never asked a single question. To this day, I don’t understand it. And, I think it’s fair to say that he personally does in fact bear a measure of blame for not doing his job at a time when we really needed him to do his job. And now the Woodward book has this episode that has been confirmed by the record that George Tenet, who was much abused by this administration, went over to the White House for the purpose of calling an emergency meeting and warning as clearly as possible about the extremely dangerous situation with Osama bin Laden, and was brushed off! And I don’t know why—honestly—I mean, I understand how horrible this Congressman Foley situation with the instant messaging is, okay? I understand that. But, why didn’t these kinds of things produce a similar outrage? And you know, I’m even reluctant to talk about it in these terms because it’s so easy for people to hear this or read this as sort of cheap political game-playing. I understand how it could sound that way. [Practically screaming now] But dammit, whatever happened to the concept of accountability for catastrophic failure? This administration has been by far the most incompetent, inept, and with more moral cowardice, and obsequiousness to their wealthy contributors, and obliviousness to the public interest of any administration in modern history, and probably in the entire history of the country!
15 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 18 November 2006 at 22.39
Permalink
Interesting.
Gore indicates the 9/11 attacks might not have been prevented if he was president, then he lays into Bush for not heeding the warnings. He asks "…whatever happened to the concept of accountability for catastrophic failure?" What happened to any accountability in our modern government, for that matter? I've been at many meetings where the task was to beg a government figure to do their job. After 40 or so people died at Waco, Texas in the David Koresh deal, 2 BATF administrators were fired, but they went to court and got their jobs returned with back pay. Who, at the state or city level, lost their jobs for incompetance after hurricane Katrina? It seems the Zeitgeist of our time is to keep public workers away from too much meritocracy.
on Saturday, 18 November 2006 at 22.42
Permalink
I spelled incompetence wrong in the previous post. That must be some sort of sign.
on Saturday, 18 November 2006 at 23.59
Permalink
It's a sure sign of creeping liberalism, Fred. It starts as leftist spelling relativism in your finger tips and spreads throughout your body. Strike back! Implement some absolute spelling standards right now, before it's too late!
Myself, I probably would distinguish between accountability and meritocracy, but it's an interesting question, likely without a terribly simple answer. In other words: I don't have one right now. I'm also not sure that it's just public workers either.
Then the obvious question comes to mind: is it really a new thing? Perhaps stories from the past of daring competence and courageous accountability stand out largely because pointless stories of incompetence tend to disappear, rather the way it seems that, say, composers of the past wrote better music, mostly because a lot of less worthy stuff has had time to disappear.
on Sunday, 19 November 2006 at 03.50
Permalink
Gore's bottom line is my bottom line. Bless him.
How appallingly typical that the reporter starts off asking, "Okay, on to 9-11. What were you really feeling?"
What's important is what Gore thought and knew. Obviously, his feelings would be about the same as those of nearly 300 million other Americans. Don't waste Gore's time and ours.
Lastly, do they pay by the paragraph and have an extremely limited budget at GQ?
on Sunday, 19 November 2006 at 10.28
Permalink
While under the Klieg lights at GQ, I'm thinking one could have asked Gore if he felt any responsibility for 9/11 from the standpoint of during the Clinton years our intelligence community became less aggressive in gathering information on the ground. Recruiting of spies by the CIA was curtailed, more emphasis was put on having other countries gather intel for us, and kind of a general "make nice" attitude, where we are friends with everyone, no one is our enemy. I wonder if we let our guard down too much.
While on the Clinton years, we could toss in a few questions about the response of Clinton/Gore to the Al Qaida attacks on our African embassies, the attack on the Cole, our retreat from Somalia, and if this had any influence on the occurance of 9/11.
on Sunday, 19 November 2006 at 11.40
Permalink
Alas, Fred, only you were on the Clinton years; we were talking about Bush's culpability and Gore's opinion of it.
Unfortunately — or fortunately — my narrow-track physicist's brain doesn't get too excited about either course of discussion, since to my mind it only makes sense to talk confidently about what would have caused this or that to happen differently if we actually had an ensemble of universes with which to do the experiment and collect the statistics.
However, my homo-commie-pinko-liberal brain is happy to stick to all the failings of Bush, who happens to be the current worst president ever, still pretending he's the decider, still making bad decisions.
on Monday, 20 November 2006 at 03.56
Permalink
Go, Jeff!
Actually, Clinton and his people warned Bush and principles of his incoming team during the transition that bin Laden would be among the chief security threats and possibly the chief security threat in the coming four years.
In one ear and out the other by all accounts.
Oh, and as for the make-nice nonsense, how is it that Republicans in and out of Congress complained bitterly of Clinton deploying troops to too many places for too many actions? What about the bad guys in the former Yugoslavia?
You've had way too much Kool-Aid, RSF.
on Monday, 20 November 2006 at 04.44
Permalink
Glug glug glug.
I should have just written, "how about Republican talking point #4, that blames Clinton/Gore for 9/11?"
I was thinking about the issue of accountability, and how much we should blame Bush, compared to past administrations, and their anti-terrorism policies. Or maybe we should blame the body politic in general, who wants nice, friendly, civil and business servants, who don't ask too many questions at airports, or flight schools.
I'm wondering if it is our Christian heritage, or a human trait in general, that all sins can be carried by one man. It seems to pervade our court system, where if one is found to have any liability, then it seems one gets burdened with all the blame that can stick.
on Monday, 20 November 2006 at 13.55
Permalink
Blame the Clinton administration, invoke "our Christian heritage", and call for torte reform — all in one comment! Amazing facility.
There is an operational difference, at this moment, between calling for Bush accountability and blaming Clinton for everything. Pointing out Bush's bad decisions in a cool and dispassionate way while he is still in office has the chance of affecting the public's outlook, even if it has less to do with affecting change in the Decider's so-called policy decisions.
So far it seems to have had little effect on Bush, although it seems to have convinced one or two voters a couple of weeks ago, which can only be a good thing.
As for blaming everything on Bush — my homo-commie-pinko-liberal mind just can't help itself. If only he didn't have "I'm an Idiot" tattooed on his forehead, if only he didn't keep shouting "Bring it on!"
I'm professionally interested in the phenomenon of a nearly illiterate rube-wannabe venerated as a cultural icon. If I could see how people accept that, could understanding the mysteries of general relativity be far behind?
on Monday, 20 November 2006 at 17.01
Permalink
I've decided it was non sequitur-ish of me to bring Bill Clinton to this discussion, partly for reasons in your 2nd paragraph.
(It's hard to throw away the crutch of blaming Clinton. I imagine I will have the shakes and night sweats for a while.)
"…nearly illiterate rube-wannabe venerated as a cultural icon."
Is this refering to GW? Good Lord, we cycled the guy through Yale and Harvard, back when those places supposedly meant something.
on Monday, 20 November 2006 at 18.09
Permalink
But, you'll be a stronger person once the withdrawal symptoms have passed, Fred.
Generally speaking, Yale and Harvard tend to mean something along the lines of turning out reasonably educated graduates, but not in each specific case. Just as England has its long tradition of upper-class twits stumbling through Oxford and Cambridge without too much collateral damage, so too Harvard and Yale will endure (and then overlook) the less-than-intellectually competitive sons and daughters of upper-class alumni — particularly if they can pay the full tuition.
on Monday, 20 November 2006 at 23.55
Permalink
I was aiming for a little jocularity with my last line. I know full well the limitations of an Ivy League education, 'cause Bill Clinton graduated from Ya…(must stop now. Deep breaths)
GW is smart enough. Any major leader has serious decision clunkers. The great ones are able to come back with something that works better. (Any time, now, George. Kick it in…)
There not much correlation between intelligence and presidential leadership ability, anyway. I suppose a president should have a minimum IQ. After that, more intelligence doesnt't necessarily buy a better leader.
on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 at 16.50
Permalink
Probably true. I always wanted Woodrow Wilson to be a better president than he seems to have turned out, since he's generally deemed to be an intellectual. And upper-class sons of privilege (like W) are not always idiotic twits. Witness: Franklin Roosevelt; he may have been far too liberal for your taste, but he was no upper-class twit.
It looks like a certain intelligence is useful, and I would think highly desirable to avoid disasters like W, but if you'll pardon my saying so, being president is hardly rocket science.
on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 at 23.13
Permalink
RSF wrote:
There, if I ever saw such, is faith-based politics in action!
on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 at 23.20
Permalink
Intelligence is raw material. Education can help make intelligence useful. Upbringing can help incline a reasonably intelligent and educated person toward goals and purposes worthwhile beyond satisfying his own selfish whims. Girding all of this, holding it together, is intellectual honesty.