Guest Soapbox: Does "any reasonable" think Bush knew of 9/11?

Does anyone reasonable think that the above title should have "anyone reasonable" in place of "any reasonable"? . . . Maybe I'm the one who's wrong here.


SATURDAY DECEMBER 1, 2007 Last modified: Saturday, December 1, 2007 12:23 AM PST

Guest Soapbox: Does any reasonable think Bush knew of 9/11?

By Ed Currall / Yucca Valley

I read with interest the Guest Soapbox of Oct. 31, “Bush has never learned history’s lessons” written by Daniel Lea, as a response or rebuttal to my letter “In case you’ve forgotten, we are at war.” From the content of his article, Mr. Lea seems to be well informed and probably well educated. If he remembers many of the events cited, I would assume he is probably close to my age. While I do not wish to debate Mr. Lea, and I believe, as he states, that we are each entitled to our opinions, there are certain points in his writing with which I must disagree, and some of his assumptions about my opinion that I feel he misunderstood. I feel that these must be clarified.

Mr. Lea states that “it’s been said that the George W. Bush administration had prior knowledge of 9/11/2001 yet allowed them to unfold….”

Perhaps Mr. Lea can cite a reliable party, other than Rosie O’Donnell or Ward Churchill, who has made such an assertion. In fact, I believe that Ms. O’Donnell and Mr. Churchill have both intimated that the hijackers were actually agents paid secretly by the U.S. government to carry out the attack on the World Trade Centers. Did President Bush also have prior knowledge of the attacks on the London subway, or in Spain? Did President Clinton have prior knowledge of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (there was one, in case anyone has forgotten), and allow it to happen? That is an assertion I cannot, and will not, accept.

Regarding JFK, Mr. Lea states that “those of wealth and power have a special responsibility to foster such a government that protects the rights of all, a practice that conservative “pundits” … peg as the root of America’s problems.” The important definition here is: What are the “rights of all”? Certainly the rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, free speech and religion, lawful assembly, and many others.

What are not included are the “rights” for every person to have a free college education, or to receive a $5,000 U.S. savings bond at the birth of a child, or the “rights” of illegal undocumented aliens to receive free medical care. We hear about the amount of money spent on Iraq, but what about the billions of dollars spent in California alone providing free medical care for illegal immigrants that could go for services needed by U.S. citizens?

The article alleges that “the Bush administration actively misled, at best, Congress and the American people regarding weapons of mass destruction and terrorists in Iraq.” That intelligence did not come from only the United States, but from other countries as well. Were all wrong? From my military experience in an intelligence position, I frankly have no doubt that there were probably WMDs in Iraq. While President Bush pleaded with the impotent United Nations to take action against Iraq before the United States and its allies did, there was plenty of time for Saddam Hussein to have the WMD’s moved to Syria or Iran, or some other friendly country.

Regarding JFK’s response to placement of Russian missiles in Cuba, was that an act of Soviet aggression against the United States, or should we have waited until a US city was hit by one of the missiles to retaliate? I feel that, given the present state of the world, the United States can not afford to be “reactive,” but must take appropriate action when threatened. Or should we wait until Iran has nuclear capability and attacks this country or a close ally before answering?

In reference to entitlements, I was not referring to Social Security or Medicare in the article I wrote. Those are retirement benefits which we have all paid for, and have the right to collect. My reference was to entitlements which are not earned or paid for. I don’t agree that entitlements are the foundation of this nation.


Yeah. Of course. It should read does anyone reasonable or any reasonable person in my opinion. It don't make no sense the way it is, or it could make better sense if changed. :)