WTF Is It Now?!?

Whore Media protect Bunnypants on 9/11 security failure

The successful terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, represented a spectacular failure of the U.S. national security establishment. But from the very beginning there was very little media interest in examining that failure, although the attack involved extensive terrorist preparations within the United States and although the federal government (and taxpayers) are paying some $30 billion a year on security services, not including the armed forces.

There was even a tendency, insofar as any pointing the finger of blame was concerned, to find Clinton guilty for having allegedly stinted in pursuing terrorism. This was the main theme of a front-page article in the Philadelphia Inquirer of January 14 that referred only to Clinton's inattention to the subject (Dick Polman, "Sept. 11 may taint Clinton's legacy").

There was no mention that the Clintonites had warned Bush representatives in January 2001 that Al Qaeda was a real threat and should be a priority concern, and there was no suggestion in this article, or others castigating Clinton, that maybe Bush, in office for eight months at 9/11, was in any way responsible for the security failure during his watch.

It took the mainstream media many months to pick up the story of the Bush connection to this security failure, although most of its elements have been common knowledge for interested web browsers for quite a while. And finally having picked it up, the mainstream media are not tying together its various pieces and they are showing signs of abandoning the story as no longer of any interest, in accord with the election abuse model (see Greg Palast's chapter in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy on "Jim Crow in Cyberspace: The Unreported Story of How They Fixed the Vote in Florida").

Snipped from Edward Herman's article here .