Were Dubyas Inane Responses Presidential or Deliberately Engineered Non Sequitors

The startling facts which have recently surfaced in our nation's capitol about Dubya's dilatory response to clear and concise information received from federal-disaster officials, concerning the imminent danger that Hurricane Katrina posed to thousands of New Orleans' residents, makes me wonder if the severely lame duck President knew anything in advance about 9/11. It's certainly ironic that a few astute historians, such as Georgetown University's renown Dr. Charles Tansill and the writer John Toland, tend to agree that, fifty-five years ago, FDR knew well in advance about the Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, but deliberately ordered that the U.

S. Naval Command at Pearl not be warned.Why? According to sensitive classified War Department documents, made unavailable during the mid-1940s to (or hidden from) the Congressional Blue Ribbon Commission that investigated the Pearl Harbor debacle, Roosevelt had secretly negotiated a pact with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, which assured U.

S. entry into the war against Germany, even at a time when the savior of the Great Depression was assuring the American people that the America would remain neutral. A war with Japan had meant allying with Britain in the fight against Hitler.If anything, Pearl Harbor was a pragmatic answer to Roosevelt's foreign policy enigma. According to a primary historical document retrieved in an exhaustive records search, a letter written by an Afro-American maid, who was serving the Roosevelt's breakfast on that fateful Sunday morning, to her older brother, FDR was sitting at his desk playing with his stamp collection when news of the surprise attack reached the White House. If a first-hand recollection of the events of that morning, by a young educated black woman, is of any value to history, the maid's recounting in her letter of Roosevelt's reaction to his "day of infamy" seems to reflect the mind of the man.

Roosevelt allegedly looked up at his wife, Eleanor, and peacefully smiled saying, "It's done, mother.".Bush's initial reaction to the WTC bombings, while reading the ever-popular goat story to Florida elementary school children, was very similar to Roosevelt's response to the death and destruction at Pearl Harbor. Strangely, Bush showed no shock or dismay when he was told whisperingly by Andrew Card that the first WTC tower had been bombed. George merely kept on reading and exhibiting that same smug self-assured smile that he showed on the evening of the 2004 Presidential election, when he was sitting by George Herbert, his father, somehow knowing that he was going to win the popular and electoral votes in Florida.

It was only after the second subtle prompting by Card that Bush showed a modicum of impassionate concern. Over a period of two years, Roosevelt manipulated the nation into a war against fascism, and in one fail swoop, GWB became the first president to declare war on state-sponsored terrorism. Before 9/11, Bush had no real mandate from the American people as an inaugurated chief executive. The U.S. Supreme Court had declared him the winning presidential candidate when his opponent, Al Gore, had clearly won the popular vote.

But a pronounced national threat has a profound way of uniting a politically divided electorate and a partisan Congress, as did the Al Quaida sponsored terrorism on that fateful day in September.The deviously shrewd Karl Rove must have been drooling over the political capital that 9/11 generated for his protégé, the Yale underachiever. It was probably as much, or more, than the infamous Colonel Edward House demonstrated when President Woodrow Wilson followed his cunning advice and covertly prepared for war between 1914 and 1917, while publicly preaching and advocating neutrality during Britain and France's war with Kaiser Wilhelm. A poignantly revealing psychological analysis of Wilson's obsessive reliance on House's advice was made by Alexander L. George in his provocative book, "Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study.".

Perhaps a book will someday be written by some insightful psychotherapist about Bush and Rove. In the meantime, one can only ponder the possible clandestine political connections which exist between wealthy federal power-mongers in their continual quest for Machiavellian political expediency. In the case of the neglected City of New Orleans, there had to have been some bleak and underhanded political machinations occurring in the White House to explain the lack of response shown by the Bush administration to a despairing municipality's plea for help. The singer, Joan Biaz, couldn't have said it better in her rendition of the famous song about the great Southern port city.

The answer to this perplexing conundrum will be gone, fleeing from scrutiny probably farther than five-hundred miles when the day is done.

.Norton R.

Nowlin holds M.A. and B.

A. Degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler. He also has attended one year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and holds an advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin also has 70 semester hours of post-graduate study in history, economics, and political science from National University and Pepperdine University.

Mr. Nowlin works as a paralegal to the politically active attorney, Paul R. Lehto, of Everett, Washington. Norton R. Nowlin is married to the physicist and math tutor, Diance C.

Nowlin, and has three grown children and four grandchildren. He and his wife reside in Mountlake Terrace, Washington with their two very intelligent cats.

By: Norton Nowlin

Iraq War

Whats the Fuss About - A few days ago I watched an interesting debate on CSPAN on the US-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation programme.

China Rises Think Again - Multi-polaristic lateralists are tripping over each other like Inspector Clouseau and salivating at the mouth Cujo style in the hope that China will challenge American hegemony.

American Morality A Glimmer of Hope on the Horizon - Has the United States lost it?s basic principle of morality? Has the United States moved away from the guiding principles that this country was founded on? A single paragraph describes these basic principles and it is the meaning of this paragra.

He Will Confirm A Covenant With the Many The US Israel Strategic Alliance Part II - DRIVING THE U.

Since When is It Okay to Lie to the United States Congress - Since when is it okay to purport and misrepresent truth to the United States Congress? Recently the Federal Trade Commissions Consumer Protection Division's Anti-SPAM Group put forth a report claiming SPAM was on the decline by 9%.