Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Apr 9, 2004.
from what i read/heard, it seems her testimony boiled down to: "this stuff is hard. it's not my fault"
boo-****ing-hoo. what i do is also difficult but i take full responsibility when something goes wrong.
This analysis pretty much summarized my feelings about the Rice testimony. I was wondering if I wasn't the only one to notice her constant fallback to the bureaucratic defense. It's one thing for her to identify the "structural problems" within the intelligence establishment, and yet another to excuse herself (and the President) from doing anything about them. They had the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission on their desks when they came into the White House in January. I don't recall anyone on the 9-11 Commission asking Rice a direct question about how they were acting on these recommendations. That question was answered by inference, though. They weren't doing anything.
the passive approach is not just gwb, but any major politician against what was basically an unknown threat...on sept 10, i still think the suicide bombers in israel posed a much bigger threat to the world in the eyes of the intel/law enforcement communities
but since W was in office, he is the fall guy here and the resposibility comes down to him in the end
but he will weenie out of this and have condi rice take the fall for him and i think she is such a loyalist that she will gladly take the fall for him
but i hope W won't sqeak by in november...much of america is now seeing his full inteptitute in the oval office and fence sitters and conservatives alike are seeing the problems that liberals have long seen with bush
I'm probably too prejudiced to be completely objective about this anymore, but I'm afraid Rice's testimony confirmed some of my worst fears about the Bush administration. They seem to operate in a hermetically sealed political bubble, led by a man who by his own admission isn't a "detail guy," but from all appearances doesn't seem to grasp the big picture, either. To a man and woman, the Bush people also seem to be constitutionally unable to admit any fault or failing. In good times, these weak leadership traits would be undesirable. In a time of crisis, they are downright scary.
Honestly, I think the last few administrations were to blame, and I think we as a society were to blame. Where were our outcries after the 1st attack on the trade centers. Whey did we not demand Clinton to go after Al Qeada.
?!? Clinton was too busy dealing with attacks over his sex life to launch an all-out effort against al-Qeada. He didn't have the political capital to spend. And you're forgetting the most important point here, that IT HAPPENED ON W'S WATCH. Not Clinton's, W's. Clarke described the way Clinton handled terrorism - daily meetings with his anti-terrorism chief, asking what new things had been done since yesterday, what new info had been found out. He also described what Bush did - cut his anti-terror chief out of the loop and concentrated on missle defense. I can't even BELIEVE that you'd try to pin this on Clinton. Clinton left W with a plan, a man with 20 years experience, and a stern warning of what to watch for. Bush neglected the issue, and we reaped the consequences. Don't even TRY to pin this on Clinton. Jeez.
for matters of national security, i'd rather that the experts dictate policy, not opinion polls. besides, we the public don't really have access to information regarding national security.
i remember the first WTC tower attacks. i had a friend who worked in one of the towers and i was quite scared for her (not just that day, but then onwards). i can't recall people outside of nyc being terribly concerned -- "it's only new york". i mention this to illustrate my point about public opinion polls.
i also recall the GOP constantly attacking clinton about kosovo, saying it was politically motivated and not in our national interest. if there were any GOP'ers saying that going after AQ _was_ in our national interest, i don't recall it (does anyone have any evidence there was?). yet, clinton _still_ did.
one may argue w/ his results. but it's becoming clear he did a lot more than bush did pre-9/11, and the kind of all-out post-9/11 response was not politically viable pre-9/11.
i can't say for sure that clinton did all he could, but i'm currently satisfied it was a lot more than bush did in his first 233 days in office, even when taking the time difference into account.
I seem to remember Clinton's cruise missile attack on Bin Ladin's camp and his Kosovo intervention policy being decried by his opponents as "wag the dog" strategies. The latter in particular prevented Islamic radicals from gaining a toehold in Europe. That's the back-story to Kosovo. Did Clinton do enough? Clearly not. But the Bush people were so intent on being the Anti-Clinton, that they pushed the terrorism issue off to the side. Still, I don't blame Bush (or Clinton) for 9-11. What really irks me is the Bush administration's steady refusal to take any responsibility. Just once, I'd like to hear Bush say he regrets not having done more. I'm not holding my breath. Like I've said before, great leaders give credit and take blame. Poor leaders take credit and give blame. We know which type we've got in Bush.