It's "sites", not "sights". That would be a different meaning for your sentence, altogether.
The protection of fishies?
What are you talking about?
That was the defensive "FBI officials", not O'Neill, who was reported to have quit the FBI over failure to pursue OBL. The NYT quotes the other "officials", not O'Neill.
Notice the conflict - the next paragraph states the FBI "officials" were "distracted by other cases", not a reluctance with profiling. So which is it? Answer: probably O'Neill's version, which is that it should have been followed up, regardless of excuses.
Coulter's logic attempts to make a case for profiling as the failure for the FBI, which is weak, and weaker still as a backhanded attempt at partisan criticism. What next, will she say gun control was the cause of 911?
Actually, that would be closer to the mark, when you think of armed off-duty law enforcement officers that might have been on those planes. But that's a stretch, and profiling is an even more flimsy stretch.
I would go with what O'Neill wanted, which was attention on this issue, a warning, and since that wasn't accomplished, and he had to resign in protest, a full investigation into all of the issues that would allow this to happen. |
