Why would you think that? Prior to 9/11 Bush showed, if anything, less interest in the terrorism threat than Clinton, and in '98 the Republicans seemed more concerned with the "China threat" than with terror.
Because Bush believes in responding to blows. There were none between January 2001 and September 10, 2001 to respond to. But in Clinton's term, there were the Khobar Tower bombings, the African Embassy bombings, the kicking out of the UN inspectors, and the Cole bombing, just to hit the highlights. I think Bush and Rumsfield would have thought it important to respond, and not just by hitting an empty tent with a cruise missile. They would have had similar political constraints, but would have viewed the attacks through a military, and not just a legal, framework. |
