>>Rice has already responded to that in recent intervies. I find her to be an intelligent and credible person.
Priority is a measurement that gives some issues weight in relation to others. I'd say prior to 911 that this administration had given terrorism a weight that was at least equivalent to the previous administration and greater than the administrations of Presidencies befor that. Since 911, they have given it a much greater priority than previous administrations.<<
RCG -
So you accept Rice's denials at face value, despite the fact that at least four credible witnesses tell a different story. It's your right to believe who you want to believe. My own feeling is that she is so loyal to President Bush that she would say anything to protect his reputation. At a minimum, you would have to admit that she has ample reason to conveniently not remember certain things.
I don't see how as a matter of fact the Bush administration could be considered to be "giving terrorism a weight that was at least equivalent to the previous administration." Clinton had ordered Bin Laden's death, had ordered specific strikes against Al Qaeda, had narrowly missed actually killing Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda leaders, and had had invasion plans drawn up for Afghanistan to prepare for the ouster of the Taliban.
In contrast, the Bush administration did not even hold one single meeting on the subject of terrorism or Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.
>>911 was a shock and with or without available terrorist information all politicians were taken by surprise. We expect them to be on top of things because that is what they get paid for, however we also expect them to conduct themselves as most reasonable persons would in their place. Prior to 911, reasonable people in the USA would have been appalled if the govt began rounding up suspicious acting foriegn college students. After 911 most reasonable people see things differently, so its not surprising that some of us look back and wish things could have gone differently in the run up to 911.<<
Yes, I do understand very well that terrorism per se was not anywhere near as close to the top of the public's or the government's agenda prior to 9/11, which only makes sense. It was always on a fairly limited scale, and always far away. I was in New York on 9/11, and I know what a shock it was.
I am not looking back and wishing things had gone differently. I am just sick of hearing conservatives say that Clinton didn't do enough, and that only the Republicans can keep us safe. In my view, the Republicans have a terrible record with respect to their response to terrorism, and have made us less safe.
Unless we view the past in a realistic light, we can not have much hope of dealing well with the present and future.
- Allen |
