To: TimF who wrote (128125 ) 4/2/2004 7:44:31 PM From: GST Read Replies (3) | Respond to What could have been done? 1) Take the briefing from the outgoing National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, as dead serious -- as a Provost Rice, administered very little that matters. She should have taken every word Berger and the Clinton national security team had to say extremely seriously and she should have taken the time to review Berger's terrorism files in detail to get up to speed. If Bush had been serious about terrorism, she would not have been appointed in the first place. She has proven herself unable to wield significant influence in relation to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. 2) Bush should have been more open to Clinton's input on national security -- it is clear that both before and after 9/11, he was not on top of the intelligence. It is his job to make sure that he is well informed. 3) Lacking the intelligence and lacking the advisors around him who could pick up from where Clinton left off, the Bush team had to start from scratch. This makes no sense -- but it is the stock-in-trade of both Cheney and Rumsfeld, neither of whom have functioning ears. Rumsfeld in particular could not care less about what others think, despite their experience and abilities. 4) The Bush team started from where Bush Sr. left off, and the team Bush Jr, put together was a carry-over from his father -- this was a bad idea on serval counts. As I stated, they were woefully out of date, deaf and prejudiced in relation to what had been learned in recent years, and entirely open to believing the most thinly substantiated claims if those claims reinforced their ideological bias -- as in the case of believing Chalabi on Iraqi intelligence issues and ignoring/dismissing the UN weapons inspectors as useless idiots. Bush should not have then, and should not now, base foreign policy on neocon religion. He should base US policy on intelligence and reason.
