Replies

Ms. Rice, spelling out the foreign policy priorities of a Bush White House, argued that after years of drift under the Clinton administration, United States foreign policy had to concentrate on the "real challenges" to American security.

I'm not certain whether the author is merely confused, or whether he wrote this deeply-flawed article with malicious intent. His main premise seems to be that Republican administrations, most notably the Reagan administration and the current Bush administration, have had ideological blinders on, and due to their outdated belief that only state-sponsored terrorism can muster a real threat to national security, they missed the threat from Al Quaeda.

The author has done a sloppy job, and has not come close to proving his case. For just one example, when he quotes an article by Dr. Rice to support his thesis, he's making an obvious error. The article in question is focused on "foreign policy". By definition, foreign policy deals with the relations between states. It does not deal with relations between states and NGOs, or between states and organized crime syndicates, or between states and large multinational corporations, or, more tellingly, between states and terrorist groups. So, relying on that article to explain the Bush administration's policy and actions for fighting terrorist groups is simply silly at best (or, possibly a malicious red herring).