Replies

If someone broke into a business due to some security oversight and killed someone, the guard on duty would be out of a job. The National Security Adviser saw 3,000 people die under her watch because she couldn't imagine the possibility of a crazed terrorist crashing a plane into a building and she is held up as a hero. Aren't we paying her to imagine those types of scenarios? If not, then what kind of national security advice is she charge with providing? And if the administration's rebuttal is that they actually were attentive to the terrorist threat, how can we explain 9/11? I'm not saying Rice is personally responsible, but it's clear that someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball.

I find it amazing that no one is more critical of the government. Democrat or Republican, it's still the same Washington bureaucracy that has stripped Americans of the right to keep and bears arms while offering the false reassurance that they will keep us safe. One or two guns on those planes would have saved 3,000 lives, but not one person in the entire administration is addressing that fact.

Aren't we paying her to imagine those types of scenarios?

Gotta call for reinforcements, huh? Well, bring 'em on!

I envisioned the scenario, so did the CIA and most other even remotely knowledgeable people I know. If a car/truck can be used as a bomb, a plane can't? So I don't know why she used that choice of words. I disagree with her.

But imagining a scenario and identifying that it's a real threat, it's in planning, and identifying when/where/how and a plan to counteract it. Didn't happen.

Look, for you or anyone else to say - with a straight face - that an administration in place for 7.5 months (with abbreviated transition time thanks to Al Gore and the Congress delaying confirmation of deputies) should face the same level of blame as an administration in office for 8 years and attacked by Al Qaeda 5 or 6 times.

Take your nonsense and your insults of Dr. Rice elsewhere.

#52. Our Not so favored FRiends have just been called to this thread.

I'm not saying Rice is personally responsible, but it's clear that someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball.

Not necessarily. Being able to imagine the deliberate crashing of airliners by terrorists (like Tom Clancy in Debt of Honor) is not at all the same thing as being able to prevent it in a free country of 300 million people. Just like there's nothing to stop somebody from stealing a gasoline tanker truck and ramming it into an elementary school.

Life is not a comic book. You can't stop every bad guy in the world, especially fanatical ones. You cannot pursue every conceivable possibility. I don't blame the Bush administration for failing to prevent 9/11, nor do I blame the Clinton administration. There are things both could have done better, but it probably wouldn't have stopped what happened.

BTW, you are right about the folly of disarming people.

You are sick.

Do you seriously believe that Al-Qaeda started plans for the hijackings the DAY the Bush administration took office? Get real.

A country the size of Israel can't stop daily attacks that are sometimes equivalent to our 9/11...and they have many more restrictions than we do. It's unfortunate, but a country the size of the US...with the freedoms we demand, is never going to be safe from those who want to do us harm.

If someone broke into a business due to some security oversight and killed someone, the guard on duty would be out of a job. The National Security Adviser saw 3,000 people die under her watch because she couldn't imagine the possibility of a crazed terrorist crashing a plane into a building and she is held up as a hero. Aren't we paying her to imagine those types of scenarios? If not, then what kind of national security advice is she charge with providing? And if the administration's rebuttal is that they actually were attentive to the terrorist threat, how can we explain 9/11? I'm not saying Rice is personally responsible, but it's clear that someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball.

Have you or any of your family ever had anything stolen, your house, car, business, or hotel room broken into? Have you or any of your family members ever gotten into poison ivy, ant bites, or bothered by ticks or chiggers? Have you or any of your family members ever lost keys, locked them in the car, hit anything with your car, fishtailed, or had your car hit by someone else?

If you can answer yes to any of the above, then (according to your standards that you are applying to Condi Rice) you perhaps should be 'fired' as head of your family. After all, it is your job to imagine and prepare for those scenarios.

Or perhaps there is an absolute limit to how many possibilities we can anticipate and prevent, and applying limited resources is a by nature imperfect judgement call where there will always be risks that cannot be eliminated.

If not, then what kind of national security advice is she charge with providing? And if the administration's rebuttal is that they actually were attentive to the terrorist threat, how can we explain 9/11? I'm not saying Rice is personally responsible, but it's clear that someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball.

You raise a good point. And from a personal standpoint, I like Dr. Rice. But it's time for the dance to end. I've watched these 9/11 hearings off and on. And all I keep hearing is the same ol', same ol'. One side blaming the other. I think Clinton is to blame for a lot of it, but even the most ardent Republican would have to say that this administration could have possibly done more. I'm not necessarily laying blame on this administration, just an observation. I don't care who dropped the ball, but you're right. Clearly somebody dropped it. Drop the partisan politics, lay out the facts, and get to the heart of the matter. If that means some firings and some top level politicians from both sides of the aisle stepping up then so be it.

But we both know that won't happen. Fox News will report one side, CNN will report the other, and MSNBC will waffle in between depending on who's currently sitting in the chair in front of the camera. And the citizens of the respective states will believe what they want to believe and the truth of the matter will probably never come to light

I find it amazing that no one is more critical of the government. Democrat or Republican, it's still the same Washington bureaucracy that has stripped Americans of the right to keep and bears arms while offering the false reassurance that they will keep us safe. One or two guns on those planes would have saved 3,000 lives, but not one person in the entire administration is addressing that fact.

You hit the nail on the head. A few guns held by everyday citizens could have stopped this before it ever got going. But it's not just this administration. It's a concerted effort by several administrations to redefine the 2nd Amendment to more PC terms. The Constitution is clear. The right of the citizens of the respective states from carrying a weapon to defend themselves shall not be abridged.