Replies

Let's assume for a moment that what she (and Clark) says is true. We have vague, non-specific reference to terrorists using airplanes. Well, they (the terrorist, starting with Arafat), been high-jacking them since the 70s, so that's not much of a revelation.

In the case of traditional high-jackings, where the perps simply took people hostage till their demands were met, the American public had already weighed in that it was not going to let itself be inconvenienced at airports by having security greatly increased, even after the Lockerbie and flight 800 bombings.

Prior to 9/11, implementing the kinds of security measures that would have been required to prevent it from happening would have resulted in howls of public outrage from all quarters. Even now, we have groups from all around the political spectrum that feel that the measures taken since then have gone too far.

So what was any administration supposed to do with such "new" but oh so vague and "non-specific" information? Suddenly demand new security measures at airports? Start profiling for potential high-jackers? Run-around the country kicking over stones in the hopes that some new evidence would present itself?

If Bush had tried to do any of these things on the basis of the available evidence he would have been excoriated in the press and by every political opponent and conspiracy theorist.

What he and his administration did do is take a look at the intelligence community and the way it operated and recognize the fact that it had broken down to a large degree (thanks to the many poundings it has taken by Democrats going all the back to the Church Commission). They then set about trying to figure out how best to fix it and bring it back to the point where it could be effective once again. All the while having to maintain a certain continuity so they could deal with the daily turn of events (don't forget that we had a major international incident with China that ate up several months of the adminstrations attention).

To expect them to accomplish this in a mere 8 months and make perfect sense out of the mess they had inherited is silly in the extreme. That's the kind of job that usually takes years.

It is easy, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, to say that we could have, should have, would have, been able to predict a likely event. Hey, when I read Clancy's book (back when Clinon was still pres.), where the whacko pilot fly's his jumbo jet into the White House, I predicted that some terrorist would try it some day. Does that mean that Bush should have known, and that if it happened and he was not able to prevent it, it was his fault?

No. And to state otherwise would be absurd.

And yet, that is what is happening with the 9/11 commission. And many people are beginning to realize it. So now they have to come up with another canard:

"There's plenty of blame to go around!"

8 years vs. 8 months. Let's do the math. 8 years equals 96 months. 96 months divided by 8 months equals 12. So, that means, if we're to absolutely fair, only 1/12th of the blame can possibly rest with the Bush administration while his predecessor, Clinton (and his sidekick Dick Clark), pick up the remainder.

But, using the "New Math" favored by the democrats and their fellow travelling leftist supporters, the blame falls equally on Bush and Clinton. 50/50. Now, I'm no math wiz, but even I can see that this doesn't add up. But it explains a lot. From now on, whenever I hear a democrat talk numbers on the economy, jobs, taxes, or anything else, I'll know to properly inflate the figures in their favor.

As for Clark, it was right for him to apologize. After all, much of what happened occured on his watch. It was his job to "counter" the terrorists, and he failed, for 96 months, prior to Bush's Arrival.

But then, how can you trust the analytical ability of anyone who thought he could tell bald face lies in public, and not know that the people he was attempting to smear could simply use his own previous statements to "counter" his brand of political "terrorism"?

They say you shouldn't lie unless you have a good memory. Clark's has failed him completely, just as he failed us, and continues to so.

As for preventing and countering acts of terror, no system of security, regardless of how draconian or totalitarian, will be able to stop the terrorist who is willing to sell his life to complete the mission.

Terrorism has to stopped long before the terrorist slips into a plane, train, or auomobile filled with explosives. Random piece of signals intell warning of a possible event is all well and good, but of little practical use. What is needed is an intelligence network of people, spread around the globe, who can keep their ears to the ground and their eyes on potential terrorists. People who can pick up the phones and give us real details to work with (names, dates, places). People who help us take the bad guys out before they ever reach a security check-point.

Until we have that (and we did at one time, Senator Kerry), any reccomendations made by the 9/11 commission are moot.