Swatting at flies

townhall.com ^ | 4/10/04 | Debra Saunders

[harpu]

bttt...excellent article.

[Edit35]

Instead of having the panel "construct a time machine" as the article says, I say we should insist the panel (the Democratic partisan side) give us the exact time, dates, methods and places of the next terrorist attacks, whether on US soil or against any US interests in the world.

These partisan buffoons act so smart, especially now that they've been given all the connecting dot information. They really make me sick, and have doubled my determination to support Bush both financially and psychologially right up till the election.

It's been said before, but .... The 9/11 attacks were in planning for five years, since 1996. Why didn't Sandy Berger and buffalo breath Madeline Albright warn us of the time and date of the coming attack??

Grrrrr. These people really make me sick.

[inquest]

Critics who fault Bush for being pre-emptive on Iraq do not hesitate to fault Bush for not being pre-emptive when it came to attacks that were unexpected and unimagined.

That may be Bob Kerrey's complaint, but I believe most critics were focusing on the lack of interagency communication, not on the lack of pre-emptive strikes.

Some behave as if they believe the president is supposed to be a superhero who can smell threats, including risks that intelligence staffers haven't been able to pinpoint.

I don't know who these "some" are, but most of the criticism I've heard doesn't take a solid position on whether the attacks could have been prevented; they only point out where the administration was clearly deficient in being up to the task, such as when Dr. Rice implausibly claimed that no one could have known that terrorists might fly a plane into a building.

Now, if she had known, it doesn't necessarily prove that we would have been able to prevent the attacks, but that's not the point. The point is that the administration needs to keep on top of basic things like this, and they weren't.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Here's another point that so many on the Left seem to forget. Before 9/11, when someone hijacked a plane, he did it with the intension of keeping himself alive. In fact, pilots were taught to be passive in these kind of situations and not fight back.

9/11 changed everything.

[anniegetyourgun]

Also here.

[GailA]

http://www.hollihan.net/Kerry02.html

[kattracks]

That may be Bob Kerrey's complaint, but I believe most critics were focusing on the lack of interagency communication, not on the lack of pre-emptive strikes.

No, the critics (Democrats) are focusing on what they perceive as the Bush administration's lack of action before 9/11.

I don't know who these "some" are, but most of the criticism I've heard doesn't take a solid position on whether the attacks could have been prevented; they only point out where the administration was clearly deficient in being up to the task, such as when Dr. Rice implausibly claimed that no one could have known that terrorists might fly a plane into a building.

Clearly impling that had the Bush administration not been "defiicient" the attacks could have been prevented.

The point is that the administration needs to keep on top of basic things like this, and they weren't.

They were as on top of the situation as the intelligence at that time allowed them to be.

[MNJohnnie]

Now, if she had known, it doesn't necessarily prove that we would have been able to prevent the attacks, but that's not the point. The point is that the administration needs to keep on top of basic things like this, and they weren't.



Absolute nonsense. You demand absoulute perfection from the Bush team which is completely irrational. How about addressing the 8 YEARS of inaction from Clinton as the threat grew and grew? How about taking a mature adult position that mistakes were made ALL AROUND instead of looking to point finger of partisan blame? Rather then engage in this hyper partisan lock the barn door after the horse escaped blame game, how about some CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions on what to do to prevent future 9-11s? But that is not the purpose of the 9-11 Commission at all. All the 9-11 Commission is for is so hyper partisan hate Bush bigots have a platform to attack the President. The fact that all these holes in our security that the Bush haters want to blame on Bush have been closed by the Patriot Act, Bush's doctrine of Preemption and the Department of Homeland Security seems to have passed completely unnoticed. No, instead the Bush haters would rather engage in a totally childish blame game pointing fingers and engaging in divisive political grandstanding. The supporter of the 9-11 Commission and their Bush hater puppet masters ought to be totally ashamed of their desperation to smear Bush with 9-11. The grandstanding and finger pointing of the Bush haters are an insult to the memory of all those who died 9-11

[inquest]

Clearly impling that had the Bush administration not been "defiicient" the attacks could have been prevented.

I don't know how you can divine such an implication. Certainly some of the more rabid partisans would like to make such a suggestion, but the simple fact that someone's criticizing the performance of the administration doesn't mean that they're suggesting that the attacks could definitely have been prevented.

They were as on top of the situation as the intelligence at that time allowed them to be.

Intelligence had documents captured from Ramzi Yousef detailing plans involving using planes as missiles.

[inquest]

You demand absoulute perfection from the Bush team which is completely irrational.

Actually what I demand is that their deficiencies be brought to light. Then we can decide whether they were excusable or not.

And I don't particularly care that this is being done out of partisan motivations. Our system of government is designed so that people acting out of partisan motivations can serve the public interest by holding their opponents accountable for their actions or inactions. It's working as intended.

[redrock]

The 9/11 Commission is NOT looking for ways to improve our security...in order to prevent another attack.

It IS (very much so) looking for a new scandal.(and the media is salivating at the thought of some 'silver bullet' gone unnoticed).

The Commission IS looking for someone to blame.

And doing so while totally ignoring this salient fact...that Islamic Fundamentalists have decided that we all must die.

redrock

[White Eagle]

What's lost in all the political debate is how much restructuring the federal government needs to do what it is supposed to. The Clinton administration, after 4 or 5 strikes on targets that yielded no results, should have questioned the value of the intelligence. And that should have been the first topic in the transition briefing document.

Richard Clarke is a symptom of the rot associated with large governments that act to preserve themselves first and take care of business later, if at all.

[Sacajaweau]

"If we knew, we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it", said Codoleeza Rice.

Damn right. Does anyone think not?

[inquest]

What else would she say?

[M Kehoe]

#12

That pretty well sums it up.

5.56mm

[Erik Latranyi]

Two Points:

(1) If Bush acted in a preemptive manner and actually stopped 9/11 from happening, the Dems would never admit that such a plot was actually under way. Instead, they would focus on Bush the anti-Muslim war-monger.

(2) It is time we stopped trying to blame a single administration. The fact is, the American people allowed the Democrats to tie the hands of the FBI and CIA. The Democrats placed restriction after restriction on our intelligence services. At the same time, we were told that we should receive a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War. Well, America, 9/11 is your peace dividend.

[kattracks]

Certainly some of the more rabid partisans would like to make such a suggestion, but the simple fact that someone's criticizing the performance of the administration doesn't mean that they're suggesting that the attacks could definitely have been prevented.

They why do you suppose the commissioners are dwelling on what the Bush administration did, in their short time in office, as opposed to what the clinton admin. did in (or didn't do) in 8 years? Why, after all of the testimony showing the lack of preperation of other agencies, are the commissioners dwelling on what the Bush admin. knew? They are not simply criticizing, they, by their tone and questions, are definitely implying that the Bush admin. could have prevented the 9/11 attack. If you don't get that, you are one of the few that don't.

Intelligence had documents captured from Ramzi Yousef detailing plans involving using planes as missiles.

And according to Rice's testimony, this information never made it to the top in the chain. Also I believe, the intelligence pointed to attacks outside of the US.

This commission is a farce. The Democrats sitting on the commission aren't interested in gaing insight which could prevent future attacks. Their main goal is political.

[Erik Latranyi]

Two Points:

(1) If Bush acted in a preemptive manner and actually stopped 9/11 from happening, the Dems would never admit that such a plot was actually under way. Instead, they would focus on Bush the anti-Muslim war-monger.

(2) It is time we stopped trying to blame a single administration. The fact is, the American people allowed the Democrats to tie the hands of the FBI and CIA. The Democrats placed restriction after restriction on our intelligence services. At the same time, we were told that we should receive a "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War. Well, America, 9/11 is your peace dividend. That is what you get for electing Democrats and RINO Republicans.

[bert]

Even the dumbest semiliterate Democrat knows the current debate is about trying to salvage the Clinton legacy.

Lawyers' appeasement produces death. Warriors prevent death. The truth will not be obscured by sweeping it under the rug.