MEMO PUTS SPY AGENCY, NOT BUSH ON THE SPOT

New York Post ^ | 4/11/04 | DEBORAH ORIN

[van_erwin]

I'm just saying that this is getting out of hand. I'll vote for Kerry when Hell freezes over. I can say with certainty that had he been in charge, the buck would be passing with equally dizzying speed.

My point is that this is not the administration I voted for, either. I am looking for a leader, and at this point I don't see either political party providing leadership.
I don't think there's any harm in reminding our politicans that we demand strength and accountability. It's not like anyone on FR is going to start voting for the Rats, so don't get your knickers in a twist.
I just don't want to hear any more of this "it's not my fault," or "it was broken when we got here" crap.
I think the best way to put all of this in its place is for the administration to come out and say clearly - We dropped the ball. The war on terror was not our number one priority before 9-11. It should have been. We can't change the past, and we are working every day to make sure this NEVER happens again. The Bush administration can run on the fact that they have experience and can learn from mistakes. Kerry would just start from scratch with a whole new raft of mistakes to make - something we cannot afford.

It takes a big man to admit he was wrong, and a real leader doesn't pass the buck. Bush can be that big man, and still win the war on terror and the 2004 election.

[sinkspur]

We dropped the ball. The war on terror was not our number one priority before 9-11. It should have been. We can't change the past, and we are working every day to make sure this NEVER happens again

Why in hell should the war on terror have been Bush's number one priority prior to 9/11?

We were still dealing with the after-effects of the Chinese take down of one of our planes, and Gary Condit-Chandra Levy was the number one story in the media.

You're looking at 9/11 with 9/12 eyes.

There was no "war on terror" on 9/10, and nobody in the friggin' world would have stood for one.

[van_erwin]

That's my point. It doesn't matter who was in charge on 9-10, they would have had the same priorities when it comes to terrorists.

But think about what the Duke or the Gipper would have done. The man in charge stands up and says "this happened on my watch" and doesn't spend time pointing fingers. When the ship is under attack, does the captain start blaming the sailors? No.

Look, I'm going to vote Bush in 2004 no matter what. My point is, if he stands up and says The Buck Stops Here, a lot of fence sitters will likely say "nuts" to all the media's carping and focus on the real issue : what Bush is doing about terrorism NOW.

[Stentor]

My point is, if he stands up and says The Buck Stops Here, a lot of fence sitters will likely say "nuts" to all the media's carping and focus on the real issue

Can I get a ride on the turnip truck you rode in on. I'd like to get my brain back to the days before I discovered the error of identification. It is upsetting when you finally realize that much of the world is really evil and not just confused.

[van_erwin]

Can I get a ride on the turnip truck you rode in on. I'd like to get my brain back to the days before I discovered the error of identification. Huh? What do you mean by "error of identification?" I want to know when being a conservative turned into being an unquestioning loyalist. Did you even read my posts? I want the media to back off the administration, and I think the fastest way to accomplish that is to say The Buck Stops Here. Bush is fighting the most pronounced war on terror in our nation's history NOW, and there's no need to keep the argument going about what it looked like on September 10th.