[Alberta's Child]

While we may not like to admit it, the truth is that the Bush administration should get some well-deserved criticism for the pre-9/11 period. The basic problem with this administration before 9/11 was that it was filled with people who probably had no idea what kind of threat al-Qaeda represented to this country. Condoleeza Rice, for example, was appointed National Security Advisor because of her expertise in Soviet/Russian issues. Donald Rumsfeld was appointed Secretary of Defense because one of the administration's key objectives was to streamline the Department of Defense (and as an independently wealthy man in his 70s with no political aspirations, he was in a perfect position to shut down pet pork-barrel defense appropriations without any fear of backlash from members of Congress).

And let's face it . . . the Pentagon was littered with incompetent and borderline-incompetent political hacks who had no expertise in radical Islam and whose only "qualification" for their positions was that they were ardent advocates of using the U.S. military to topple the Ba'athist government in Iraq. If your were to do an internet search on terms like "Paul Wolfowitz + al-Qaeda" or "Richard Perle + al-Qaeda," you'd probably be shocked at the lack of any sources of information before 9/11/2001 that would indicate they had any clue what al-Qaeda was.

[scott7278]

I agree with you in that I believe everyone should be held accountable, regardless of political affiliation. Having said that, the criticism should be fair and warranted.

It is true that Condoleeza Rice's area of expertise was in Soviet/Russia issues. Likewise, I can't argue against your point about Donald Rumsfeld.

However, these are both serious persons who view their job performance as a solemn duty to the people of the United States. We didn't have that in the last administration. Instead, we got this:

"I may not have been the best president, but I sure had the most fun."