Rand is flailing with his generalized attack on “somebody”.
I am not impressed. Whatsoever.
Is he saying that Bush and Cheney should have been impeached? Is he saying the CIA director or FBI director should have been removed? We don’t know, do we, because Rand didn’t have the “intestional fortitude” to spell it out.
Intelligence failure to “connect the dots” was certainly a part of pre-911 failures. Post 911, What Bush & Cheney TRIED to do was remove the barriers to connecting the dots, which were in part THERE because of the WALL put in place by Jamie Gorelick during the Clinton years.
So Clinton was POTUS for EIGHT yrs., then Bush & Cheney were in office for 8 months before 911, and we’re supposed to BLAME the barely-in- office Republicans for 911??
Oh wait - or was it the intelligence community in place at the time we should blame, or was it...now WHO was it specifically that should have been removed from office??
But what were they - whomever in the intelligence community - doing for the EIGHT years while this built up and built up? Oh never mind, Rand is just attacking Dick Cheney because Liz Cheney is going to run against Rand’s new-found Senate buddy Mike Enzi and we can’t have THAT, so must lash out and attack...
Asst. ATTY GEN. Jamie Gorelick’s WALL between sharing foreign and domestic intel. Clinton refusing to take Osama on more than one occasion. Clinton refusing to do anything effective about terrorist attacks prior to 911. All of that, but Rand attacks Dick Cheney??
Over a Senate primary challenge in which Rand is not even involved but has chosen to insert himself and BASH??
Good grief.
What a mess.
I agree .... Well said.
I don't see Paul blaming Bush & Cheney for 911. I see him blaming Bush & Cheney for not firing anyone who screwed up and missed the 911 attack. They covered up failure. They covered up Able Danger, which undercovered the 911 plot before the attack.
As typical with Bush & Cheney (ie they didn't communicate), they (or their people) never made the case that Clinton had several opportunities to take out Bin Laden and disrupt al Qaeda.
You obviously missed the point of the article.
Cheney attacked Rand Paul first and defended the expansion of government power that happened during the Bush years.
Then Rand Paul replied that instead of trampling on the constitution to spy on law abiding citizens, the Bush administraton should have fired the people who missed all the clues and failed to defend the country on 9/11.
This is just common sense. One of the hijackers was arrested just before 9/11. Somebody obviously screwed up and failed to prevent the attack. Then their first response is to ask for more power and more money to spy on every law abiding citizen in the country and store all their communications forever in Utah.
Rand is correct in the hypocrisy that these guys use to justify ignoring the Consitution.
Has anything been done to keep foreign Islamic students out of the U.S.?
The security of this nation hasn't improved at all since 9/11, we are still too worried about offending Muslims and won't profile them.
There’s history between the Bush/Cheney Faction and the Paul faction. It’s like watching the Capulets versus the Montagues. Except this is the “B movie” version and none of the chicks are hot.
Right there with you. It was a dumb statement. Most of Bush’s appointees were held up in the confirmation process in spite due to the 2000 election and all things Gore. I’m not going to rehash the administration’s failings from the 8 years prior. Enough to say that the security apparatus post 9/11 was in large measure tightened up...and to some extent, overboard (Homeland Security seemed like a good idea at the time...even to me) but to attempt to cast blame for 9/11 on Bush/Cheney just feeds the Left narrative.
I like Rand Paul...but he is naïve in many areas of national security. Not uncommon, 0bama certainly had no idea. No one does....until they read that first Presidential Briefing and have an Oh, s#@% moment.
Rand is flailing with his generalized attack on “somebody”.
***
No, not just somebody. This is part of his outreach to the other party, the segment of Democrats who have the Bush Derangement Syndrome.
So sick of this punk.
Good post.
Agreed
What a mess!
Why is it that in the luxury of hindsight that everyone wants to condemn the President George W. Bush administration?
1) The public never envisioned this type of attack! It would have been hard to justify actions to prevent it
2) Previous attacks on the World Trade Center buildings had failed
3) Someone suggested shooting down the airplanes before they could hit: even if it had been done, there would be those condemning that administration for attacking its own people when there was no certainty of the terrorists’ targets nor their intentions
4) In the fog of war, it’s far harder to respond to a surprise attack than it is to hurl thoughtless accusations afterwards.
The failures below should be directed at the Clinton administration:
1) Jamie Gorelick’s wall; failure of vision; failure to put in place systems to properly coordinate various agencies
2) Making the transition period difficult for the incoming administration
3) Failure to relay critical intelligence to the incoming administration
4) Allowing the country to be distracted by felonious and/or treacherous acts, perjury and so on
5) Undercutting morale, rewarding fools instead of those working hard and faithfully
6) Not allowing the country, incoming administration and various agencies to understand how serious the ongoing threats were
7) Not taking Bin Laden out when it was clear he was a dangerous enemy and they had the chance to do so. (But maybe the Clinton administration itself did not fully appreciate the threat at this point?)
Is anyone looking for someone to blame? Then place the blame where it justly belongs.
The fact is, America had a different world viewpoint before the 9/11 attacks. And our defenses were not fully oriented towards suicide kamikaze attacks at that time; and the nation had other things to worry about.
Personally, I’m not prepared to condemn President George W. Bush for trying to heal the nation and go after the perpetrators overseas instead of going on what might seem to some as a witch hunt internally.
George Tenet meets your criteria
Agree..and the msm are going to take full advantage to divide and conquer...again.