[Sandy]

"See? We tried! We tried! It was those people at the Justice Department!"

That's not my impression. IMO, the underlying message here--as in countless other news stories, ad nauseum--is that our search/seizure laws are just too stringent and the feds simply don't have enough *ahem* authority to do "what's necessary". The terrorist attack wouldn't have occurred if the feds had had more spying power, donchaknow.

[smorgle]

And more funding. One of the first live interviews I saw on TV on 9/11 was with Sen. Carl Levin and another congressman (before everyone ran to ground). They had just had to leave an Armed Forces Committee meeting to discuss certain funding and Levin was practically livid. He said the attacks were primarily an intelligence failure (he is also on the Intelligence Committee) and that our people couldn't do their jobs better because they didn't have the money they need for modern operations. It wasn't a blame speech. He was just so frustrated and I think sick at heart because apparently he has been trying to make people understand the threats we face and vote for the funding, and then...........the attacks came. He said we need to wake up and realize that our number one issue isn't education, isn't Social Security, isn't the environment, it's national security. At that point he was gesturing hard and nearly yelling. In a way it was painful to watch but also exciting because the gravity of the events made it easier to just tell the truth instead of beating around the bush. Levin is a Dem. However, it was pretty clear he was angry about what had happened to the Armed Forces and Intelligence services under the previous administration.