Blame Bush for What Came After 9/11 (great article)

[Danieljay]

From Business Week Online

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bw/20040415/bs_bw/nf200404150640db009

TEAR DOWN THE CRITICS. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), the Clarke superior whom his book buries with faint praise, tried to make a cogent case before the September 11 commission on Apr. 8 that the newly arrived Bush Administration had done a reasonable job of pulling guard duty for the republic. All she really needed to say in her public testimony was: "We were new. We were inexperienced. We didn't have our eye on the ball. We're sorry." But she never did that, and what she did say was largely irrelevant and already forgotten.

snip

The truly damning part about Against All Enemies, however, is what Clarke reveals about the Administration's mindset on Iraq (news - web sites). What George Bush, Dick Cheney (news - web sites), Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz really have to answer for is the insidious way in which they used the Twin Tower horror to coax the country into supporting an attack on Iraq.

[LynzM]

1. Good article, my only beef

Is where he claims that 9/11 could just as easily have happened a year earlier, under Clinton. Haven't countless people by now made the point that under Clinton's administration, all that chatter would have elicited a lot more action and response? Other than that nit-picking, I did enjoy it!

[zbdent]

2. Weren't the hijackers doing the flight training in 2001?

Then they couldn't have done it in under Clinton.

The best OBL & Al-Qaeda came up with under Clinton at that time was a rubber raft with two guys and explosives at a port in the Middle East.

The scrutiny stopped, and the "eyes on your back" sensation fell off the terrorist suspects.