I often find myself in disagreement and shock when Ann Coulter opens her mouth… she’s a bit extreme for my tastes, but she often hits things right on the head. One example is this article entitled “How 9-11 Happened.” It’s a timeline from Carter to Bush of the pertinent fanatic muslim attacks on U.S. interests and the appropriate President’s response, or lack thereof. Her comments on Clinton are particularly demonstrative. Here’s what she has to say about GW Bush:
Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was “tired of swatting flies” – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.
On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.
Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida’s base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.
What a surprise.
A surprise, indeed.
I always find it amuzing when one side blames the other… Lets face it…
The republicans of the 80’s birthed Saddam and Osama and let them suckel our tax dollars from thier wrinkly little breasts. The republicans of the 90s tried to sweep that under the carpet, and ignored the problems over there. Clinton dealt with Bosnia, so he focused his intel on that… people seem to forget that we were in action over there. And of course, Republicans were busy whipping him over getting a hummer in the whitehouse. But still, he deserves some of the blame. however, Bush Jr had 7 full months in office. This nation is doomed if in 7 months we can’t get our act together when faced with an impending disaster. He deserves just as much blame. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a large group to coordinate an attack like that.
There are many people responsible, but who’s watch was it on? Truman said, “The buck stops here”. Bush says, “The buck would stop here but I can’t seem to find it” and just blames someone for losing it.
For the record, I’m not affiliated with a political party.
That “rocket scientist” sentence was supposed to be deleted and was part of something bigger… damned comment box is too small.
Ahhh… part of the “Bush Knew” crowd, eh Dennis? That’s a pretty weak assumption to be basing an argument on. (Yes, your “7 months is plenty of time” DOES depend on that) Do you also believe that 9/11 was engineered by the CIA?
Second, the point of the article, that you obviously failed to pick up on, was the RESPONSE to terror acts has been lacking under Democratic administrations. Lack of an effective response is not a deterrant.
Finally, the “whose watch” is a pretty naive standard as well. Do we blame President’s for natural disasters? Those happened on “their watch” too…
PS: Clinton wouldn’t have had nearly as much trouble had he not perjured himself.
First, I’m not suggesting Bush knew. Quite frankly, I’m suggesting the opposite. I would never, ever make the mistake of suggesting that Bush knew something… Anything, actually.
I realize that the response was lacking under democratic administrations, but the democratic administrations have always focused on more domestic issues, so that’s a natural assumption.
As for blaming the president for natural disasters, no, because we can’t assume that the president knows how to stop an earthquake or hurricane. Even in this case, if we forgive Bush for not knowing that 9/11 was about to happen, we still have to look at the results. I don’t disagree with removal of the taliban, but supporting al Queda, they were supporting a warring entity on the United States. However, what needs a closer scrutiny is how we pissed off former allies (save one) in order to go into a war in Iraq. The big question we need to ask ourself is, “Do the ends Justify the Means” and the answer is no. The only nation that trusts our word is the United Kingdom, and if you read a little deeper into that, the citizenship over there isn’t exactly thrilled. I don’t have the numbers, so I could be barking up the wrong tree. Implication wise though, the lies about the weapons of mass destructions and the invasion of Iraq, along with naming “the axis of exil” justifies certain nations being paraniod about us invating, and justifies them thinking that they may need to defend themselves. Specificly, I’m referring to North Korea in this instance. We’ve got a big set of balls to go on telling them not to have nukes when as far as they are concerned, it’s the only thing keeping an occupying force out of thier country. I’m not suggesting what is right or wron and I’d be much happier if they didn’t have them, but putting myself in thier shoes, it seems like the best option. Also, coming from this arguement, if we did have a valid reason o invade another nation, citizens of the UN are going to look at our reasons with more and more skeptisism after the whole weapons of mass destruction arguement. One shouldn’t treat our reputation in the international areana with such distain, there’s a reason why american’s have a reputation abroad, and that reputation is deserved and will hurt us one of these days. Militarty might is no reason to be arrogant.