Ugh, apppologies for the above post, something went wrong; hopefully this one makes more sense (or not!)
Today my local paper (probably unwittingly, since it has well know liberal biases) summed the issue up:
?Republicans?contend that [Bush] had been president less than eight months when the attacks occurred and can?t be expected to have defeated an enemy that
Democrats counter that the attacks happened on Bush?s watch. Eight months should have been enough time to act more aggressively against al-Qaida?especially in light of dire, private warnings ongoing officials say they delivered before Bush took office??
Ah, ?dire private warnings? that the administration gave Bush, which should have led him to do everything possible to prevent planes from slamming into the WTC. Dire warnings that the admininistration (and Clarke) for some reason failed to act upon repeatedly during the 8-year admin.
But wait? there?s a clear explanation!
?By tying the earlier terrorist attacks to the Sept. 11 catastrophe and pinning all of them on Al-Qaida, Bush?s team is making connects that were not clear at the time, in the view of the Clinton crew.
Bush and his aides, Clinton?s counterparts add, are judging them from a post-9/11 perspective of urgency and national resolve that didn?t exist before Sept. 11, 2001.?
Then Madelyn Albright adds:
?We have to put ourselves in the pre-9/11 mode, and it?s hard because we?ve all been in our post 9/11 prism, where we should be.?
So, let?s make sure we understand this: was acting appropriately because it was in the ?pre-9/11? mindset. That day, of course, changed everything. But interesting the Dems are doing exactly THAT to the Bush administration. They claim he ?should have known? that something big was going to happen are prevented it in the 8 months he was in office before the attack.
So which is it people? We can judge Bush?s actions from a pre-9/11 perspective (having just taken office for 8 months), although the 9/11 attacks had not occurred yet so that we could see the severity of the situation. But we cannot dare to judge the administration from a post 9/11 perspective because 9/11 hadn?t happened yet.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see through this very ?Clintonesque? logic.
Plus the attack on the world trade center took YEARS to coordinate. It was in the works on ?s watch. But 9/11 hadn?t happened yet, so we can?t blame for doing nothing?? Oh right, DIRE warnings were issued to Bush before he took office. DIRE WARNINGS that the administration failed to act upon. (Oh right, because 9/11 HADN?T occurred so that they couldn?t yet make connections?
My head hurts.