Quote:
Originally posted by reconmike
Maybe, just maybe if he had went looking for Bin Laden after the USS Cole we might not have had 9/11.
|
Really?
Then how do you explain Donald Rumsfeld vetoing 600 million dollars that the senate approved to fight Al Quada on SEPTEMBER 9, 2001? At the time, old Rumsfeld was upset because the senate wanted to divert a paultry 600 million dollars from old Rumsfeld's precious anti-missile missile programme. I guess old Rumsfeld really really dropped the ball on that one. He was more worried about some "rogue state" firing off a non existant ICBM than Al-Quada terrorists.
Whoops.
You should read the August 12 th issue of TIME magazine. It would seem that an anti-terrorism unit of the US federal gov't that was set up to take the fight to al-quada by the Clinton administration was shut down by the Bush administration because of purely political reasons. (I.e., they (Bush and company) didn't like it because it was set up by the democrats and if they allowed it to survive, it would be seen as the democrats actually having a good idea. Can't have that now.)
I would argue that if American politicians operated in a bi-partisan manner on the issue of terrorism that attacks like 911 would have been more unlikely.
Prior to 911, the Bush administration acted in a purely partisan manner with the good of the republican party being put ahead of the good of the nation.