Quote:
dc why would Rice name a man no one outside of the government had heard of in a speech about terrorism written before 9/11?
Obviously there was concern about terrorism or there wouldn't have been a speech in the first place.
....
"When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive."
|
The Bush anti-terrorism strategy for the first nine months, despite the Clarke memo and despite the August PDB was "missile defense" as the anti-terrorism strategy.
NSC officials said the speech was meant to be a broad look at the administration's efforts to fight terrorism. In it, Rice argued that the United States should build a missile defense system.
But that mutil-billion dollar white elephant should be the subject of another thread.
As to Bush's decisive action....the Taliban and al Queda are back in Afghanistan and many military and foreign policy officials, past and present, including the latest NIE and's testimony from former US generals in Iraq, would suggest that his Iraq action has been a "decisive faiilure."
The greatest quality leadership is accepting responsiblity for your actions, not obfuscating, lying and spinning.
BTW, I would agree that Jamie Gorelick was in over her head when it came to national security and anti-terrorism, much like Condi Rice, a sovietologist academician in a post cold war world.
Quote:
|
Third excuses have been made but the Clinton admin made it awfuly hard for intelligence to work together, or gather information, all for appearances. Look up Jamie Gorelick. She did her best to try to wiggle free, but our intelligence community was hogtied under Clinton.
|
Failures "to work together" go back before Clinton....you might recall Reagan's response, or the reasons for the lack thereof, to the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.