Thursday, March 25, 2004
The 9/11 Commission hearings are calling witnesses in an attempt to understand whether or not the 9/11 attacks were preventable.
Sandy Berger’s testimony is that the CIA had the OK to kill Osama Bin Laden, and, but for bureaucratic uncertainty, it did not. Richard Clarke then asserts the Bush Administration did not place the highest priority on apprehending Osama Bin Laden. The inference is that the 9/11 was preventable.
Clearly, partisans are attempting to use the hearings to blame the Bush Administration for political gain in the upcoming Presidential election. (In other words, these partisans are politicizing 9/11, a charge leveled at the Administration whenever the Administration mentions 9/11 or the War on Terrorism.)
Never mind, that no response was yet made to the USS Cole bombing in which 17 US Servicemen were killed. A response was in the making in the final three months of the prior Administration, and that buck was passed to the new Administration. Could it be that the prior Adminstration was too worried about election year politics (Whose wife was running for the Senate in NY?) to respond to the attack on our servicemen and by extension our country?
See, if the Democrats want partisan blame gaming, they can have it. I’d also like an explanation of how 8 months of the Bush Administration in which OBL was not a high enough priority equals 8 years of the Clinton Administration in which OBL was a high priority without success is the same.
Because the Democrats cannot offer any explanations, they will try to shift political gears and accept the equal partition of culpability as a way for our country to move onwards.
Unfortunately, it only seems that time will help heal the wounds of 9/11 and allow for the disinterested search for answers.
Sandy Berger’s testimony is that the CIA had the OK to kill Osama Bin Laden, and, but for bureaucratic uncertainty, it did not. Richard Clarke then asserts the Bush Administration did not place the highest priority on apprehending Osama Bin Laden. The inference is that the 9/11 was preventable.
Clearly, partisans are attempting to use the hearings to blame the Bush Administration for political gain in the upcoming Presidential election. (In other words, these partisans are politicizing 9/11, a charge leveled at the Administration whenever the Administration mentions 9/11 or the War on Terrorism.)
Never mind, that no response was yet made to the USS Cole bombing in which 17 US Servicemen were killed. A response was in the making in the final three months of the prior Administration, and that buck was passed to the new Administration. Could it be that the prior Adminstration was too worried about election year politics (Whose wife was running for the Senate in NY?) to respond to the attack on our servicemen and by extension our country?
See, if the Democrats want partisan blame gaming, they can have it. I’d also like an explanation of how 8 months of the Bush Administration in which OBL was not a high enough priority equals 8 years of the Clinton Administration in which OBL was a high priority without success is the same.
Because the Democrats cannot offer any explanations, they will try to shift political gears and accept the equal partition of culpability as a way for our country to move onwards.
Unfortunately, it only seems that time will help heal the wounds of 9/11 and allow for the disinterested search for answers.
Comments:
Post a Comment
