For the record, I like
For the record, I like my crow well-done, with maybe some roasted potatoes and a good Chardonnay. Technically, crow wants a red, but I prefer white. Red wine makes me sneeze.
During all of my recent defenses of Bush’s security record, and my trashing of Clinton’s, I forgot one important thing: I don't know what I'm talking about. The complexities of the issues involved in intelligence gathering and the execution of actions based on that intelligence were brought home to me when I came across the following articles during further research:
The Washington Post: "Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks." This article outlines Clinton’s efforts to kill bin Laden after the '98 embassy bombings. Although the strategy of focusing so much effort on going after bin Laden personally may be questionable, it is not true that Clinton "did nothing" as I so brashly asserted last week. There were submarines! And remote-controlled hunter-killer drones!
The Washington Post: "A Strategy's Cautious Evolution." Outlines the changes in security policy after Bush took office. It doesn't reflect very well on the new administration's priorities or its ability to appreciate just how cool a hunter-killer drone really is.
The American Prospect: "Softer on Terrorism?" Makes short work of the "Clinton had eight years to solve this problem" argument.
All of these articles far surpass in research and quality of argument anything that I have produced, or could hope to produce, on the subject.
In short, it was presumptuous of me to speak out with such seeming authority on these issues. My reach clearly exceeded my grasp. While it will be of historical import to argue about which administration was the party to greater nonfeasance, the fact is that neither one reacted in time to prevent the attacks of September 11. The security and safety of the country are now the responsibility of the Bush Administration.
For what it’s worth: they’d better get their act together.
