Letters to the Editor
-
Offensive Posture
Yes, the offensive posture came five years too late. If it have been enacted in, say, 1998, 9/11 could have been prevented.
Can you please explain or in some way substantiate this "offensive posture"? Because, I'm looking at Bush's behavior leading up to 9/11, and the only thing I see that's offensive is his jaw-dropping stupidity (which no doubt looks like genius to you). For example, as this "offensive posture" must have really been ramping up, he gets a memo that says bin Laden is determined to strike inside the US. And what is the reply of our warrior in chief?
“All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”
Damn, now that is a tough response!! Patton had nothing on this guy, eh?
Now, further inspection of your pathetic double-standard:
Clinton had more than three months to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole.
...and...
[Bush] was in office barely seven months
Okay. So you're pissed off that Clinton didn't do in 3 months, what Bush didn't do in 7 months. Have I got that right?
And, please, save the "transition" excuse. Wasn't Bush running for president? Are we to believe that once he got the job, he was completely ill-prepared to get his head around his duties? Look at Truman: had he had the luxurious "orientation period" you're so willing to grant Bush (whom you also claim was inaugurated during time of war), we may well have lost the war to Japan!
Double-standard? Let's see. Clinton killed 567,000 Iraqi children through sanctions on Iraq, dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula, which led bin Laden to tell CNN in 1997 that he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in retaliation.
Yep. That's a fine double-standard you've got there. Because it ignores that Bush has presided over the deaths of nearly a million Iraqis, dramatically increased the number of US troops in the Middle East, and has enacted policies that have swollen the ranks of Al Qaeda (according to our own NIEs) in ways that Clinton could never have dreamed of.