Friday, April 09, 2004
Bush admin priorities
1. Self-praise and damage control
2. Irrelevant character assasination of critics (just look at any of the top stories here)
3. Vacation
...
4. The nation's business (oh wait, that's a sickening page of photo-ops)
I haven't paid close attention to Rice's testimony, but from the first link above (and similar sources), I note that in her view, a President's Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States" wasn't worth acting on because it was "historical", dealing with "past" information on al-Qaeda. Uh, wasn't "historical" information, indeed very dated and dubious historical info, enough to "convince" Bush that we must immediately invade Iraq?
As Saletan and Fred Kaplan point out, to call the style of Condi's testimony "academic" is to insult academics. At bottom, she's saying that as National Security Advisor she needs to be given a briefing and recommendation before she ties her shoes. Isn't her job to take the lead in coordinating security agencies? To make sure the president's (excuse me, vice-president's) agenda is implemented by the bureaucracy?
She knows there are structural problems that hamper bureaucratic cooperation. But why pretend that's an excuse for inaction on her part? Surely knowledge of the problem comes with a greater burden to knock CIA and FBI heads together.
I guess she was too busy babysitting the prez.
2. Irrelevant character assasination of critics (just look at any of the top stories here)
3. Vacation
...
4. The nation's business (oh wait, that's a sickening page of photo-ops)
I haven't paid close attention to Rice's testimony, but from the first link above (and similar sources), I note that in her view, a President's Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States" wasn't worth acting on because it was "historical", dealing with "past" information on al-Qaeda. Uh, wasn't "historical" information, indeed very dated and dubious historical info, enough to "convince" Bush that we must immediately invade Iraq?
As Saletan and Fred Kaplan point out, to call the style of Condi's testimony "academic" is to insult academics. At bottom, she's saying that as National Security Advisor she needs to be given a briefing and recommendation before she ties her shoes. Isn't her job to take the lead in coordinating security agencies? To make sure the president's (excuse me, vice-president's) agenda is implemented by the bureaucracy?
She knows there are structural problems that hamper bureaucratic cooperation. But why pretend that's an excuse for inaction on her part? Surely knowledge of the problem comes with a greater burden to knock CIA and FBI heads together.
I guess she was too busy babysitting the prez.
