Ye Olde Rad Blog

Been getting lots of mail in response to the post made on 08APR when Condi Rice testified, some of it informing me these readers won't be visiting the site any more, due to (as they put it) my "Bush bashing".

I will post some of these notes later, if I get the chance. They are very well written. I guess, if I were making money off the site, by sponsoring ads, this loss of readers/visitors would be sad, but ironically, traffic this month is exceeding all other months by a wide margin. We might even break the 2-million-hits-per-month mark this month.

I honestly don't see my comments as Bush bashing. And I don't think I'm biased, either, altho I admit it might appear that way. My criticisms are limited to one, focused area. I actually like GWB and agree with many of his policies. Unlike some people I know, I don't dislike the man himself. But 9/11 happened on his watch. And this fact can't be overlooked or excused away.

Sure the eff-bee-eye and the see-eye-aye both botched the intelligence, but my sources tell me this was the fault of their *leadership*, and not the agent actually collecting the intelligence. Both agencies were under-funded and under-equipped, and too little emphasis was given to counter-terrorism, as it is now clear. Who's fault is that? I'll tell you who: the people who make funding and emphasis decisions.

I'm not saying he is *more* culpable than anyone else. I'm just saying he is the commander-in-chief, whose #1 priority is (as he agreed himself) the safety & security of the people. And it makes him look "less-than-presidential" (kind words) when he refuses to admit there was *anything* he could've done prior to 9/11.

••• continued •••

Even GOPs in recent polls feel he could've and should've done more. Yet he maintains, "I did everything I could." And if the command-in-chief refuses to accept *any* responsibility, we're in trouble. At this point, I'd settle for a simple, "I shoulda done more."

Many of the letters I received seek to exonerate GWB by pointing out the the culpability of Clinton and his administration. Hey, I never said Bill was innocent. He had the whole Monica fiasco distracting him, demonstrating his poor decision-making skills.

Sure Clinton failed to handle terrorist threats well. I never said he did. But 9/11 didn't happen on Bill's watch. (Coincidence?) And 9/11 didn't occur overseas, and it didn't involve just one or two planes. No, it was the worst such failure in the nation's history. And if you study disasters, you know that failures of this magnitude mean plenty of people screwed up.

Yet he maintains, "I did everything I could prior to 9/11." It's clear he didn't. And when the commission publishes its report, it'll note such. GWB was pres for 9 months when 9/11 occurred. It wasn't like it happened the week after he was inaugurated. Up to 3 months, I'd cut him slack, but after that, it's his ball-game, and he's responsible. Is it just a coincidence that 9/11 happened on his watch? I doubt it.

George is human. Humans make mistakes. They're imperfect. Fallible. There's nothing wrong with admitting you could've or should've done more. Yet he won't. Not one, little, tiny thing? And there-in lies the rub. The fact that he refuses leads me to believe he's even more culpable than it appears on the surface.

When I was a kid, and spilled milk, I had no trouble admitting, "Yeah, I spilled that milk." But when I threw a football in the house and broke mom's favorite china plate, I had an instant case of amnesia. "What china plate, mom?"

It's clear that all the pieces of the puzzle were there. Nobody put them together. Nobody connected the dots. And it's their job to connect the dots. I think the commission is doing a good job, asking good questions.

With all the problems we now know about, I've yet to hear anyone say, "We coulda/shoulda done a better job." And I have a hard time voting for anyone who won't accept responsibility. We need a man in the White house who's big enough to accept responsibility, not an excuse-maker.

I think GWB's preoccupation with Iraq (no pun intended) stems from the time when Saddam reportedly tried to assassinate his daddy, GHWB. It would be normal for any son to avenge his daddy. It's even a noble ideal, but don't do it on our dime.

Before concluding today's post, I want to say I have the utmost respect for the men & women in uniform, who live daily in harm's way.