Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
I suppose I could have avoided getting flamed if I had added "the 7 munutes is irrelevant." And it is. Nothing substantial could have been done by then anyway. By the time Bush was notified that there was a problem, the bureaucracy had already reacted too slowly.
If it makes people feel better to think that I'm desperate to hate Bush, so be it. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of his. However, I don't think this particular screw-up falls in his lap--just in the lap of his administration. Would another administration have reacted the same way? Maybe. Probably, even. But it doesn't matter, because the onus was on this group, not the Clinton administration, or Bush 41. When you're the one in power, you're the one who gets to take the blame.
|
I think there's a strong point in what you're saying there. Bush's administration (of which he is in charge) failed to act on intelligence presented to them a month earlier entitled "Al-Queda determined to strike within the US". Maybe they acted on it, maybe we didn't see the reaction. The result of this lack of planning for these types of contingencies, and the lack of resources available in these situations is something the Bush administration should have learned from.
In my mind, Katrina exposed this kind of incompetency clearly. A couple of years after 9-11 you would have figured the Bushies "got" the whole idea of contingency planning. But then when Katrina came by and wiped out New Orleans, we saw that the idea of accountability and contingency planning was in short supply again. To me, NO is a far better example of the Bush administration's cronyish incompetence as they already had the mother of all disasters to learn from (and they didn't).