So here's a question I haven't heard asked:
Why would ayone assume that a Republican president and a Republican congress would better serve our national security and prevent ANOTHER 9-11 from hasppening when, despite all warnings to the contrary, all defined defenses put forth in the Rudman-Hart Report commissioned by Clinton, a Republican president and a Republican congress LET 9-11 HAPPEN THE FIRST TIME AROUND?
BECAUSE:
Oh, the Deomcrats' dog ate the NSA report.
Oh there were TOO MANY warnings
Oh, the colored gal didn't think it was important.
Oh, I had only been president for nine months. (Yeah, wasn't there something about "hit the ground running?" Never mind.)
Oh, Bill Clinton should have taken care of it.
Let's just get one thing straight about Bush, Giuliani, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al:
IT HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH.
Not an obscure point of history.
IT HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH.
So what is the logic behind claiming they should be better at defending us, when the worst attack in our history HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH?
BECAUSE:
Oh, the Deomcrats' dog ate the NSA report.
Oh there were TOO MANY warnings
Oh, the colored gal didn't think it was important.
Oh, I had only been president for nine months. (Yeah, wasn't there something about "hit the ground running?" Never mind.)
Oh, Bill Clinton should have taken care of it.
Let's just get one thing straight about Bush, Giuliani, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al:
IT HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH.
Not an obscure point of history.
IT HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH.
So what is the logic behind claiming they should be better at defending us, when the worst attack in our history HAPPENED ON THEIR WATCH?
posted by Saintperle at
2:09 PM
