just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds

[papau]

and our media forgets - and refuses to challenge GOP bluster about 911 hero, and GOP action to defend the US? I do love our national media who are not controlled by the paycheck being paid by right wing GOP owners/editors, they just act that way.

Thank God for Krugman.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/opinion/23KRUG.html?ex=1081029877&ei=1&en=7402f8a2197b54fd

<snip>Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" — just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)

Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.

Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.<snip>

[Trajan]

1. I would again add ...

Even if you disagree ...

THAT: The Bush Administration coddled the Taliban, even praising them for their Opium Poppy eradication efforts ...

THAT 43 Million dollar payment given to the Taliban indicates a generosity on behalf of the Bushies for a group they should have been CASTIGATING for their poor human rights record, and their protection of Osama Bin Laden ... Whether that 43 Million was for food or medicine or whatnot: ... that matters not: ... since the tone in which it was offered was CONGRATULATORY, and didnt demand anything of the Taliban vis a vis Al Qaeda or OBL ...

HOW can the Bushies claim they were vigorously pursuing the purveyors of Terror, the Al Qaeda network, when they were actually playing so cozy and nice with them ? ...

THAT payment, and the spirit in which it was offered, PROVES that Bush did NOT take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously enough ...

[Brotherjohn]

2. In addition, Rumsfeld threatened to urge a veto if the Senate diverted...

... $600 million from missile defense to Counter-Terrorism. he did this on September 9th, 2001 (see the "Timeline: Blown Chances" link in the following link to the original Time story on Clarke's plan to get Al Qaeda): http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html#).

[Sanity]

3. Huh wow

No one can say the Dems are weak on defense.