HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
 By Jack Lepiarz Sept. 27, 2006 In response to the fiery remarks made by former president Bill Clinton last Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice fired back by saying what the Bush administration had done in the eight months leading up to 9/11 was "at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years." This came several days after Clinton said, "That's the difference between all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try." Clinton also said that he left the Bush administration a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy" to help them combat al-Qaeda. Outgoing Secretary of State Madeline Albright also went on the record as telling the Bush administration that their greatest threat would be terrorism. Rice, however, contradicted Clinton, saying that his administration had left nothing for them. "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaeda," she told reporters for the New York Post. Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton came to her husband's defense, saying that he had done a "great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take this." So who is right in this situation? Well, there is certainly an argument to make to say that Bush did not do enough to stop 9/11 from happening. On the other hand, the same can be said about the Clinton administration. Clinton even admitted in his interview with Chris Wallace that he failed in his attempt to kill bin Laden. "I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try." All in all, however, I feel that more of the blame falls on the Bush administration, because of the little to no action they took to prevent terror in their first 8 months in office, despite an August 6th, 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." The memo explicitly stated, "Al Qaeda members--including some who are U.S. citizens--have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks." It goes on to say, "FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings and other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Bush said that he could not recall the brief nor had he discussed it with any of his advisors, something that suggests to me that Bush did not take the necessary precautions to protect our country. Now, I'm not George W. Bush, so I can't speak for him and say what went through his mind, but if I were president, I would have at least mentioned it to a national security advisor. Some will say that this is simply my bias coming through, and that the blame rests squarely on Clinton's shoulders. They're entitled to their opinion, but Clinton's efforts--lacking as they may have been--were still better than the lack of effort we got in the first eight months of 2001. ------------ About the author: Jack Lepiarz is an 18-year-old college student at Emerson College in Boston. He also co-hosts the Katherine and Jack Show on UthTV.com and has been performing various circus talents for the past several years. Though often described as stubborn and egotistical, he tries to keep an open mind and treat others the way he would like to be treated. Email: Jackwuzhere42@aol.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
