:: Netmarcos' Notes ::
Musings and rambling commentary on current events, politics, music, and other cultural issues mixed with a few personal references.
| [:: (re)search ::] | |
|---|---|
| :: google :: | |
| :: Dog Pile:: | |
| :: Charters of Freedom :: | |
| :: ThomasPaine.org :: | |
| [:: news and opinion ::] | |
| :: Opinion Journal :: | |
| :: National Review Online :: | |
| :: FOX :: | |
| :: MSNBC :: | |
| :: World Net Daily :: | |
| :: The Drudge Report:: | |
| :: InstaPundit :: | |
| [:: blogosphere ::] | |
| :: Day by Day Cartoon :: | |
| :: James Lileks :: | |
| :: ScrappleFace :: | |
| :: Moxie :: | |
| :: The Dissident Frogman:: | |
| :: Insignificant Thoughts:: | |
| :: Dave Barry :: | |
| [:: España ::] | |
| :: Atlas of Spain :: | |
| :: EL MUNDO :: | |
| :: DIALNET::Búsqueda de articulos científicos en español | |
| :: Prestige: exigimos responsabilidades | |
| [:: archive ::] | |
:: Friday, March 26, 2004 ::
Ah ha! So that is what they mean.There are risks in any decision. But when Presidents fail to act at all, or act with too little conviction, we get a September 11.
This is the real lesson emerging from the 9/11 Commission hearings if you listen above the partisan din. In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough.
:: Mark 7:56 AM [+] ::
...
Comments:
Post a Comment
