Giuliani said America never had an attack under Bush. But he meant to say America never had an attack since 9/11. But what he really meant to say (we may find out later) is that America had no major attacks since 9/11.
I love parsing words. It's fun and childish.
So does this mean that before 9/11, "it doesn't count" ?
I would assume that the POTUS had a job to protect America from Day 1 of his administration. But apparently it is only after a kick in the ass does he actually have to do his job. Is this the kind of leadership anyone wants? only to be reactive with zero fore-sight. Before you say "yes", consider a few other examples ...
- Volcano monitoring: don't need this, after a major disaster we'll deal with it.
- Tsunami monitoring. Ditto.
- Basic research - from ice cores to solar cells. What's a little game of technological catch-up with Germany while Florida sinks
- Strip the military's ability to fight 2 major conflicts simultaneously - because, you know, this would never happen again. Yes, in case you forgot, this was Cheney's baby before 9/11.
- Prevent banks from over-leveraging - actually this doesn't belong on the list because Giuliani would choose not to react at all during an economic meltdown.
- Hurricane preparedness and recovery. We'll just put in a horse breeder until we actually need someone good.
I'm sure this list can grow, but what really strikes me is how preparedness appears to be such a waste of money to the wingnuts. And it seems so ingrained to them that they consider it normal and acceptable to only react to problems, not anticipate them.
So, Mr Giuliano, I'd like to know why President Bush was not accountable for attacks on America before and including 9/11 ?