Bush's New Defense Againt Clarke Pretty Lame

by Steve

My, how the president is getting defensive already from the Clarke fallout. Today, in a typical bit of issue redirection, Bush said he would have acted to prevent 9/11 if he had any credible information about an imminent attack against New York City.

But of course that’s not the issue at hand, is it Skippy? The issue at hand is not so narrowly defined as just New York, and no one has ever suggested it should have been limited to just New York or requiring imminent threats against specific targets before you did something. The real issue is why you didn’t do something with the information you had about any domestic targets of opportunity as Dick Clarke says. Waiting until you had a specific threat against one target means never doing anything.

Yet those are the terms upon which Bush wants to be judged. Using this line of argument means that Bush wouldn’t act until he knew there was a threat against the Pentagon either. Both of which make him a pretty sad excuse for someone who has taken an oath to defend this country against all threats.

Mr. President, why is an imminent threat necessary for New York City before you'll act, but not necessary in Iraq? In other words, before you act here at home you require evidence of an imminent threat domestically against our citizens and a specific target, but will invade another country on a far lesser burden of proof?

Why is that?