• aging cynic said:

  So if I understand you correctly, 8 months of Bush "allowed" the attacks on 9-11 but 5 months of Obama is scarcely sufficient to judge the efficacy of his policy decisions? I should have higher hopes for the next 90 days, I guess. He IS about to turn all this around before Labor Day, isn't He?

  May 23, 2009 11:23 PM

• Adam Reilly said:

  AC, I'm not sure I get your objection. My point is that, when Cheney congratulates himself and Bush for their anti-terror policies, he acts like 9/11 didn't occur on their watch. I hope Obama keeps a similar attack from happening, but whether he will remains to be seen.

  May 24, 2009 3:40 PM

• aging cynic said:

  What's with this "on their watch" crap? So policies from previous administrations are suddenly irrelevant? In his first 8 months Bush undid all the national intelligence "progress" that Clinton made in the previous 8 years? Please. This is just "gotcha" rhetoric; the kind of hogwash we are becoming more accustomed to from Congress. If the DC Establishment was anything other than a continuum of (eminently qualified)Old Boys, Gates would not still be SecDef.

  May 25, 2009 11:07 PM

• Adam said:

  AC: "On their watch" means "eight months into their administration."

  If we see another 9/11 this year are you going to blame Obama/Biden? Or are you going to blame Bush/Cheney? 

  May 26, 2009 6:52 AM

• aging cynic said:

  My whole point was that the two are not mutually exclusive. The relative blame for Karl Rove or Rahm Emanuel as poisoner of the well can be argued. I'm just wondering how screwed up this country has to become before we see actual statesmanlike conduct by someone, anyone....

  May 26, 2009 6:22 PM

Leave a Comment