Emy wrote:
Prior to 9/11, the american public would not have willingly accepted the sort of inconveniences the level of security necessary to prevent the attacks would have required. Even if they did, without that disaster as an example, complacency would set in. The opportunity to conduct that type of attack would present itself again. It's extremely unlikely to happen again, even if terrorists managed to take control of several airliners, because the passenger no longer expect to survive in the event of a hijaking. Prior to 9/11, passengers expected to be held hostage as a bargaining item, and would quietly wait for whatever sort of rescue or release agreement emergency services could pull off. Now those same passengers (at least a significant minority) will risk their own lives to fight hijakers in the expectation that they will die in any event if the hijakers are successful.
I never saw a second WTC bombing. Did you?
For that matter, how did Condeleeza et al. respond to what they were told, prior to the attacks?
From my limited perspective (i.e. I don't have the access to "sensitive information" that may or may not be actually sensitive, judging from previous censors), I simply must say that there seem to have been things that could have been done that would not inconvenience to the point of not getting (re?)elected/appointed.
Quote:
The economy peaked in March of 2000, 8 months before the presidential elections, after a brief rally around September/October 2000 the market continued its downward trend. The investor panic following September 11th 2001 didn't help either.
So it did. Do you feel the business cycle was as flattened as it should have been by the supply-side economics of Mr Bush?
Quote:
Of course, none of that money was spent on disaster relief, increased security at airports, nuclear power plants, and other "High Payoff Targets", or the tax rebate. . .
I understand your point. Speaking of the tax cuts...do you consider it fiscally responsible to offer tax-cuts at a time when spending
must to be increased and the American public is feeling less taxed than it has in years? I mean, they were
record deficits from surpluses. Even among the wartime presidents, or Hoover, I'm not sure you'd find anyone who could match that. Point one out, though, if I've missed him.
Quote:
No argument, just want to note that no president has ever appointed someone living below the poverty line to a cabinet position. Most cabinet appointees are either career politicians or lobbyists, neither of which are known for being less than economically comfortable. And, to be honest, would you want a Secretary of the Treasury who couldn't manage his or her own personal finances? The only position i can even conceive of wealth being a disqualifier for is Labor Secretary, who could reasonably be expected to have held a "blue collar" job for at least a couple of years.
I would like to state that, unlike many market capitalists, I do not feel lack of wealth is necessarily a sign of personal <s>impiety</s> incompetence.
Aside from that, though, I concur. It admittedly worries me when appointees don't seem to be qualified for his or her job, for one reason or another (e.g. having argued against the existence of his job).