Cheney, as I understand it, ain't supposed to hang around the President in times of crisis, which is probably why he wasn't there. No biggie.

Much as I hate to admit it, Bowser is correct that Clinton pumped a lot of money and effort into antiterrorism. Like Bush, the increased effort was in response to specific acts of terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing and others. Interestingly, he too created a Czar of Antiterrorism, and also interestingly, he too got a lot of grief from people about how these efforts would violate civil rights and damage our freedoms under the Constitution. See if any of this sounds a bit familiar:

Timing is important, especially in politics. The Oklahoma bombing virtually guaranteed the creation of the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act. According to a National Security Study report, since terrorism was already subject to criminal punishment, "the main purpose of the proposal seems to be to avoid certain constitutional and statutory protections that would otherwise apply."



"Who do these people think they are, saying their government is stamping out human freedom?" blustered President Clinton, as he called for expansion of already unparalleled federal powers. While Clinton's antiterrorism package has been amended, it originally included, among other things, new categories of federal crimes, expanded FBI power to conduct wiretaps, and allowed the military to become involved in domestic law enforcement. It also expanded federal agents' access to information, such as travel and credit reports.

In the war theater, both Democrats and Republicans vie for center stage. The lust for power is bipartisan, and political posturing abounds. Ostensibly to protect us from endless scourges, thousands of new laws are imposed on the American people, regulating and restricting the minute details of our daily lives. In spite of impassioned pledges from both parties to protect and liberate us, we are left with neither security nor liberty.



Of course, nothing Clinton did prevented September 11, with some people complaining that his efforts were largely ineffective. Nothing Bush did after his inauguration prevented the attacks either. And I venture to say that, despite the big deal being made of it, Ashcroft cutting funds from the 2003 budget the day before probably did not do much to encourage the attack.

Hindsight, as always, is 20-20.