Initially one could give the Rs the benefit of the doubt. It turns out that's because they kept from US the extent of their knowledge and incompetence.
#1. If they didn't hear the drums, I'da fired them!
#2. If they heard the drums and said they didn't bother to find out why they were beating, I'da prosecuted them.
#3. And if indeed it IS a war, and these sentries were sleeping that hard, or not at their posts, I'da tried to have 'em shot. Before EVERYONE got killed. (In the military they taught us that sleeping at your post is not OK. And it's even worse if someone sneaks past you and kills people. Very bad.)
Period. There is such a thing as accountability. It was their watch. Rice was OOD. And 19 people walked right under their noses. (While Ashcroft was cutting the counter-terrorism budget. Go figure.)
What's wrong with accountability? Or does that just apply to teachers?
If they did the best they could do, fine. It was no damned good. Fire 'em.
If they didn't do the best they could, shoot 'em. At least try to. More people died because of the ineptitude of this administration than Saddam has killed.
It's one or the other. Or those 19 guys were smarter than GWB, the NSA, FBI and CIA. Maybe smarter than the political people, not many of the careerists. But the politicals weren't listening, were they?
The American people, the occupants of WTC, the NYPD and NYFD deserved better from their elected officials and their appointees.
What is hard to understand about that? Unless you're a conservative, I guess. Then accountability is for the other guy.
Arf (guess who gets hit with a "sucker punch"?)
Current Events » in reply to Re: There's a real world out there.
Easy. What's wrong with "accountability"?
