I was just watching CNN and saw Evan Bayh, (D) Illinois speak on the 9/11 committee. A well spoken and reasonable person. He stood pretty much behind the US, Congressional decision to support the President on Iraq, and behind the president. He hedged a little on his support, but not much in light of his political affiliation. If America sees much more of him the Democrats will see they chose entirely the wrong sort to be their candidate.

Howard Fineman gives a glimpse of how the Democrats will try to spin this to their advantage or to at least a zero sum game. The political gaming continues.

Did it really backfire? Only time will tell. Condi has a lot of charisma and is about as quick as they come. I don't think anyone believed she'd be anything but poised and well prepared. But, her testimony made me think about what was (or wasn't) going on during Bush's first 200+ days in office.

Bush campaigned against Gore with the position that the Clinton/Gore administration was weak on defense. Then, his administration simply continued with the Washington status quo until after 9/11. Is that what people thought they were voting for?

If things were so bad security-wise during the Clinton era (and obviously they were), why didn't Bush recognize that, clean house, and develop some policies to make U.S. soil and our interests abroad safe from terrorists ASAP?

Bush wasn't asleep at the wheel. But, he didn't deliver the kind of changes that he promised in 2000 until after 9/11. This makes me think that perhaps he anticipated having an easy first term in office -- not making any waves to ensure reelection. Heck, that worked for Clinton didn't it?

In 2000, Bush said, "The mission of the U.S. military will be to train in order to fight and win war, therefore, preventing war from happening in the first place."

Four years later, we are in a perpetual state of war. As Dr. Rice said this morning:

"...I don't think there's anyone in America who doesn't understand that this president believes that we're at war, it's a war we have to win, and that it is a war that cannot be fought on the defensive. It's a war that has to be fought on the offense."

Did it really backfire?

ABSOLUTELY! Want proof? 15 minutes after she was done, Al Franken on Airhead America changed the subject and refused to talk about it. Now if Bush rose someone from the dead he would find a way to bash it. If Condi shut Franken up, it is very, very telling.

Bush campaigned against Gore with the position that the Clinton/Gore administration was weak on defense. Then, his administration simply continued with the Washington status quo until after 9/11

But that is not the case. They did continue the Clinton strategy but they ADDITIONALLY worked on the "big picture" as evidence by the authorization to dismantle Al Qeada signed 9/10/2001. They looked at it "strategically' as Condi said about 100 times.

---
(reply to the rest)

So you blame Bush for not restructuring the whole government intelligence system in 200 days? I'm curious, why not bash Clinton for not doing it in 8 years?

And as for your quote(s) first he obviously was referring to conventional war.

But they still mesh just fine. If you establish military dominance over terrorists then we don't have a problem with them.

Just to add to Paul's comment:

Bush never had a "honeymoon," and the Democrats in Congress put a huge roadblock on his administration's nominees. He was forced to live with a lot of Clinton administration hangers-on, and Bush tends to be loyal to those who've worked for him. After the Clintonistas spent a little time on showing "loyalty" to Bush, he probably figured they were patriots who served the office, not the man, and might as well keep them on. That explains Tenet, Freeh, Clarke, and a lot of others who haven't yet made the news.

J.

Not only did they not have a honeymoon, but they had no W's on their computer keyboards. Bush and Condi had to figure out what it meant when they were briefed that: they had to _in the _ar _ith Al Qaeda.