QUOTE
On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals. The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.
(Washington Post, April 1st article by Robin Wright)
Questions:1.)Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and now this speech that was to be given--in light of these "witnesses" that indicate Bush was not principally focused on terror, what evidence exists that suggests he was very concerend about it between January 16th of 2001 and September 11th??
2.)If you believed Paula Jones and other people about Clinton, then how can you ignore the likes of O'Neill, Clarke, and a speech that lacks any mentioning of Al-Qaeda whatsoever??