Pearl Harbor: What happened to the lessons learned for 2005?

One would think, this many years after Pearl Harbor the leadership would have a firm handle on how to do things. This White House has reverted to the Pre-Pearl Harbor days.

These issues were already raised in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attacks.

It's as if the nation's leadership, despite the catalyst of 9-11, is still stuck in the pre-Pearl Harbor days.

"Data collection" and "analysis" isn't just a "flaw" it's what "intelligence" is all about. If we don't have those two, what's been going on in the White House?

They've sat around and launched wars, but didn't take the time after 9-11 to make sure the country was able to do what was, at the time, the existing requirement.

Now, they've used the "war in Iraq" as the excuse to not fix what needed to be fixed: Listen to analysts.

To suggest they need "greater clarity" over who is doing what suggests that the roles and missions, despite the "catalyst" of 9-11 have still not been embraced by the White House as something that needs to be addressed.

The White House has no plan; and it has no plan to get a plan.

I see nothing getting in the way of addressing these problems. What's the real issue? It's leadership. And launching an illegal war, by choice, ensured that the nation didn't focus on what needed to be fixed: The failure to listen to reality.

This is an ideology-driven agenda, without regard to facts, reality, or real constraints. They just throw money at problems, without regard to plans.

That is not leadership. Nor is it a prudent use of resources. And what are the results? They ask for more green lights to ignore the laws of the land.