Heraldblog
Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
| Guestbook |
| Archives |
| Contacts |
| Subscribe |
| About |
 |
Let the scrutiny begin
"He has chosen at this critical time, in the middle of a presidential campaign, to inject himself into the political debate," spokesman Dan Bartlett said. "And he has every right to do so. But in so doing, his judgments -- his actions, or the lack thereof -- should also come under scrutiny."
Bush's mouthpiece is talking about Richard Clarke's allegations, recently published, that Bush was more focused on Iraq and missile defense when he took office that he was on al Qaeda. As Clinton's former counterterrorism coordinator, Clarke is certainly in a position to know. But Bartlett's easy assertion that Clark's comments need to be scrutinized cut both ways. Bush, too, is speaking during an election year, and what W has to say about the months leading up to 9/11 "should also come under scrutiny."
And thus the 9/11 commission was born. W is schedule to appear before the commission for one hour.
He spends more time on his treadmill, but hey, when you're leader of the free world, you do what you can.
Scrutny only works in an unfettered marketplace of ideas, where both sides of a political contest are equally free to speak up. That is to say, an environment where opponents of Bush's conduct during The War Against Terror aren't labeled as traitors or worse.
I hope W is taking Clarke's accusations more seriously than he is letting on. Clarke isn't Michael Moore, or Sean Penn, or some other professional gadfly. He worked for Reagan and Bush pére, for crying out loud.
What's most troubling about the Bush administration's glib denials, though, is that it has chosen at this critical time, in the middle of the Presidential campaign, to inject phony indignation and mock surprise in the political debate.
This administration's actions should come under scrutiny.
22.3.04 17:34