Plan B

Unless the Bushies can actually refute the substance of Clarke's attacks, then the best they can do is assassinate his character. And that's exactly what they are doing. Of course, they have plenty of help in the media (I though it was liberal? Hmmmm.), with rabid attacks dogs Ann Coulter and Robert Novak weighing in. Novak calls Clarke a rascist for going against Condoleeza Rice who is, reportedly, of African American descent. Coulter goes into full pit bull mode with this comment:


"(Clarke) describes Bush as a cowboy and Rumsfeld as his gunslinger -- but the black chick is a dummy. Maybe even as dumb as Clarence Thomas! Perhaps someday liberals could map out the relative intelligence of various black government officials for us."



Rice has offered to testify one more time, but not if she has to take an oath to tell the truth. And it has to be in private. And she gets to cross her fingers, and end each comment with "But seriously folks!"



Is Clarke telling the truth? I think it's more likely than not that Clinton's peeps tried to brief W's peeps on bin Laden back in January, 2001. B ut Bush's peeps shut them down, out of arrogance or whatever. Al qaeda and bin Laden stayed on W's back burner until the second Tuesday in September, 2001.



I'm not one to say Bush "let" 9/11 happen, but there is ample evidence the Bush team was warned that the FBI and CIA needed to share more information on terrorist activities in the states. And it appears Bush was more focused on Iraq than al Qaeda.



If this is all defensable, and I'm not saying it isn't, then the Bushies need to make a case for why their approach was appropriate. Attacking the messenger, Clarke, only make teh Bushies look weak, guilty, stupid and incredible inept.





26.3.04 23:51
 


To date 0 Comment(s)     TrackBack-URL

Name:
Email:
Website:
 Email me when further comments are posted
Save information (cookie)


 Insert emoticons