----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:17 AM Subject: Re: Bush's brand new enemy is the truth
> What does this prove? That he made kissy sounds to the pres because he > wanted a cushy lobbyist job; when that didn't happen he wrote a damning > book that the lemony fresh media would lap right up? Actually, he had very little time to get a job before he started writing the book. He and the president made kissy sounds towards each other at the resignation. Hearing them now discuss those kissy sounds as proof of some bad intent is kinda is like listening to wrangling over old love letters during a divorce. I didn't see the 60 minutes show, and I'm not that interested in that kind of interview. I've read a fair amount on the net, and I was able to watch the 911 commission's public hearing while I worked at home. I watched for the kind of statements made by the various representatives. I paid particular attention to the picture they painted of his work over the last 20 years. > Not trying to argue too much about this. Just tired of the people going > into masturbatory frenzy when they believe the TRVTH is finally revealed; > that the veil will be ripped from the doubters eyes; that they were right > all along! Actually, I think that an understanding of what went on can be obtained by listening to what everyone is and is not saying. I certainly would not hang my hat on Clarke telling things exactly perfectly right. For example, my gut feel is that his criticism of the Patriot act would be that it was too namby-pamby. I'm pretty sure that the nation would not have supported either Clinton or Bush in invading Afghanistan. But, at the same time, I do give weight to the concept that anti-terrorism had higher visibility in the Clinton administration; and was just part of an overall vision with Bush. Bush had his national security priorities going into office, and he pushed missile defense as a high priority. The FBI's focus on terrorism was decreased; drugs were considered more important. Indeed, a Bush official made a public statement supporting the Taliban while they were destroying ancient art. I remember bringing it up on list at the time. So, I see things as sort of a mixed bag. Was Bush guilty of gross negligence? I see nothing at all that would indicate that. Did Bush make some priority decisions that, in hindsight, were not ideal? I'd say probably. Is Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 panel that Clinton paid more attention to terrorism than Bush an honestly help viewpoint? I think so. Does this prove that Clinton was better than Bush on terrorism? No. Was the difference between a vague plan to eliminate Al Quida and an equally vague plan to reduce them to insignificance really important? I'd say no. Finally, if you look at my initial remarks on Clarke, I tried to make them measured. For example, when I talk about an honestly held viewpoint, I'm not saying the person is necessarily right, just sincere. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
