Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (9121)	4/9/2004 8:20:51 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Democrats politicize 9/11 commission By Michael Ruff There are times when it's fun and entertaining to play politics, but sometimes it's inappropriate. The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks has the opportunity to do a great service by determining what allowed such a massive attack to occur, thereby helping us to deter future attacks. Instead, the Democrats have decided to turn it into a three-ring circus. They seem to feel it's more important to blame President George W. Bush for the attacks so Sen. John Kerry will do well in November, than it is to get at the real cause(s) of the attacks. These partisan robots fail to realize that just because Bush was president on Sept. 11, doesn't automatically make him responsible for it. The Democrats are demonstrating flagrant disregard for the truth, especially when you look at the level of faith they have in former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter-Terrorism Richard Clarke's testimony. In an investigation, if someone makes statements that completely contradict each other, you realize that person is not a reliable witness. Many heard Clarke's testimony last month in which he claimed the Bush administration ignored his warnings about al Qaeda and did nothing to prevent terrorist attacks. However, this directly contradicts what we know of Clarke's record over the past few years. In the March 29 foxnews.com article "Richard Clarke has a Credibility Problem," Cal Thomas uses an Aug. 2002 interview to demonstrate Clarke's contradictions. In that interview, Clarke said, "... in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy [for fighting terrorism]." This obviously contradicts Clarke's claim that Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security Advisor had no idea what al Qaeda was before Sept. 11. He also said that the Bush administration decided not only to pursue the strategy in place, but also to improve it. Clarke added, "That process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." If there's not enough there, take a look at his 2002 resignation letter where Clarke basically tells Bush he should apply for sainthood. So, Clarke has reversed himself in Kerry fashion in front of the country. And people actually take him seriously. What does that say about how serious these Democrats are about getting to the truth? Sure, it was a good decision to have Clarke testify. However, once they discovered he was telling a story opposite the one he had told in the past, he should have no longer been treated as a credible witness. Why, then, have they not ignored this man who can't get his story straight? If you can't see through the blatantly partisan response to Clarke, you really need help. The Democrats will rally around anyone who speaks badly about Bush, whether what they're saying is true or not. It's a campaign year, so that's to be expected. But when they do it on a committee trying to improve the safety of our country, we should be angry. This committee is trying to prevent lives being lost to future acts of terror and the Democrats are treating it like a campaign commercial. These are the same Democrats who complain about wasted money everyday and think you're too stupid to realize they're wasting plenty of it on a committee that they've turned into a comedy routine. Reasonable people will agree that Sept. 11 is not Bush's fault as Clarke and the Democrats have suggested. I'm certain there are things he and former presidents could have done to make it more difficult for Sept. 11 to occur. The fact is our eyes were opened on Sept. 11 and some want a person to blame. This committee shouldn't be a blame game, because we know the terrorists are the ones responsible for Sept. 11. It should be looking at ways we can prevent something like this from happening again. Oh well, maybe next the Democrats will bring out a trapeze artist since we've already seen the clown. flathat.wm.edu