Re: Correct. Take the next step (#32643)
by Bill Heuisler on March 29, 2004 at 11:41 PM

Adam,
You ask two questions.
Do you honestly believe that Clarke’s accusations (which again, and I cannot state enough, have been said by many others) and the administrations response constitutes a “orgy of vitriol” or are you referring to the 9/11 commission as a whole?

Yes I do. Clarke quite literally accuses the Bush Administration of knowing the danger and doing very little about the terror problem - being largely culpable for 9/11. He further accuses the President of asking him about Iraq's possible connections the day after 9/11 - in an intimidating way - and thus somehow promoting Bush's quixotic obsession at the expense of War on Terrorism.

Neither accusation was said by "many others". Both are false on their face. According to Clarke's press briefing Bush increased terror-spending five-fold and was in the process of instituting new policies based on a report he received on 9/10. Clinton did little for eight years. Clarke conveniently elides eight years to target eight months. Political? Looks like a diuck to me, Adam.

Second, according to history, Bush first ordered the invasion of Afganistan after meetings with Clarke et al. Therefore Clarke's "intimidation" becomes irrelevant except as a means to draw convenient conclusions. Iraq and Saddam were crucial to terrorism for many reasons already listed ad nauseaum and I'm a little tired of the assumption they were not. The evidence says they were.

Please step back and observe the facts as opposed to the words, disregard the personnel involved and become a jury.
Notice how the witness corrupts his own testimony, how all the so-called evidence is circumstantial and how the so-called crime better fits another suspect.

No. However I believe the 9/11 Commission would better serve the Republic by forgetting blame and concentrating on the real enemy.
Bill Heuisler