Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Agreed, in general. Why does either party see it as beneficial? Or are we stuck in a repeat-play prisoner's dilemma, and both parties taking the tit-for-tat strategy in the "rat" box?
|
I'd say I'm fairly representative of a significant portion of the right and, if nothing else, the mindless trashing of Clarke is pissing me off. Whether he was in or out of the loop, he has made allegations that have not been adequately addressed. And attacking him is not a good way of adequately addressing his allegations. If he was out of the loop (which I find sincerly doubtful given his position), then what were they doing about this stuff?
In terms of warnings and context of 9/11, I'll merely note for the board (again) that immediately prior to 9/11, western "aid" workers were arrested by the Taliban and charged with proselytizing. Thats all well and good, but when the Taliban offered to trade the aid workers for the Sheikh responsible for the first WTC bombing, that seems like something that should make somebody's neck-hair stand up straight. This was all in the week or two or three before 9/11.
Coupled with the admissions of the unprecedented volume of terrorist traffic in the months prior to 9/11, it seems like there were fairly clear signals for the government to pick up.
The question becomes what they could have done about it. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that anybody did so much as to call a meeting. So, again, I don't care whether he was in or out of the loop. Those in the loop can show all the clues they had, but they aren't showing one significant policy-maker level acknowledgement that anyone at the top was paying attention.
I simply won't vote for Kerry, but I'd love to see any decent alternative to Bush these days.
Hello
