Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Come on Bilmore, you're too smart and too honest to believe your implication.
S_A_M
|
Must be, wrong and wrong, 'cuz I believe it.
Look at Ty's post, to someone raising good points - she's trollish, and he won't respond, because it's all partisanship? Weak.
Point is, this women should be testifying, not judging. Her op-ed was just that - testimony - she was contradicting Ashcroft's testimony, she played a major part in the solidification and inflation of the dichotomization of our info, and, in a proceeding designed to find out why we didn't find out, this is crucial stuff.
Partisanship? I"d say the only partisanship comes from those who now want to impede, minimize, and walk away from the investigation. My guess is, the focus has drifted from what they wanted to present to the electorate, and now they want it to go away, or at least let it fade with the memory of Clarke only. I suspect Rice, and the public reaction to her, were not what they expected or wanted, and the Gorelick thing, if untreated, is going to render any conclusion suspect, null, and useless. Failing their expected strong critique of Bush, they don't want the rest to stick in the public's mind, because "the rest" is simply going to be, we should have been more vigilant, and tougher, and that ain't a ringing call for a Kerry presidency. A sputtering end to this, with half the country ignoring it because of Gorelick's presence, will be the best the Dems can get now, and they're going to go for it. The fight to keep her now is simply the captain blowing the hold open to keep the ship from the enemy.
(ETA - if this is the sticking point, replace her with another Clinton appointee. That's not the important issue here. The important issue is, she has information that the commission ought to be considering as it tries to discern what stopped us from learning what was going on. FBI'ers have already said the "wall" was going to have a bad effect, and it appears that it did.)
