Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
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.
|
What good points? I post something new, and she just refers to her past posts.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I believe she did give testimony. Note that Ashcroft was "testifying", as you put it, on subjects that he didn't have percipient knowledge about. And why do you think this is a significant focus of the investigation? What reason is there to believe that "the wall" had much to do the the FBI's failure to do its job pre-9/11 -- as opposed, say, to the national office's failure to authorize subpoenas, and the limits of Rule 6(e)?
Quote:
|
Partisanship? I"d say the only partisanship comes from those who now want to impede, minimize, and walk away from the investigation.
|
In other words, Republican leadership.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Here, tellingly, you assume the "conclusion" will be for public consumption, not (e.g.) for the legislature or executive branch to act on.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I suspect you'll see a lot of recommendations that have more to do with the organization of the FBI and the CIA than what Bush did. And you seem to be forgetting that half the commission is composed of Republicans. If they're criticizing the President, maybe there's something to it.
Oops, sorry, I forgot the bilmore syllogism: Criticism is a function of party loyalty. Therefore, if you criticize the President, you are acting of partisan interest, and your criticism can be ignored. Any Republicans on the commission who criticize the President can be ignored as Democrats in disguise.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You wish half the country had heard of Gorelick. Because you care more about the political damage that the commission might do to your party's nominee than you do about how they might help us fight this war on terror.
