Sandman
March 25th 04, 07:30 AM
"Faced with these indications of something seriously wrong at the heart of
their administration that could potentially be exposing this country and the
rest of the world to further terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has
responded in a manner befitting their collective integrity and
responsibility: by trying to kill the messenger."
"Yes, instead of actually considering whether recent events might indicate
that Clarke has a point when he suggests that the Bush administration was,
uh, wrong about responding to an Al Qaeda attack by invading a country that
had nothing to do with it, Bush's handlers and their henchmen are scurrying
around the talk shows depicting Clarke as, in the words of one Washington
Post headline, "Disgruntled, Partisan."
"Clarke denies being partisan - after all, he worked for two Republican
administrations before working for Clinton, and stayed on to work for Bush
II - but freely admits disgruntlement. On "60 Minutes," Stahl asked Clarke
what he felt on 9/11. Clarke replied that one of the emotions he felt was
tremendous anger at the U.S. government for not having done everything it
could to prevent this attack. Stahl said, as if she were chiding Clarke for
something very shocking, "I'll tell you, a lot of that anger is in this
book." Clarke's response was, "Well, it should be."
"This is one of the charges that the corporation always makes against the
whistleblower: well, he's angry, he hates the company, he has a grudge. The
implication is that anything said in anger cannot possibly be true. But what
we have to realize is that in today's America, it is impossible to tell the
truth without being angry."
More...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/16.html
their administration that could potentially be exposing this country and the
rest of the world to further terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has
responded in a manner befitting their collective integrity and
responsibility: by trying to kill the messenger."
"Yes, instead of actually considering whether recent events might indicate
that Clarke has a point when he suggests that the Bush administration was,
uh, wrong about responding to an Al Qaeda attack by invading a country that
had nothing to do with it, Bush's handlers and their henchmen are scurrying
around the talk shows depicting Clarke as, in the words of one Washington
Post headline, "Disgruntled, Partisan."
"Clarke denies being partisan - after all, he worked for two Republican
administrations before working for Clinton, and stayed on to work for Bush
II - but freely admits disgruntlement. On "60 Minutes," Stahl asked Clarke
what he felt on 9/11. Clarke replied that one of the emotions he felt was
tremendous anger at the U.S. government for not having done everything it
could to prevent this attack. Stahl said, as if she were chiding Clarke for
something very shocking, "I'll tell you, a lot of that anger is in this
book." Clarke's response was, "Well, it should be."
"This is one of the charges that the corporation always makes against the
whistleblower: well, he's angry, he hates the company, he has a grudge. The
implication is that anything said in anger cannot possibly be true. But what
we have to realize is that in today's America, it is impossible to tell the
truth without being angry."
More...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/16.html