Posted on 03/24/2004 11:26:47 AM PST by dead
PRESIDENT George Bush is in trouble. His Democratic opponent in the November election, Senator John Kerry, leads him in the polls on domestic issues. Mr Bush scores on foreign policy. But what if American voters cease to support his Iraq war and lose faith in his reasons for waging it?
This possibility has increased dramatically with the publication of a sensational book by his former counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Richard Clarke, and the proceedings of the independent commission inquiring into the events of September 11 2001.
Mr Clarke alleges that the president "ignored terrorism" before the destruction of the Twin Towers. He then let Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qa'ida, escape, and his invasion of Iraq "really hurt the war on terrorism."
Such allegations, from such a source, could hardly be more serious. The Bush administration has naturally been at pains to counter them. But the defence case at the commission hearing yesterday was less than impressive.
The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, has refused to testify. The White House cites "separation of powers". That is a flimsy excuse. Secretary of State Colin Powell, to whom the same considerations would apply, gave evidence yesterday.
Mr Powell's attempts to rebut the Clarke assertions and claim that the administration had acted with due urgency and vigour were not convincing, especially in the light of an interim report from the commission which contained its own astonishing disclosures.
For more than four years before the Twin Towers atrocity, first the Clinton and then the Bush administrations tried to persuade the then Taliban regime in Afghanistan to expel bin Laden from the country. Saudi Arabia achieved a commitment to this effect, but the Taliban reneged. On the eve of September 11, second-line US officials drew up a new strategy which would have taken three years.
Even more is at stake here than the election result, and the questions Mr Bush faces grow harder. Did he respond with "get Saddam" to an event that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein? Did he worsen, instead of alleviating, the terrorist threat? The mere questions, to say nothing of the answers, are disquieting.
They expected Santa Claus and got Jon Lovitz.
There...that's better.
Remember, during
the Iraq war, Euro press
did tons of stories
on how the US
was losing ... Then, suddenly
the US had won!
If I remember,
BBC and French news groups
got in big trouble
in their own countries
for cranking out biased crap
that mis-led people.
Who'd-a-thunk-it, still
the Left-loving press fiction
writers are at work . . .
-Eric
'Nuff said.
All Willie's thugs and all dmes are motivated by self-loathing. They lied for Willie time and time again; he used them. They KNOW Willie was a lying piece of filth!! But, they lied for him and to get back some semblence of self-respect, they must make a Republican, any Republican, look bad. Yellow Cake Wilson and "Not Wesley" Clark are two example of Willie's filth who saw a shot at W and took it. It makes them look better in their own eyes and helps them say, "Willie wasn't as bad as we thought."
W!! Get rid of ALL the leftover Willie filth RIGHT NOW!!!
While we're piling on, this is also bunk. Powell is a Department head and testifies on a regular and routine basis. Condi Rice is part of the president's personal staff. Big difference.
For that he will follow his dad into oblivion.
BUMP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.