JDG wrote:
At 06:55 PM 9/6/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:That presumes a cover-up.
It doesn't presume a cover up. It presumes what Grahm says is true. If it's true then there _is_ a cover up. So prove him wrong.
Uh yeah.... that's what I said. If, however, what Graham is saying is not true - and well, he's only waited until the thick of election season and
what appears to be the Kerry campaigns' darkest hour to make these
allegations - then there is no need for me to "defend a cover-up."
You can't rebut an argument on its timing John. Like the swift boat liars, you have to attack its efficacy. If you don't like the way politics in this country work do what you can to change the system.
There is, however, need for you to defend your hypocrisy on this issue, as the single most sensitive person on Brin-L to any charge that might
possibly be construed as impugning a Democrats' patriotism. I defy you to explain how you have not just engaged in the very behavior you have so
roundly condemned ad nauseam on this List.
This doesn't have anything to do with patriotism; this has to do with the conduct of the president and his administration. This is way beyond petty bickering about who is the most patriotic.
While I wait for your defense, I will profer one simple explanation - and I> have only heard one side of the story (a side with very suspicious timing I> might add) - is that government officials did not believe that the
evidenece a) merited prosecution, b) was sufficient to convict, or c) would> have resulted in extradition.
You, however, did not consider any alternative explanations. Rather, you immediately attacked President Bush's *motives*. You have said directly
that Bush has taken direct action to aid and comfort the enemies of the
United States, which attacked us 11 September 2001. Indeed, you have
clearly called Bush a traitor. This is, of course, the single most
serious charge you could make about a Republican politician - quite a bit
more serious than merely being "unpatriotic." Yet, you have repeatedly
stated that the charge of "unpatriotic" (which in most (almost all?) cases is not made directly by Republicans - certainly not by anyone on this List) is beyond the pale for Democrats. Yet the charge of "traitorism" is fair play for Republicans?
ShrubCo infers that anybody that doesn't agree with them on certain subjects such as the war is unpatriotic. That's pure politics. Impeding an investigation is not just politics and is beyond any argument about patriotism.
You also wrote:Do you think anyone complicit in the 9/11 attacks should go free?
I think the above quote illustrates everything that is wrong with the
Democrats' thinking on national security issues for the past several years. This is *not* a criminal investigation. This is a War. Bush's
fundamental goal is not to round up every participant in the 11 September
2001 attacks, bring them to trial, and place them in jail. (Heck, that's not even the goal of every anti-mafia criminal investigation, but I
digress....) The fundamental goal is to root out all those individuals
who are currently waging war against us around the world, and prevent them from launching further attacks against us.
Exactly. And the more we know, the more the Saudis look like the ones we should be after.
This leads me to another possible explanation - again, I have only heard
one very partisan side of this story - is that the links Bush suppressed
were being subverted as part of a counter-intelligence operation.
Alternatively, there could have been some program in place in which a
determination was made that these Saudis were small fry, and they would be permitted to remain for other concessions from the government of Saudi
Arabia, or again, in order to follow them as part of some ongoing
intelligence operation. I would point out that this explanation was
precisely the case the last time Democrats started impugning the patriotism of President Bush - in regards to the terror warning before the Democratic National Convention.
Oh I see, Bush can out a CIA agent _to the press_ for political reasons and they can out an Al Quida mole _to the press_ for political purposes, but when a commission of cleared individuals that have every reason to expect access to information that they require to conduct an investigation, they are denied to protect an intelligence operation.
Both of these accusations remind me of the recent _The West Wing_ episode, in which a Republican Speaker of the House had temporarily assumed the
Presidency, as President Bartlett had invoked the 25th Amendment while his daughter was held hostage. White House staffer Josh Lyman was becoming
worried sick that the Republicans would use their moment in the Presidency to advance their Agenda - and confronts a leading Republican staffer about> their intentions. The Republican points out that the nation is at war,
and in such circumstances the institution matters more than the man - "And anyone who thinks otherwise has a particularly craven view of politics."
You're living in fantasy land, John. The more I find out about Bush, the more I realize that he just doesn't care very much about the institution.
The Democrats have such a craven view of politics that they believe that the Republicans could place the nation on a terrorism alert in order to deflate their opponents' poll numbers. Now, we find that Democrats believe that the Republicans would actually fail to actively pursue those who attacked us - for what, personal business interests????
For their friends - where their true loyalty lies.
President Bush knows that this country is at war. He specifically gambled his entire Presidency on attacking Iraq because he deeply felt it was the
right and necessary thing to do. You may disagree with the accuracy of
his judgement on this, but you certainly cannot doubt his motives.
Oh yes I can and I do. He thought Iraq would be the proverbial slam dunk. Have you forgotten "Mission Accomplished" He thought that by now he'd be running for reelection as the great liberator and protector from WMDs. Instead he's led us into a Viet Nam type quagmire that has alienated the whole world and polarized the nation.
As I stated above, the more we know, the more we find that the Saudis are more culpable for 9/11 than Hussain ever was. Weâre fighting the wrong war against the wrong people.
Winning this war motivates every decision with regards to terrorism alerts and counter-intelligence that is made. And anyone who thinks otherwise
has a particularly craven view of politics.
Anyone who believes that is blinded by his loyalty.
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
