Richard Clarke and Bob Graham, two men with impeccable reputations on the subject matter, publicly blasted Bush last night for his handling of, or more accurately not handling, terrorism. What rock has the media been hiding under that they consider this debatable?
Clarke came out with some new points: Wolfowitz was into conspiracy theories blaming Iraq for al-Qaeda's terrorism (confirming what Abu Aardvark noted some months back) and belittled Osama as "that little guy", while the intelligence agencies were firm that there was no connection between Iraq and any terrorism against the United States since the attempt on Bush Sr.'s life in 1993. That's none. Nada. Even taking into consideration all the stuff they can't release to the public for national security reasons.
The Bush administration's rebuttal man was caught lying by the 60 Minutes crew when he denied that a meeting took place for which 60 Minutes had secured affirmations from two other people, including a witness. Now Bush has come out with a new rebuttal including the interesting bit that Bush was hard at work forming an anti-terrorism plan in spring and summer 2001, which is interesting because they went to Afghanistan using the anti-terrorism plan that Richard Clarke formed in late 2000.
In closing, I'll remind y'all of the Islamic Institute, Grover Norquist, the White House dinners for Sami al Arian and assorted terrorist supporters, the kissing up to Yasser Arafat, the Arbusto oil business connections, and so on, and declare that al-Qaeda could not have found a more terrorist-friendly American leader than George W. Bush.
Posted by Warrior Tang at March 22, 2004 07:17 AM