teisipäev, märts 30, 2004
Corroboration
This is exactly the issue with Richard Clarke. Everything he's saying is backed up by numerous sources. Some of them are more credible than others, but there's no reason Bob Woodward, Hugh Shelton, Don Kerrick, and Brian Sheridan would all be lying. Well, I'm sure there's some reason Ann Coulter could come up with, but realistically, shouldn't we all consider that maybe they're telling the truth?
And so what if they are?
The most baffling thing about all this is that the charges themselves are not all that bad. Pre-9/11 ignorance is understandable and nobody, despite the insistence of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, is actually saying that Bush should have stopped the attacks from happening. Clarke is suggesting that there might have been a slight chance to do so if there was more intelligence sharing, but again, that seems like something everyone can agree with. But so far, nobody I've seen except Richard Perle has actually challenged Clarke on the substance of his arguments instead of spreading lies about his character. I don't like Perle very much and I don't agree with him, but I have to say I respect him for trying to keep the discourse at the level Clarke intended. The fundamental question here really is whether Bush or Clarke has a better understanding of how to combat terrorism. That's the debate we should be having and instead it gets buried by a White House that is terrified of having to justify its actions.
|
This is exactly the issue with Richard Clarke. Everything he's saying is backed up by numerous sources. Some of them are more credible than others, but there's no reason Bob Woodward, Hugh Shelton, Don Kerrick, and Brian Sheridan would all be lying. Well, I'm sure there's some reason Ann Coulter could come up with, but realistically, shouldn't we all consider that maybe they're telling the truth?
And so what if they are?
The most baffling thing about all this is that the charges themselves are not all that bad. Pre-9/11 ignorance is understandable and nobody, despite the insistence of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, is actually saying that Bush should have stopped the attacks from happening. Clarke is suggesting that there might have been a slight chance to do so if there was more intelligence sharing, but again, that seems like something everyone can agree with. But so far, nobody I've seen except Richard Perle has actually challenged Clarke on the substance of his arguments instead of spreading lies about his character. I don't like Perle very much and I don't agree with him, but I have to say I respect him for trying to keep the discourse at the level Clarke intended. The fundamental question here really is whether Bush or Clarke has a better understanding of how to combat terrorism. That's the debate we should be having and instead it gets buried by a White House that is terrified of having to justify its actions.
