laupäev, märts 27, 2004
David Brooks Is Right. We're All Wrong.
A handful of thoughts on this story.
Setting aside the whole declassifying information for partisan purposes thing that should make every American sick, does this make sense?
Frist says Clarke lied in his testimony. He then acknowledges that he hasn't actually read it. I assume we can all see the logical disconnect there.
Bob Graham witnessed the testimony. He sees no contradiction.
The 9/11 commission has his testimony, they brought up no contradictions in his testimony, and they'll eventually release a report which would identify any contradictions. So we need to drag him through the mud now why? Oh, right. Because Bush is in trouble.
This has been pointed out a few places, but you apparently don't need to declassify this stuff to charge him with perjury, so this is clearly all about politics. Shouldn't it be a little unnerving that Frist cares more about making Clarke look bad than dealing with the issues Clarke raises or at least, you know, seeing his testimony before accusing him of lying?
How can Republicans not have a problem with all this?
Kerry's handling this brilliantly. He's not saying anything about the substance of the allegations or the work of the commission. He's refusing to politicize that and he's not endorsing Clarke's views, which would strengthen attacks on Clarke's partisanship. Instead he's asking the same questions anyone who's not completely blinded by Bush love should be asking. And he's observing that Bush has chosen to ignore what Clarke said and go after Clarke personally. He' absolutely right to stay out of it, though. Clarke can and will fight for himself.
Then again, David Brooks says Clarke's lying, so clearly I'm wrong.
I apologize. Mr. Brooks has shown me the error of my ways.
|
A handful of thoughts on this story.
Setting aside the whole declassifying information for partisan purposes thing that should make every American sick, does this make sense?
Frist says Clarke lied in his testimony. He then acknowledges that he hasn't actually read it. I assume we can all see the logical disconnect there.
Bob Graham witnessed the testimony. He sees no contradiction.
The 9/11 commission has his testimony, they brought up no contradictions in his testimony, and they'll eventually release a report which would identify any contradictions. So we need to drag him through the mud now why? Oh, right. Because Bush is in trouble.
This has been pointed out a few places, but you apparently don't need to declassify this stuff to charge him with perjury, so this is clearly all about politics. Shouldn't it be a little unnerving that Frist cares more about making Clarke look bad than dealing with the issues Clarke raises or at least, you know, seeing his testimony before accusing him of lying?
How can Republicans not have a problem with all this?
Kerry's handling this brilliantly. He's not saying anything about the substance of the allegations or the work of the commission. He's refusing to politicize that and he's not endorsing Clarke's views, which would strengthen attacks on Clarke's partisanship. Instead he's asking the same questions anyone who's not completely blinded by Bush love should be asking. And he's observing that Bush has chosen to ignore what Clarke said and go after Clarke personally. He' absolutely right to stay out of it, though. Clarke can and will fight for himself.
Then again, David Brooks says Clarke's lying, so clearly I'm wrong.
I apologize. Mr. Brooks has shown me the error of my ways.
