Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DeeGeMe
Then there was the Bush flip-flop on the whole "I'm against the 9/11 commission" then he was for it.
|
My favorite being the Washinton Times May 2002 headline "Bush Rejects Probe of 9/11: Will Not Give Up Sensitive Terror Papers." LOVE that headline.
And remember how the families of the 9/11 victims wanted Warren Rudman from New Hampshire to chair the commission once Bush bowed to public pressure? No, Bush said, I want...Henry Kissinger! Then Kissinger resigned three weeks later because, according to him, he didn't want to disclose secrets regarding his financial "conflicts of interest."
Yet all the right-wing assholes praise Bush for his "swift and resolute" action when it comes to investigating 9/11.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DeeGeMe
He was against the idea of a Centralized Intelligence Czar, and now he's for it. The list goes on and on and on and on. . . . .
|
They actually wanted to implement a Czar EIGHT MONTHS before 9/11, but Bush shot the idea down. The Gary Hart and Scott Rudman commission issued three national security reports and they pushed for the creation of not only an Intelligence Czar, but a Homeland Security Agency. So, essentially, the 9/11 commission's report gave the exact same advice that we were given four years ago. It's a farce.
Don't even get me started on how they try to blame Clinton for terrorism. My personal favorite argument from the right is how the WTC '93 bombing happened under his watch and he did "nothing." It's rather silly when you consider that Clinton had only been in office for 38 days when the WTC was attacked.
And Bush was in office for nine months, deciding not to implement any of the suggestions or policies that the Clinton administration told them to implement.