Sterling Ambivalence (sterlingnorth) wrote,
Sterling Ambivalence

Sorry Condi, you've lost my trust.

If I'm hearing the rebuttals correctly by the administration figureheads, they did listen to Richard Clarke but he was giving them too little in their mind to go after Al Qaeda. Condi Rice says that he either was giving them plans rejected by Clinton, or plans to "roll back" Al Qaeda wasn't enough.  Now, putting aside I have no clue what to "roll back" Al Qaeda means and how that is not different from trying to destroy Al Qaeda, the administration currently has no credibility on this whatsoever. If the administration wants me to believe that they were not blithely ignoring Al Qaeda before September 11th, and if they want me to believe that they are actively going after the group now, they are going to have to actually come out and tell me, you, and the American people exactly what they are doing. They do not have the credibility left to just assure us that they are doing their duty... they 'assured us' that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They assured us Saddam Hussein was hoping to sell nuclear arms he had to our enemies. They assured us that we would be out of Iraq in a year. In fact, if we move away from foreign policy, They assured us of a lot of things that turned out not to be true.  They lost the use of the no-evidence, 'trust us' assurance card. What, beside bombing Afghanistan (which is what Clarke was asking them to do) has the Bush administration done to fight terrorism. If they captured terrorists and put them in Guantanamo Bay, we should have names. If you're not going to tell us, you should at least tell the September 11th commission instead of trying tricks to stonewall your way out of it.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.