Cry wolf, please - Part III
Babble on.
As I was driving home from work tonight, CFRB 1010 switched from their normal programming to a radio network out of the U.S. To be honest, I was paying more attention to the traffic on Hwy 400 than I was to the radio. That changed when I heard the interviewer say that his guest was going to be Bill Clinton.
The first question thrown at Clinton was whether or not he thought the recent terror alert put out by the Bush administration was a political manoevre. His answer was a strong 'no.' In fact, he went on to say that those questioning whether the recently-gathered intelligence was dated and therefore unreliable were off-base.
The interview moved on, and Clinton subsequently questioned the war in Iraq, applauded Kerry's voting record, and generally shilled for the Democrats. But this arch-Democrat was completely unwilling to question the terror alerts. Why? Because for eight years he sat and listened at the security briefings, he reviewed the data on the terrorists, and he went to bed with the weight of responsibility for America's safety on his shoulders.
Clinton knows the hated Republicans aren't exaggerating this threat to score cheap political points, because even pre-9/11 the intelligence made a reluctant convert out of him. The danger is real. And it's long past time the Warren Kinsellas and Lawrence Martins of the world woke up to that fact like the rest of us adults have.
Babble off.
1 Comments:
I guess if you're inclined not to trust the Bush administration because it's the Bush administration, then you need some way to independently verify the alerts aren't politically motivated. OK, if that's how you want to spend your money.
What I'm pointing out is that there are Democrats out there (like Clinton and McPeak) who have practical, high-level experience and insight into the terrorist threat, who believe this issue is a molehill of a mountain. What do the sceptics know that these folks don't? Nothing.
Post a Comment
<< Home