Hey numbnuts...if your own poster boy (ie Clinton) says that he thinks it was a good thing to go to alert and doesn't think it was politically motivated why in the hell should I even bother listening to you
Hey assclown...unlike Clinton, I'm not a former president who is bound by any considerations of presidential etiquette/protocol when it comes to criticizing the actions of your poster boy (i.e., the Saudi Sock Puppet) and his illegitimate administration.
A matter of trust
We learned today from both the New York Times and the Washington Post that most of the intelligence underlying yesterday's terror briefing from Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge is more than three years old.
Americans want to believe — and should be able to believe — that no matter how partisan the administration is, some things are beyond the reach of politics. Terror alerts ought to be one of those things. We ought to be confident that when a special report breaks in with news that the nation's security level has been raised, that it's not being manipulated for political ends.
But when Tom Ridge uses the announcement to campaign for President Bush and when the rise in alert status comes as the result of no new intelligence, why should we be surprised that many Americans and various news outlets have started to question whether these alerts are politically motivated?
And there's more. Yesterday Bush conducted a charade when he appeared in the Rose Garden to say that he was going to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, as the New York Times says today, Bush:
rejected the panel's most significant ideas, and thus missed a chance to confront the twin burdens he faces at this late point in his term: the need to get intelligence reform moving whether he's re-elected or not, and the equally urgent need to repair the government's credibility on national security.
And the Times reiterates the that the public is suspicious of these terror warnings, "suspicions the administration has sown by misleading the public on security." If the public cannot trust that President Bush won't politicize the most basic security information, how can we trust him on anything else?