Friday, April 09, 2004
Fair and Balanced ...Though it is my favorite pastime (just short of playing computer games) to bash Bush, I think I need to show my softer side today. I realize this is already ancient news but I am a slow thinker. Consider this a case of Treppenwitz. All this hullabaloo over Condi Rice's testimony is--in my most humble opinion--making the Democrats look like the bad guys. Let me explain why. 1. The fact that she is not releasing her speech notes is based on an important precedent. Just because it's an election year does not mean this precedent should be negated. And it would be negated if the oval office did this "just this once". These issues are like toothpaste--easy to squeeze out but hard to take back. 2. It is just silly to think that Bush's administration could have anticipated the 9/11 attacks any better than Clinton's (or Gore's) might have--and absolutely preposterous to think that they *did* know about it and didn't try and stop it. Bush ain't great, in my opinion, but he isn't a traitor for God's sake. 3. While Dr. Rice isn't exactly coming off as a world-class leader in this situation (she seems to be offering excuses, and doesn't seem to have been initiating a lot of action) some of her excuses are truly good excuses. 4. Are the Democrats hunting for clues that Bush had his sights set on Iraq before 9/11? Well ... duh! 5. Instead of taking a level-headed approach to the problem, some opportunists took this as a chance to attack Bush's administration instead of solving the real problems in government. They've even gone so far as to do some unfair editing of the hearing transcripts. News flash: There are plenty of REAL ways to attack Bush. Pick your battles, you dorks! Why aren't we, instead, asking the question "Maybe we should consider the National Security Advisor's role as a non-partisan role that doesn't get swapped out every frickin' four years?" Rice's testimony does hint at the massive complexity of inheriting the previous administration's intelligence and trying to make sense of it. This is something that few people have probably ever considered. Well now we know. If I remember right, Greenspan's role is actually appointed by the President, but that every President wisely re-appoints him. Well speaking of precedent, maybe the role of National Security Advisor should be handled in a similar manner.