Politics in the AM

Someone asked yesterday why people might hate Bush and by extension, its administration.

Here's a list of 13 reasons why I find Bush less than desirable:

http://www.danconley.com/archives/000305.htm

Point, Counterpoint

Here are some articles from around the web on the Clarke/Iraq bruhaha. Or bally hoo, if you prefer.

First, from Salon.com:
How the war in Iraq has damaged the war on terrorism
A terrorism expert formerly on the National Security Council explains why Richard Clarke is right and Condoleezza Rice is wrong.

( Read more... )

Then, from the wild 'n crazy right wingey-dingies from the National Review:

“Don’t Look at Me”
Dick Clarke’s reversed reality.
( Read more... )

I'm not so sure Ms. Mylroie is all that reliable a source. Others who were very close to our intelligence data seem to support Clarke's hypotheses.

Furthermore, in doing a search on Google, there is some evidence that she's a crackpot. I think the fact that she mentions the since debunked Prague Connection with Iraq and Al Qaeda lends credence to that assessment. I have had time to check on her criticisms of of Clarke's factual errors. But her Pan Am terrorism gripe is a little touchy. Technically, yes, it was not under Bush's presidency, but it was December 21, 1988, within days before his innauguration. By then, I would gather he was already involved in Presidential issues preparing to assume full leadership.

Anyway, in short, I still think the National Review is full o' crap. I know it is wrong to want to throttle conservatives like Hannity(maybe I should call him Assinannity or Headinassity), O'Reilly(I prefer O'Viley), but there are somedays when I think it would feel good to be a gangsta.

Thank you, and goodnight.