Barry SCHWARTZ (Barijo ŜVARC) (chemoelectric) wrote,

Philip Shenon and Richard W. Stevenson report in the New York Times that:
One outside adviser to the White House said the administration expected the debate over Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda to be "a regular feature" of the presidential campaign.

"They feel it's important to their long-term credibility on the issue of the decision to go to war," the adviser said. "It's important because it's part of the overall view that Iraq is part of the war on terror. If you discount the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, then you discount the proposition that it's part of the war on terror. If it's not part of the war on terror, then what is it — some cockeyed adventure on the part of George W. Bush?"

My first inclination was to LOL, but the gravity of the situation was too much.

For the "advisor" to have asked that rhetorical question, would not he or she have had to mentate about Bush's cockeyed adventure as such? Read Richard Clarke's book to the end. Even if you "felt" as I did about the degree to which Bush has screwed things up, you might not understand the depth of it until you look at "things" from Clarke's point of view. We are so hosed....

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded