Malarkey
You may have heard some balderdash flying around about how the White House decided to let Condi Rice testify before the 9/11 commission in public (as opposed to the private testimony she already gave them) when they were shown photographs of Franklin Roosevelt's National Security Advisor giving testimony to a congressional committee investigating the Pearl Harbor bombings.
Well, that turns out not to be the case.
In case it matters to you, it never happened that way. The point is moot, but let's not let falsehoods go unmentioned.
Face it: the Democratic party, and the mainline media for that matter, need to read any member of the administration his Miranda rights prior to any discussion. They're acting like prosecuting attorneys over every single utterance, action, and policy of the administration. Anything W says can and will be used against him.
That's their prerogative, of course, although it's foolish and destructive.
It's interesting that you haven't mentioned anything that Sect. Powell has said lately which tend to support some of Clarke's claims. It's also interesting that neither Tenet nor Powell have been critical of Clarke. Hmmmm...wonder why that is?
Oh, I forgot, this is Bush country. Silly Timmy.
Silly Timmy, you quack me up. Bush country. You and I are living in Bush country everywhere, everywhere. Ya know, it is our state. Figure that one out silly Timmy. Darn you are cute in the funniest ways.
This stuff about Ms. Rice has me so, it has me so, sooo, I can't even talk about it. I better not find out that anything will happen to that fine lady, or the phone lines will have fury to pay. We'll have repairmen out fixing those lines from Texas to Washington. I have gone to bat for people and helped to change a law by speaking before a bunch of senators. I will take my bat and knock the ball into space for that lady.
What happened with Pearl Harbor and 9-11 are different. Pearl Harbor and our National Security back then and our National Security today. How do you compare? Somebody help me on this. How has the United States of America changed in the way we secure ourselves compared to when Roosevelt was in office?
There are people that read your blog Dean that can honestly answer that question with niether a democratic or republican centered mind.
I am smacking my forhead. One other time I smacked my forhead when trying to read something Paul, our dear funny minister wrote. His post was sooo deep when you all were discusing God.
How is America different from the Pearl Harbor Attack and the Attack on 9-11? What is the very root difference?
Dean, you rarely address things I post but I would really appreciate your input on this. How is it different? I would appreciate Arnolds answer and even you Tim since you are on the democratic side now. Geez...there is a big difference...
Oh nobody has to answer me. I am sounding off and I rarely get involved in political stuff because even tho' I love it somebody always, never mind.
Good link. Asumming this isn't a deliberate misrepresentation (and it might be), WTF is wrong with professional journalists these days, or have they always been this bad? I suppose modern journalists have more important matters on their minds than reading boring ol' web sites about dead people.
The link's been updated, Dean.
The story you linked to misses the point. The point is that the Admiral was on the staff of President Truman at the time he was called to testify before the commission in 1946. His position at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack was irrelevant. It was his contemporanious position on the White House staff at the time he was asked to testify that was/is the issue.