|
|
|
Non-partisan? Really? Mr. O'Connor's list of what needs to be investigated reeks of bias against the Bush administration. He doesn't even attempt to gloss over the glaring ineptness (and that's putting it mildly) of the Clinton administration where terrorism is concerned. Not a mention here of Clinton's own admission (in his own words-you can hear the audio at newsmax.com) that he didn't get bin Laden when the guy was offered to him. Come on Rory, where's your non-partisanship? Did this fact just slip your non-partisan mind? Oh yeah, how about mentioning that the US kept getting bombed, over and over again during the Clinton administration? But those bombings were just accidents, right? Couldn't possibly have happened because the Clinton administration couldn't bring itself to protect the country? |
|
Hi Vi, when Peter Lance was in the news a few weeks ago all of my posts were about him. Most of my posts last week were about Rory O'Connor, Kristen Breitweiser, and Sibel Edmonds because they were in the news last week. Lance is just as critical of the Clintons as all the others are of Bush. I don't think Rory ever claimed to be non-partisan himself, he is just calling for a non-partisan investigation. As it is, the 9/11 Commission was staffed with people like Dieter Snell, Jamie Gorelick, Philip Zelikow, and Slade Gorton who were more interested in covering up ANY potential political embarassment than in finding out the truth. Your ID still has posting authority, so if there is something I'm failing to cover, then post it! |
|
You have a short memory, Vi. Months ago I described the rationale explaining both the right AND the left's unwillingness to examine Able Danger as "a bi-partisan cover up of stunning intelligence failures dating back at least three administrations." I've also written extensively and repeatedly about the attack on the USS Cole -- a seminal and still-largely misunderstood event in the ongoing "war of terror" that of course happened on Clinton's watch. |
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan |