> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>> So I think the American people have this one right. Don't play blame
>> games
>> for 911 itself-- have a real debate about what we should have done
>> and need
>> to do now to protect Americans from terrorism in the future.
>
> So how can you disentangle "blame" or at least responsibility for 9/11
> from the "real debate" you talk about? Clarke's point is that the
> Bushies were so obsessed with Iraq as to ignore the threat of Al
> Queda. That point is clearly right--Rice in her testimony as much as
> admitted that in any number of ways, but especially when she said that
> it wasn't until the 34th meeting of the National Security prinicpals
> that AQ and terrorism were on the table. (And Iraq, as we know, was on
> the table in the very first meeting.) Even if you don't believe there
> was a "magic bullet" for preventing 9/11, you _do_ have to believe
> that, were the administration disposed to concentrate, 9/11 _might_
> have been foiled or delayed, even if not entirely intentionally. If
> you don't believe that, then there is no point in the debate you talk
> about.
>
> You have to be schizophrenic to believe that the two issues can be so
> nicely separated--which is why the American people have done it so
> nicely.
I think you misunderstand Nathan's argument because you miss (or possibly contest--it is contestable) a point of fact on which it rests: A large segment of the American people, particularly moderate Republicans and swing voters, are giving very serious thought to ripping George Bush a new asshole over this. We don't need to jiggle their elbows.
Maybe I'm wrong,
John A