It's immaterial to me whether you convince each other about the status of the WTC. I haven't seen anyone claim that the administration should have known an attack on that particular building was going to occur. Rather, the suggestion is that an investigation and contingency plan should have been done.
For example, I don't know Rice's exact job description--perhaps someone can explain it to me. I become irate at her contention that the memo didn't include a plan of action. My understanding is that she gets these periodic memos, then she starts to create a plan of action. Isn't that her job? I don't know why a Standford alum, arguebly in the highest security position, is being allowed for claiming "that's not my job" or "it didn't provide the complete picture."
They had less accurate information to act upon in the case of Iraq and the adminstration certainly didn't hedge their comments, then. Why should it be given a pass at this information's incompleteness. From the sections I've seen, it looks extremely suggestive--certainly enough to warrant follow up.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|