assilem, you are the one trying to draw a parallel with the other thread. "No one knows" is precisely my point. If you have no evidence that the similarity between the Bush and Clinton situations is anything more than superficial, then your point is completely without merit. The burden isn't mine to find evidence which supports your position, it's yours.
Like I said before, I think the situation with Bush is relevant because he is a candidate to be our leader for the next four years. If, as it seems to me, he is unable to face a simple commission without help from others, and if he is unwilling or unable to answer the simplest of questions even when repeated, I think that casts some doubt on his ability to lead our nation. Whether or not the same is true of Clinton is largely immaterial because he isn't a candidate for president.
Quote:
Originally posted by assilem
This committee should not have even taken place until terrorism and extremism is overcome. They did not hold any committees on Pearl Harbor until well after the war was over. It just gives the enemies of the peace loving people of earth fodder.
|
The objective of the commission is to fully understand the failures which allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed. By understanding these failures, we can hopefully avoid repeating our mistakes. In other words, the commission itself is a tool to help prevent future terrorism. Such a committee would be without purpose if it were held after all terrorism had somehow been vanquished.
Furthermore, do you really believe there will be a moment when we can say, "Terrorism has been overcome. Nobody will ever attempt a terrorist act ever again"? This is going to be a continuing struggle for the foreseeable future. So when do you think this commission should be held?
I understand your point about partisan politics, and I fully agree. I despise the two party system in this country, and personally believe we would be better off without it. However, you haven't provided enough evidence to conclude that partisan politics is the only reason that the Bush/Cheney joint testimony story has come to the forefront.
I think any time a political figure blatantly refuses to answer a simple question, it should raise an eyebrow. Go ahead and dig up some similar examples for other politicians (say Clinton or Kerry). I'd be happy to see them. Be careful though, I only have two eyebrows...
