For Morgans Benefit
WHAT I WROTE:
In the year 2000 when President George W. Bush was elected into office, did his predecessor, former-president Bill Clinton properly "supply" him and his administration with the necessary information regarding the Al Qaeda terrorist network and Osama Bin Laden? Condoleeza Rice, our Secretary of State, "denied that the Clinton administration presented the incoming administration of President George W. Bush with a 'comprehensive strategy' against al-Qaeda." Former-President Clinton says, "But at least I tried [to find bin Laden]. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They did not try. I tried."
Now, I'm not going to pretend (like many people who do write for this newspaper) that I'm any kind of political analyst. I have not gone to a college or university and studied politics, nor have I ever taken analytical politics101. What I will tell you, however, is that what is exchanged between Clinton and Condoleeza sounds a lot like political name calling. Former-President Clinton says, "So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy..." and Our Secretary of State says "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida." Let's go ahead and analyze those two quotes. Essentially, Mr. Clinton says that he did indeed leave behind a "comprehensive" anti-terror strategy, while Condoleeza Rice says he did not. I for one refuse to believe that the leadership of any country would overlook a document that had as much influence and importance as a "comprehensive terror strategy" document. If such a document existed in the first place, then it would have been put to use to circumvent the terrorist plot of September the 11th. Anyone who would argue that such a document existed, but was intentionally left unused by the Bush Administration, ought to be admitted into the closest asylum. Furthermore, anyone who argues that "George W. Bush is too stupid to use that document to his advantage," know this- our current President is not a stupid man, nor is he as dumb as many people make him out to be. A man who, according to well over eighty percent of the student population, is a blundering incoherent maniac with the intelligence of a kindergartener could not run a country as powerful and prestigious as the United States of America.
Unfortunately, the "comprehensive anti-terror strategy" document Clinton is referring to remains classified to this day, but that simple shred of evidence does in fact point out that such a document may indeed exist. Using our English skills, though, we determine that the word "comprehensive" is a word usually linked to opinions. "Comprehensive" to one person may be comparable to containing little or no information to another. Nonetheless, we must assume that if it had contained enough information, any administration, whether it be Bush's or Clinton's, would have been able to prevent or in some way protect us from terrorism pre-9/11. I believe that we can also safely conclude that both the politicians here are trying to do a little sheltering of their administrations. Clinton is trying to hold together what is left of his reputation and bitter-sweet administration days, and Condoleeza is standing by the President and the decisions that determine our welfare. As for the many democrats and anti-Bush demonstrators who twist the events that happened on September the 11th to their cause, shame on you. No one man, nor one administration can be blamed for these events, but let us instead rise up as a nation and fight back. Not only is this entire line of arguing and questioning a huge waste of time, but it deals with unchangeable events of the past. We are in Afghanistan now, doing our very best to find the man who killed all too many Americans. Let us not defile their memory even further by continuing to argue with each other, rather than going out and finding their chief murderer.
-Chris DellaValle
CDV779@aol.com
What I allowed myself to be reduced to:
I, for one, refuse to believe that the leadership of any country would overlook a document that had as much influence and importance as one containing a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy". If such a document existed in the first place, it would have been used to circumvent the terrorist plot of 9/11. Furthermore, any argument based on the Bush Administration leaving Clintons "strategy" intentionally unused is absolutely unjustifiable. To me, the exchange between Clinton and Condoleeza sounds like political name calling. It is a huge waste of time and isn’t helping with the present situation, which just leaves more room for our media to tear the Bush Administration apart just in time for the november elections.
In the year 2000 when President George W. Bush was elected into office, did his predecessor, former-president Bill Clinton properly "supply" him and his administration with the necessary information regarding the Al Qaeda terrorist network and Osama Bin Laden? Condoleeza Rice, our Secretary of State, "denied that the Clinton administration presented the incoming administration of President George W. Bush with a 'comprehensive strategy' against al-Qaeda." Former-President Clinton says, "But at least I tried [to find bin Laden]. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They did not try. I tried."
Now, I'm not going to pretend (like many people who do write for this newspaper) that I'm any kind of political analyst. I have not gone to a college or university and studied politics, nor have I ever taken analytical politics101. What I will tell you, however, is that what is exchanged between Clinton and Condoleeza sounds a lot like political name calling. Former-President Clinton says, "So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy..." and Our Secretary of State says "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida." Let's go ahead and analyze those two quotes. Essentially, Mr. Clinton says that he did indeed leave behind a "comprehensive" anti-terror strategy, while Condoleeza Rice says he did not. I for one refuse to believe that the leadership of any country would overlook a document that had as much influence and importance as a "comprehensive terror strategy" document. If such a document existed in the first place, then it would have been put to use to circumvent the terrorist plot of September the 11th. Anyone who would argue that such a document existed, but was intentionally left unused by the Bush Administration, ought to be admitted into the closest asylum. Furthermore, anyone who argues that "George W. Bush is too stupid to use that document to his advantage," know this- our current President is not a stupid man, nor is he as dumb as many people make him out to be. A man who, according to well over eighty percent of the student population, is a blundering incoherent maniac with the intelligence of a kindergartener could not run a country as powerful and prestigious as the United States of America.
Unfortunately, the "comprehensive anti-terror strategy" document Clinton is referring to remains classified to this day, but that simple shred of evidence does in fact point out that such a document may indeed exist. Using our English skills, though, we determine that the word "comprehensive" is a word usually linked to opinions. "Comprehensive" to one person may be comparable to containing little or no information to another. Nonetheless, we must assume that if it had contained enough information, any administration, whether it be Bush's or Clinton's, would have been able to prevent or in some way protect us from terrorism pre-9/11. I believe that we can also safely conclude that both the politicians here are trying to do a little sheltering of their administrations. Clinton is trying to hold together what is left of his reputation and bitter-sweet administration days, and Condoleeza is standing by the President and the decisions that determine our welfare. As for the many democrats and anti-Bush demonstrators who twist the events that happened on September the 11th to their cause, shame on you. No one man, nor one administration can be blamed for these events, but let us instead rise up as a nation and fight back. Not only is this entire line of arguing and questioning a huge waste of time, but it deals with unchangeable events of the past. We are in Afghanistan now, doing our very best to find the man who killed all too many Americans. Let us not defile their memory even further by continuing to argue with each other, rather than going out and finding their chief murderer.
-Chris DellaValle
CDV779@aol.com
What I allowed myself to be reduced to:
I, for one, refuse to believe that the leadership of any country would overlook a document that had as much influence and importance as one containing a "comprehensive anti-terror strategy". If such a document existed in the first place, it would have been used to circumvent the terrorist plot of 9/11. Furthermore, any argument based on the Bush Administration leaving Clintons "strategy" intentionally unused is absolutely unjustifiable. To me, the exchange between Clinton and Condoleeza sounds like political name calling. It is a huge waste of time and isn’t helping with the present situation, which just leaves more room for our media to tear the Bush Administration apart just in time for the november elections.