WTF Is It Now?!?

Dan Rather's still got it:

Rather called Don Imus back Friday to protest that he "never said the attorney general was warned specifically about 9/11 threats and therefore covered his own security." But Rather escalated the dispute instead, insisting that Ashcroft's conduct "doesn't look particularly good" when contrasted with the failure to warn American passengers. "Maybe it would be better for him to spend a little less time trying to sully up my reputation in a way and cover his backside and more time trying to get things straight."

- - from Whoreward Kurtz's basically worthless column.


Letters to the Editor:

Just because George W. Bush has proved to be a strong commander in chief*, let's not lose sight of the fact that he leaves much to be desired as a president. He is a still a shill for the religious right, a crony of big business and big oil, and, most importantly, he is still merely a politician looking to be re-elected. It's the latter that troubles me the most. To be against Bush is to be against the war and to be against the war is to be against America. Ask the Democrats. They're having difficulty voicing any opinion remotely critical of "W" and his agenda. Perhaps the member of his cabinet that personifies this the most is Vice President Dick Cheney (a more arrogant, patronizing "public servant" I have not seen since Richard Nixon). Cheney avails himself to the American people only to remind us that there are many things we do not know about.


I can't believe I'm hearing how beside themselves Republicans are because this administration is being questioned on what was known before 9/11. Take Sen. Trent Lott, who has indignantly asked who would dare accuse a president of knowingly permitting an attack on the United States? Where has he been? For over 60 years, some have been trying to demean the greatness of Franklin Roosevelt, accusing him of having prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Suddenly it is unpatriotic and politically motivated to ask how much was known by this administration before 3,000 people went to their deaths. I guess what Republicans are saying is that Sept. 11 is not as important as Clinton's alleged Whitewater scandal and his indiscretions, which was nobody's business but his wife's. They obviously want to brush under the rug the way they tried to disgrace a sitting president at a taxpayer's cost of over $60 million. But God forbid that the public should ask what did you servants of the people know and why was it kept from us for over eight months after the tragedy?


How Ironic. George W. Bush, in reference to lifting the trade embargo on Cuba, declared that to do so would be to "underwrite tyranny, and we cannot let that happen." I'm sure our friends in Saudi Arabia and China will back us up on that. He later added that the embargo might be lifted if Cuba holds "free and fair" elections. Perhaps after that happens, Cuba would be kind enough to show us how it's done.


Warnings foreshadowing the Sept. 11 attacks were suppressed for several reasons. Preventive action would have involved Saudi Arabian nationals, and Saudi princes get upset whenever U.S. law enforcement investigates Saudis. The lobby funded by the Saudi princes - claiming to speak for the whole Arab-American community - would have expressed outrage. If the Saudi princes played their oil card, the oilmen running the Bush administration would risk losing their fortunes and political power. Consequently, they would have punished top FBI officials severely for enraging Saudi princes, even if this were necessary to prevent 3,000 deaths. The Bush administration cannot escape responsibility for withholding information that could have averted the Sept. 11 attack.

- - from NY Newsday

*sez you