Why, exactly, am I supposed to trust the Bush Administration with the security of the United States? Over the weekend, Condi Rice admitted that the Bush Administration outed Kahn -- perhaps the deepest undercover agent we have ever had in al-Queda -- to the New York Times. The Bush Administration has been facing scepticism about it's most recent terror warning. COnsidering that the last terror warning was based on no new information, and considering that Tom Ridge used the announcement of this warning to stump for the Bush campaign, and considering that the Bush Administration has a history of releasing warnings on the heels of bad news for the Bush Campaign, the skepticism doesn't seem completely unwarranted. In the face of that skepticism, the Bush Administration has been strenuously defending the alert -- despite the fact that Laura Bush attended a campaign event in one of the buildings listed as under threat the day of the warning. Some have suggested that the outing was done as part of the campaign to convince the press that the alert was not based on political considerations. If true, the Bush Administration would have endangered national security in the hope of limiting the political damage of the impression that they damaged national security. The parallels to the Valerie Plame affair are almost sickening.
[. . .]
Entire post.
Why is everyone so surprised? The security of the nation means nothing to the current administration if it can't be used for political gain. They've already neutralized two important intelligence assets. It's sad when the majority of the public doesn't believe what their leaders are telling them with regard to their personal security. November can't come soon enough,
No comments:
Post a Comment