Speaking of the Saudis
While I'm on an Instapundit kick, he excerpts a report from the Telegraph saying that Newsweek says that a joint congressional inquiry found that Saudi Arabia was deeply involved in the 9/11 attacks. (How's that for a chain of references?) The administration has apparently not released an entire section of the congressional report that has all the juicy details of how individuals working in Saudi consulates were intimately involved in the plot.
This, not to put to fine a point on it, is wrong. The administration should not be coddling the Saudis for at least ten reasons right off the top of my head, but certainly not if they were involved in the worst assault on America since the Second World War.
Though I have consistently defended the the decision to invade Iraq, and in general support the administration (I am a conservative, after all) I most certainly do not approve of this. This information needs to be disseminated, the American people (and everyone else, for that matter) need to know. There are good reasons for what we are doing in the war on terror. But it should not be me (God forbid) or the USS Clueless or other warbloggers pointing this out. The Bush administration should be out in public, letting us know and making the case for taking the fight to these terrorist sickos.
And while I'm on a roll, I hear that Adm. Buster Poindexter's TIA got its funding zeroed by the Senate. Good. The Patriot Act: I, II and N is a bad idea. Not increasing military funding or the size of the military when you're in a war is a bad idea. Not taking a really close look at how our intelligence system is working (and in terms of human intelligence, not working at all) is a very bad idea. There are questions, and I think the administration should be a lot more vocal about either answering them (if only to shut certain people up) or saying flat out that we don't know the answers yet. And with the Saudis, its time to call a spade a spade.
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
1) But... but... if we need
1) But... but... if we need to know it, they'll TELL us what we need to know!
Right?
2) Don't kid yourself. TIA got the big zero in the Senate's version of the budget, but there's plenty of undisclosed spending cash that can be diverted.
I was not sufficiently clear
I was not sufficiently clear - it's good that the Senate zeroed the funding. It will take more to drive the steak through the heart. Steaks are soft and blunt.
And I should think that you'd be more receptive to my criticism of the Bush administration. Sheesh, you can't win with these people...
Heh.
Sorry... I should have led
Sorry... I should have led with this:
HEAR HEAR! W00T!
Buckethead, when you buy your remote compound in the hills, can the Mrs. and I come join you?
Certainly. I can't think of
Certainly. I can't think of anyone I'd rather have with me when civilization collapses. We can be ironic and contemptuous of the rampaging barbarian hordes, and correct their grammar when they demand that we hand over our food and women. I'll tell them how their tactics are reminiscent of the Boers in 1902, and you can tell them (and me) the contrast between nineteenth and twentieth century union organization, and how their organization mirrors both.
You'll have to learn to shoot, though.
I know how to shoot, don't
I know how to shoot, don't worry. I just don't own a gun.
Make sure you get a huge gas tank for the generator. DVD's are a must!
Yes, we can watch Office
Yes, we can watch Office Space while Rome burns.