Saturday, September 09, 2006

The Silky Path to 9/11

Re(): "This is it: crunch time for getting the slanderous ABC television docudrama 'The Path to 9/11' yanked off the air.",, Ann Althouse
Re(): 'The Kerry Cabinet', National Journal, Carl M. Cannon

When one gets right down to it the controversy over ‘The Path to 9/11’ comes down to who is/was more serious with regards to defending the country. To that end, let us review the 2000 election:

Emphasis on National Defense:

Part of the 'W' election discussion centered on the military was becoming a 'hollow force' under the Clinton Administration - and that hollowing out would continue under Gore. A vote for 'W' in 2000 was a vote for increased emphasis on defense. A vote for Gore in 2000 was a vote for status quo regarding defense of our nation. Both potential Presidents could only affect the budget with their first Fiscal Year in office - ie. 2001/10/01 onward.

Which of these policies – ‘W’ or Gore – were more prescient to our times?
Vice President:

‘W’ chose a former Secretary of Defense for his Vice President. Al Gore selected
a Senator.

Which of these selections was more clearheaded given the issues of our times?
Secretary of Defense:

‘W’ chose a former Secretary of Defense as his Secretary of Defense. Al Gore kept is choices close to the vest, but was apparently thinking of keeping Cohen on the job or maybe selecting another Senator for the position.

Which of these choices has more gravitas?
Secretary of State:
‘W’ selected the former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff as his Secretary of State. Al Gore was apparently looking at Senator Sam Nunn or Ambassador Holbrooke.

In a war on terror, your selection can be a Senator or a General.
Who was more serious and farsighted in the run-up to his election? Why did Al Gore ‘keep his selections close to the vest’, while ‘W’ presented his choices to the voting public prior to the November 2000 election?

Now, let us get more current - that is, after 9/11:

Does anyone want a rundown of the potential cabinet positions of Senator John Kerry to determine the focus of a Kerry Presidency during a time of war. Apparently, here were his choices from the National Journal:
"Earlier this year, Kerry himself mentioned four names. Two of them, John Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona, are Republican senators. The other two are Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and former Clinton administration Pentagon chief William Perry."
Kerry wanted two Republican Senators, a Democratic Senator, or the wizard of Somolia William Perry.

The article also places the ever so serious Congressman John Murtha on a very long list...

The list is so long it is obvious that the position is a political one - not based on ability.

Who is still more serious about the 'Great War for Democracy’?

No comments: