"Ross Archer" wrote in message
om...

Of course, this is a very close analogy of what Bush, Ashcroft, and
Cheney did, but with respect to 9/11 and its investigation, and the
Patriot Act, and the 9/11 dead. They resisted learning the facts (or
resisted letting us learn the facts, at any rate), and offered a
blatantly unconstitutional assault on our basic liberties as the
solution to a problem that they hopefuly simply did not understand.
(The alternative is altogether more sinister.)

Since we're so fond of the phrase "of course," let's point out, of
course, that this entire scenario is only a "very close analogy" to
the extent it's concocted in your own eyes (or possibly copted from
some other source). Of course, your allegation of a "blatantly
unconstitutional assault on our basic liberties" is also pure
unsupported supposition and reflects your political perspective more
than anything else.






The fact that this Administration was for quite some time more
interested in blaming the intelligence community than actually
finding
out what happened, should be adequate to make a Prima Facie case to
suspect wrongdoing (negligence) by this Administration, with respect
to exercising their duty to protect the American people. What are
they
hiding?

Isn't it also interesting that a "truth-teller" such as yourself
refuses to recognize that the intelligence community has been "blamed"
in every post-9/11 report by bodies other than the Administration
(e.g., the Senate report and the 9/11 report)? But, of course, those
are facts inconvenient to your scenario, so why mention them. Of
course, it's also fascinating that, being such a student of history,
you are far more concerned with the firast nine months of a Bush
Administration as opposed to the eight years of a Clinton
Administration when it comes to negligence. But then, why substitute
logic for political rhetoric?


Get your news from generally-respected wide-circulation *newspaper*
sources. Not Washington Times (the "Moonie" cult-owned newspaper),
however. Include at least one foreign news source in your daily
reading routine. Prepare to be horrified at what the Canadians or
British are saying about us. Become informed. And then do your duty
and vote. For anybody but George W. Bush, because four years of an
outlaw regime is four years too many.

That would, no doubt, mean "generally respected" in -your-
circles--perhaps the disgraced New York Times? Or bastions of
objectivity like the LA Times that propagate your party line to those
consumed by hatred for Bush.