Tammy wrote:

".impervious" wrote in message ...
In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: In article ,
: (Tammy) wrote:
:
:
:: So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that
:: the GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released
:: positive information to the press and saved the negative information
:: until after he left the White House.
::
:: There are three things to keep in mind.
::
:: 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
:: poster child for anti-GOP views.
:
: He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
: administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
: effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a
: dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.


He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
not to quit.

"they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned... and so did the NEXT guy
who had the job, for the same reason.

:: Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
:: that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.
:
: No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
: understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
: during the worst terror attacks in history.


They didn't just get rid of him, they downgraded the position of
anti-terrorism coordinator. According to testimony by White House
witnesses (those put in front of the panel by the White House) and
public statements from Cheney, Rice, and others, the position of
anti-terrorism coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" (i.e.
high priority) position to "Deputy" (medium priority) position. Unless
you are going to claim that downgrading the priority from high to
medium is not a lowering the priority, or claim that Cheney and Rice
are lying, you have to take the position that Bush deemphasised (lower
the priority of) efforts to fight terrorism. Or you could take my
grandmother's attitude and say that the proof is in the pudding.

Or, I guess, you could be a GOP and accuse me of being a moron and a
lefty. That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
brought us 9/11.

Bush has claimed that 9/11 is an example of the "successes" of his
administration. He has also made fun of 9/11 and the search for WMD.
His failed policies have brought us unemployment, war, death, and
fiscal ruin. It is my position that anyone who supports Bush is a
traitor. You cannot be both a patriot and support the destruction of
this country.

Very well said, Tammy.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748