Monday, December 29, 2003
From the William Safire article, linked to by Dan below:
Could somebody explain how these remarks are any different from Dean's oft-criticized remarks about Bush knowing about September 11? They are not different at all - both speakers are making a point about the dangers of secrecy - the fact that it can lead to wild speculation and general distrust in government. (Of course there is one key difference - Safire, unlike Dean, does not say that he believes these mysterious allegations are false.)
|
"That leaves Democratic primary voters to guess at what he's going to such great legal lengths to hide. Does an unsavory connection to an Enron subsidiary exist in his correspondence? Are there minutes of his meetings about same-sex civil unions that could come back to haunt him, or a pardon recommendation he wants sealed until he can laugh at voters' remorse? What could be so "embarrassing" at this 'critical time'?"
Could somebody explain how these remarks are any different from Dean's oft-criticized remarks about Bush knowing about September 11? They are not different at all - both speakers are making a point about the dangers of secrecy - the fact that it can lead to wild speculation and general distrust in government. (Of course there is one key difference - Safire, unlike Dean, does not say that he believes these mysterious allegations are false.)
Comments:
Post a Comment
