Thursday, March 25, 2004
Re:Re:Clarke - Hitting too close to home
Ramki, the first AQ attack took place under the Clinton administration. His admin was in-charge when the whole plot was hatched. Anyone could ask why more decisive action was not taken then? Bush could always argue that he was just 8 months in office when this attack took place. Do you think any President would have attacked a foreign country in this first few months in office? Highly unlikely. To that extent the Bushies have a strong argument.
I agree that its difficult to leave 9/11 out of the debate, but Kerry is better off not playing the blame game for 9/11. Its impossible to pinpoint blame on any one entity for something like this. One of the criticisms against Bush is that he is trying to use 9/11 for political purposes. Again, Kerry would want to remain above that debate and let the media do its job. Also, Bush is currently perceived as very strong on defence. All polls show that. Do you want to attack him on his strongest point at this time by making policy speeches that could backfire? Or do you want to focus on his weak point - the economy?
Further, the 9/11 commission in its interim report has sort of indicted both Clinton and Bush administrations. Their report is out in late July. You don;t want to make 9/11 too much of a political issue and then be forced to eat dirt at a later stage. I think Kerry is better off focusing on the Iraq war and its shortcomings and not explicitly using 9/11.
Richard Clarke is a good distraction from Kerry's perspective and is saying everything that Kerry would love to hear. I see no reason why Kerry would want to get into the mess.
Comments: Post a Comment