$8.8 Billion Sandbox

I’m not a big fan of the sensationalist American political shows, from the right or left.  I think Rush Limbaugh’s a blowhard and Al Franken, while sometimes funny, comes across as an ass.  But Franken’s point in this post of the $8.8 billion that was mis-managed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and how it completely disappeared as a legitimate "big story" is a valid one.

Unfortunately in the same post he also wonders (conjectures?) if all the security alerts in ’04 were politically motivated on behalf of the President’s re-election campaign.  If not why haven’t there been any since the election?

It’s that kind of silliness that kills these extremists’ legitimacy with middle-of-the-roaders like me, and so we tend to miss their valid points.  Too bad.


Discover more from Befuddled

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “$8.8 Billion Sandbox

  1. Hammer's avatarHammer

    Tom Ridge said: “More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it,” Ridge told reporters. “Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don’t necessarily put the country on (alert). … There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, ‘For that?'”
    If you believe Ridge, the question is who could force him to raise the threat level? Ridge was a cabinet-level offical, answering directly to the President. Why would the White House force Ridge to raise the terror level against his better judgment? Politics is the most obvious answer.

    Reply
  2. Jon Lowder's avatarJon Lowder

    First, thanks for the comment. Second, you bring up a good point. Third, I guess my gut tells me that there is some political motivation there, but I don’t want to believe it and I don’t want to let myself become too cynical.
    Unfortunately I think that our world leaders have done nothing to justify us NOT being cynical. That goes for all of our Presidents, not just Bush II. After all he isn’t the one who debated the meaning of “is.”
    Still, the stakes are so big in this case that I just don’t want to believe that politics can be that big a factor in the decision making. Perhaps it’s naive, but I’m just not ready to be that cynical. Yet.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Hammer Cancel reply