A foiled attack in 2002?
Bush said the other day that, in conjunction with several Asian nations, a terrorist attack was foiled in 2002. The mayor of LA, Antonio Villaraigosa, said:
"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president — but somebody."
The White House says that they informed the mayor's office in advance of the president's Wednesday remarks.
Villaraigosa may very well have been in the dark. After all, the attacks were supposedly foiled in 2002. He wasn't elected until May of 2005, so he obviously wasn't informed when it happened. He might have been informed (in the most general of terms) when he was sworn in. His office might have gotten a call on Wednesday, but since the call didn't concern an imminent threat, it went into the slush pile. I suppose phone records would show this, but I suspect that a certain percentage of the populace wouldn't accept phone records as proof.
Bush is in a quandry here. If he discusses the war on terror, especially mentioning any foiled plots (aside from any legal implications it would have on the prosecution of the plots), Dems can claim that he is playing the fear card. In the meantime, Dems can go out and proclaim that Bush hasn't made us safer in the last four years, that things are getting worse. Logically, that would be the fear card as well - both sides are playing it here. One side says "See, bad things have been prevented, but are still a threat," and the other says "Bad things have happened, and worse things will happen, unless you get rid of Republicans." One strikes me as being a little less reprehensible at the moment.
"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president — but somebody."
The White House says that they informed the mayor's office in advance of the president's Wednesday remarks.
Villaraigosa may very well have been in the dark. After all, the attacks were supposedly foiled in 2002. He wasn't elected until May of 2005, so he obviously wasn't informed when it happened. He might have been informed (in the most general of terms) when he was sworn in. His office might have gotten a call on Wednesday, but since the call didn't concern an imminent threat, it went into the slush pile. I suppose phone records would show this, but I suspect that a certain percentage of the populace wouldn't accept phone records as proof.
Bush is in a quandry here. If he discusses the war on terror, especially mentioning any foiled plots (aside from any legal implications it would have on the prosecution of the plots), Dems can claim that he is playing the fear card. In the meantime, Dems can go out and proclaim that Bush hasn't made us safer in the last four years, that things are getting worse. Logically, that would be the fear card as well - both sides are playing it here. One side says "See, bad things have been prevented, but are still a threat," and the other says "Bad things have happened, and worse things will happen, unless you get rid of Republicans." One strikes me as being a little less reprehensible at the moment.
posted by Garou at 9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home