latin for dummies

I'm being a complete and total politico geek and listening/watching the news while re-organizing and cleaning my bedroom and this Dick Clark character's criticism of the Bush Whitehouse. I am in awe of the Bush administration's reponse. Mr. Clark comes out with these allegations that Bushco tried to persuade Clark and his ilk to "find" information relating Iraq to the 9/11 attacks because, as Rumsfeld stated, there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan but there are plenty of them in Iraq.

These are really bad allegations, they are things that need to be addressed, if they are untrue, the administration should be going out and saying, "look, this guy is wrong". They are, with a few facts. They are going on the news and arguing that there's no record of Rusfeld saying this or Cheney saying that, but that's about it. The allegations, as a conspiracy of sorts, they are not denying.

There response, instead, is to attack Mr. Clark. For hours now I have seen a steady stream of Bush officials being interviewed complaining that Clark's publication of his book timed to his testimony before the 9/11 invetigation is lacking taste and that all sorts of bad things happened under his watch (the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, et al). That's what they got, that and some other, what the Romans called, ad hominem attacks. In logic that sort of thing is considered a fallacy...and in politics that sort of thing is called a admission of guilt.