[spindoctor]

Time magazine makes allegations against Bush. The networks pick it up to make sure it spreads throughout the land just before the election. The objective is to diminish Clinton's culpability by casting suspicion on Bush. (In other words, Clinton is no more at fault than Bush for the attacks). They also hope this strategy will weaken Bush's popularity. And in turn weaken republican's chances.

[KSCITYBOY]

I saw CBS drag this out this morning --- I was so pissed about it --- I went to voted and voted against every tax on the ballot regardless of it's merit just to hurt our democrapic gov.

[My2Cents]

The objective is to diminish Clinton's culpability by casting suspicion on Bush. (In other words, Clinton is no more at fault than Bush for the attacks).

This is another media-spawned spin towards "moral equivalency." They promote Clinton by saying he's no worse than other Presidents. But this piece in Time is even more flagrant. It implies that Clinton had the plan to wipe out al-Qaeda, but that Bush didn't implement it. This makes Clinton seem superior.

The whole Time piece is rubbish. Sure, Sandy Berger may have given Time a few choice quotes about the "Clinton plan," but he has an interest in protecting is own rather substantial rearend on this matter....AND, by the way, the Clinton Administration has a trackrecord of simply making things up as they go. If they said they had a plan, you can bet they didn't have one, and are now lying simply to elevate their sorry carcasses in the eyes of history. As someone on FR recently said, Clinton is a "pink turd of a man..." That characterization applies to most in his Administration.

Your basic point -- to tear down Bush before the elections -- is spot on, btw.