This is going to be a HARD election, information-wise; I'll need the Cliff Notes
On Dennis Miller's panel, David Horowitz said that the attack upon a president at war was unprecedented. He is right.
We are dealing with flat-out evil. I recommend heavy doses of prayer and reading of the Psalms.
"We should have a very low barrier in terms of acting when there is a threat of weapons of mass destruction being used against American citizens," says Clarke, brushing aside suggestions that a preoccupation with bin Laden has caused errors in judgment, such as the decision to retaliate for the attack on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 by bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, suspected of producing chemical agents. "We should not have a barrier of evidence that can be used in a court of law," Clarke says.Excerpted from "An Obscure Chief in U.S. War on Terror," Michael Dobbs, The Washington Post, April 2, 2000, Sunday, Final Edition, Pg. A01.He compares the current threat of global terrorism with the situation faced by Western democracies in the period leading up to World War II, when appeasement carried the day. Imagine what would have happened, he says, had Winston Churchill come to power in Britain five years earlier and "aggressively gone after" Nazi Germany. Hitler would have been stopped, but in all likelihood, Clarke says, Churchill would have gone down in history "as a hawk, as someone who exaggerated the threat, who saber-rattled and did needless things."