1 posted on
03/23/2004 1:25:05 AM PST by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Don't Be A Dick.
2 posted on
03/23/2004 1:27:34 AM PST by
RichInOC
(I may be a Rich, but I'm not a Dick.)
To: kattracks
What a despicable vermin. I would not have been as generous by not assigning blame to the past administration. I think President Bush expected the Clintonistas to behave honorably or at least be ashamed of their security failures. Guess he just doesn't understand the rat mentality and genetic lack of shame. And they just keep repeating the big lies over and over knowing some of them will be eventually accepted as "truth".
3 posted on
03/23/2004 1:55:31 AM PST by
lainde
(Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
To: kattracks
This is part of an orchestrated campaign. The attack dogs are unleashed. Clarke, Carter, Kennedy. And in when Bush tries to defend himself Kerry steps forward and says: look, he's going negative.
5 posted on
03/23/2004 2:19:20 AM PST by
samtheman
To: kattracks
Ouch, that's gotta leave a mark. The self-loathing Rats in this country have been politicizing the victims of 9/11 and the fallen and injured soldiers in the WoT since early October 2001 as we were entering Afghanistan.
No calumny is too mild for such hollow, hateful people.
To: kattracks
Is this really a sentiment that mainstream Democrats want to support and echo? Have you not been paying attention for the last three years John? Except for a very brief period following 9/11/01, the Democrats and the Partisan Media have been saying just that.
8 posted on
03/23/2004 2:42:02 AM PST by
PogySailor
(Proud member of the RAM)
To: kattracks
Clarke is known for his aggressive -- sometimes abrasive -- personality and for his willingness to bypass bureaucratic channels.
Under Clinton, he was known to contact Special Forces and other military commanders in the field directly, irritating the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon.
Some senior CIA officials under Clinton complained that Clarke pressed them to launch covert programs without adequate preparation or study, said Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief.
"He gave the impression he was somewhat of a cowboy," Cannistraro said. "There was no love lost between Clarke and the CIA."
Clarke managed largely to avoid Washington's finger-pointing over failures to anticipate the September 11 attacks, even though he was the top counterterrorism adviser and he was replaced by the White House in that role less than one month later.
9 posted on
03/23/2004 2:49:22 AM PST by
kcvl
To: kattracks
Clarke, eyes wide shut...
11 posted on
03/23/2004 3:26:22 AM PST by
binger
To: kattracks
I love the sarcsasm of this piece.
12 posted on
03/23/2004 3:45:08 AM PST by
SkyPilot
To: kattracks
BTTT
To: kattracks
Best Article I've read so far........
15 posted on
03/23/2004 3:58:26 AM PST by
Fiddlstix
(This Space Available for Rent or Lease by the Day, Week, or Month. Reasonable Rates. Inquire within.)
To: kattracks
Oooh, smackdown!
16 posted on
03/23/2004 4:02:26 AM PST by
TC Rider
(The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
To: kattracks
John Podhoretz's new book is "Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane." The book title is a misnomer. Liberals didn't need Dubya to drive them insane. They did that all by themselves.
17 posted on
03/23/2004 4:12:14 AM PST by
Samwise
(In the battle between Good and Evil, Evil often wins unless Good is very, very careful. --Spock)
To: kattracks
He's SUCH a jerk.............
To: kattracks
In the months after 9/11, the Bush administration refused - absolutely refused - to try to blame the attacks on the Clinton administration's failure of vision. The nation needed to be united in its determination and could not afford to surrender to finger-pointing. It wouldn't have done them any good to try to blame the attacks on the Clinton administration because (1) anyone who is not a leftwing wacko understood it, even Clinton, who went around lower Manhattan right after 9/11 haranging a passerby that he was not responsible; (2) it would have turned the war on terror to a partisan battle when the nation needed most to be unified (it has settled into being a partisan battle anyway, but George Bush had almost unanimous support when he went into Afghanistan which he most certainly would not have had, had he chosen to attack Clinton before he attacked Afghanistan); (3) it would be out of character for George W. Bush.
One of the truly great personal characteristics of George W. Bush is that his public veneer is that of a classy good-old-boy while he gets his enemies to hang themselves.
I would say that by and large now Clinton is thought of as a buffoon. If not, Hillary would have run in 2004 for what would have been thought of as the "rightful restoration" (perhaps "leftful restoration"). That Hillary is sitting out 2004 is the greatest testament to George W. Bush's strategery in *not* attacking Clinton in the aftermath of 9/11.
20 posted on
03/23/2004 4:36:38 AM PST by
HateBill
To: kattracks
A lot of arrogant men have trouble working for a woman.
In the 60 min interview, Clark seemed bitter and full of hatred, named Condi a lot.
Turns out he worked for Condi, was demoted by Condi, never showed up to most of Condi's meetings....
Read between the lines...
21 posted on
03/23/2004 4:42:49 AM PST by
tkathy
(Our economy, our investments, and our jobs DEPEND on powerful national security.)
To: kattracks
Please, Clark is a brilliant man. Consider this idea he proposed:
In 1986, as a State Department bureaucrat with pull, he [Clark] came up with a plan to battle terrorism and subvert Muammar Qaddafi by having SR-71s produce sonic booms over Libya. This was to be accompanied by rafts washing onto the sands of Tripoli, the aim of which was to create the illusion of a coming attack. When this nonsense was revealed, it created embarrassment for the Reagan administration and was buried.
23 posted on
03/23/2004 5:26:29 AM PST by
Quilla
To: kattracks
Applying logic to liberals is like using honey to lubricate an internal combustion engine.
24 posted on
03/23/2004 5:32:37 AM PST by
FourPeas
To: kattracks
In the months after 9/11, the Bush administration refused - absolutely refused - to try to blame the attacks on the Clinton administration's failure of vision. The nation needed to be united in its determination and could not afford to surrender to finger-pointing. Well, guess what? The Clinton administration's senior foreign-policy officials will be appearing this week before the 9/11 commission - to do to the Bush administration exactly what the Bush administration refused to do to them.
The next time we hear the Democrats charge that Bush broke a campaign promise to be a "uniter rather than a divider," we should keep this mind.
25 posted on
03/23/2004 5:56:52 AM PST by
OESY
To: kattracks
Clarke has delusions of grandeur. In other words, he is completely whacko.
29 posted on
03/23/2004 6:45:21 AM PST by
punster
(q)
To: kattracks
Is this really a sentiment that mainstream Democrats want to support and echo? Apparently.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson