Replies

o.k. I see I am not going to get anywhere by debating this whole deal with clarke. But I did recieve about two decent replys that made me pause for half a sec or so but I came to my senses. I guess my real question is "is there any legitmate complaint by anyone on the left against Bush or is he really just that perfect?" I can admitt to at least one or two legitmate complaints aginst some of my lefty, commie, hypiee dippie, tree hugging types that I love and admire by some of the necon types on the right. Surly there must be something about Bush? Any fair and balanced types out there on the right?

You asked,, but I doubt you will be here long enough to reply at this point.

President Bush is not perfect and neither are any of us who draw breath.

When you consider the pains the nation has been subjected to as political discourse is stirred constantly over issues like preemptive attacks, "missing" WMDs vs. non-existent WMDs, a lot of folks do tip over the apple cart in open rebellion or at least harsh words.. Add in Prescription drugs, Campaign Finance Reform, Immigration, FRee Trade,, etc .. No, there are no shortage of reasons to be an unhappy camper on any and all of those issues.

But Then let us take a look at the Big Enchilada... National Security.. If Mr. Clarke were half as persuasive in his arguments as he is in his bold faced assertions (for questionable reasons in an election year), then we might not be facing as many global challenges as we are today as a nation.

Go ahead and pick the bones of any carcass of failed and marginal ops plans that Clinton executed, and then put them up against Bush's "failures" globally,, Clarke's claims speak more to a lack of action and a disinterest in pursuing threats as he so wisely was able to ascertain them. Now he is offended that anyone would question him and his sincerity, but he is not above grandstanding as we are vigorously fighting terrorism on a global scale.

He was on with Larry King tonight, btw. No previous official in his post has ever written a book and performed such political treachery in the history of the nation, while the administration(s) was still in office.

Does he have an agenda? You bet. It is far from Republican however.

I hope you caught Mr. Lehman's comments today, they speak to Clarke's inadequacy as a faithful servant.

o.k. I see I am not going to get anywhere by debating this whole deal with clarke.

Because the whole deal with Clarke is his lack of consistency. Us FReepers are sticklers for consistency. We also tend to dismiss bureaucrats who comment on fields outside their expertise. So when Paul O'Neil, a treasury secretary, comments about Iraq; it tends to be ignored.

The only legitimate complaint that I have heard from the left about Bush is his overspending, which I happen to agree with. However, the left's only using this as a platform to attack Bush since their alternatives to the same policies are normally to spend more. To quote Thomas Sowell: "There are basically only two ways of reducing a deficit -- cut spending or collect more taxes. When you see liberals in politics and in the media going ballistic about the deficit, you know that they are not thinking about cutting spending."

I guess you missed the founder's statement from the front page of Free Republic, so let me bring it to you here:

Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society.

I'm calling YOU a liberal troll. If I wanted to hear liberal propaganda about Clarke, I'd go to an alphabet network website. Clarke is a liar, selling a book, out to destroy the President. The left knows this better than we conservatives do--but persist in publicizing those lies. I have no patience whatsoever, no desire to hear any more of that bleep. If you want a different point of view, go elsewhere. I'm sure you know where to find it.

There's plenty of reservations I have about Bush. Most of them are things lefties -should- love him for, and they -would- love him for if it was a leftie doing them, but since it's Bush doing them, they hate it. The education and prescription plan bills come to mind. They are a leftist's wet dream. If Clinton had done them, lefties would still be crooning his name as the messiah for raising entitlement spending so high. But Bush did it, which stole their thunder and there is NO greater sin than that, so he's their antichrist.

But fighting the war on terror? Nope, I don't have a single beef with him in any way shape and form. Not even on the WMD's. You know why? Because if there was a single person on this planet who doubted he had WMD's before we went in, they would've spoken up. We'd have heard from them.

But we didn't. Not even the most extreme communist tree hugging Che Guevara radical nutcase on the planet was willing to go out on a limb enough to claim that Saddam didn't have WMD. No one dared discredit themselves that badly - NO ONE dared trust Saddam Hussein enough. Is that because our Che Guevara radical had such abiding faith in what George W. Bush said in some State of the Union address? Obviously, that's patently ridiculous. Our Guevara radical friend trusted the U.N., and France, and China, and Russia, and every human rights agency, and every watchdog group, ad nauseaum, EVERYONE ON THE PLANET SINCE LONG BEFORE BUSH EVER GOT ELECTED BELIEVED HE HAD TONS OF WMD, AND CONTINUED TO STATE SO UNTIL WE TOOK HIM OUT.

Not one person, entity or organization claimed otherwise - no matter how screaming leftist. The fact that Saddam had WMD was the ONE issue that was -never- in dispute. And now, lefties want to claim that everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY on the planet was wrong... but only Bush knew that it was wrong.

Me, I think the WMD are in Syria. But it's irrelevant. To claim "Bush lied", but no one else did, is so intellectually dishonest that I get nauseated just listening to the claim. As outrageously badly as everyone wanted the war NOT to happen, with the millions spilling out on the street protesting, if anyone could have claimed Saddam didn't have WMD, you don't think they -would- have?

And we're supposed to believe that that level of trust was all in GWB? He was the only source for that claim, and everyone from Castro to Chirac took him as Gospel? Riiiiiiiiight.

And since every single leftie complaint stems from the whole "Bush is corrupt, Bush lied" meme, it makes it rather easy to dismiss virtually everything else they say.

Good enough for ya?

Qwinn