Let us all now praise Richard Clarke (CLARKE KNEW! Not.)

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, March 26, 2004 | Bill Press

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The guy is unflappable and all the facts appear to be on his side.

The facts he wants to talk about are on his side. But he wants to indicate that Bus was less vigorous in going after ben Laden than Clinton was - and Clinton wasn't doing much of anything, no matter what the provocation. Clinton would have looked like a jerk if he invaded Afghanistan, so he didn't. Bush would have looked like a jerk if he invaded Afghanistan before 911, so he didn't either.

Like the Democratic Party, Clarke wants it assumed that Iraq was irrelevant to opposing terror. And indeed, that cannot be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trouble with that line of reasoning is that Iran and other hostile regimes could only be reliably deterred from concluding that Saddam might have done it and gotten away with it in one way - by assuring that in fact he did not get away with it, whether or not he did it.

Saddam created the ambiguity which could be resolved in no other way but invasion and the deposing of Saddam - and if he tricked Bush into invading Iraq and capturing himself, why then I'm sure Bush feels that he can take the joke. And laugh at it, while Saddam is crumpling in front of a Kurdish/Shi'ite firing squad.

Clearly, the Bush smear machine is unprepared for someone who operates on so high a level. The hand-written note from Bush was simply brilliant.

The "Bush machine" has been telling the truth - that is a "smear" exactly how? I do not see that Bush is the one who is embarassed when Clarke uses a gracious personal note against Bush - a note which cannot absolve Clarke from guilt if he subsequently lied under oath before the commission.

In case you hadn't noticed, journalists and other Democrats smear Republicans quite systematically - and they are especially fond of accusing the Republicans of exactly what they themselves are doing. That has the effect of making a Republican rebuttal sound like a childish "me too." Thus, while smearing your opponent, always accuse him of smearing you. Nice propaganda ploy they've got going; you for one have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

[mcrommert]

There are many things that a lot of people are missing. If you read the brief that Clarke gave to the Commission on the Terrorist attacks on the United States, shows that he is no way anti-Bush. He does not think that Bush didn't care about saving the lives of Americans or is he a Clinton or Kerry man. The media has twisted his words making him look liberal. If you read up on Clarke, you will see that he is one of the most conservative people that was ever on the Bush Administration. He tried to get the Bush administration to put Al Qaida in the front, but like the Clinton administration they didn't think the threat was iminent. Clarke says himself that if they acted, he still thinks that September 11th would have happened. The only thing that he really disagrees with the Bush Administration on is that the war in Iraq undermined the war on terror. There is a lot of truth in that. Some of the people on this post need to be conservatives and not just the dogs of whatever republican administration is in the white house.

[mcrommert]

To add to my post, Clarke didn't contradict himself. In the original brief he put a postive light on the war on terror in favor of the Bush Administration because he worked for them. That's politics. Now he can say what he really believes.

[mcrommert]

Look at the other side. Republicans are just as good smearers of Democrats as Republicans. It's politics.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> The media has twisted his words making him look liberal. If you read up on Clarke, you will see that he is one of the most conservative people that was ever on the Bush Administration.

Get real. Clarke admitted he voted for Gore. No honest person would vote for Gore. Clarke is just another in a long line of lying, left-wing attack-dogs.

[PhilipFreneau]

>> Look at the other side. Republicans are just as good smearers of Democrats as Republicans. It's politics.

Another liberal troll...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Republicans are just as good smearers of Democrats as [Democrats are of] Republicans. It's politics.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. In fact that's all you are entitled to, as far as information is concerned. Since you are entitled to your opinion and to listen to whoever you choose to and to ignore everyone/everything else, I have to be entitled to tell you fairy tales such as the conceit that I am objective. You can't sic the government on me for it; you just have to decide to ignore me if you decide I'm unreliable.

Or you can decide that I am reliable, and choose to pay attention to what I say; your choice.

But when you say, "a pox on both their houses" you are saying that neither side tells the truth - which may not be the best that a liar can hope for if someone is trying to tell you the truth, but it's better than if you believe the truth to the exclusion of the lie. In a sense it's deciding not to have an opinion because sorting out conflicting claims makes your brain hurt.

For myself I take the arbitrator's viewpoint. If I say, "the truth must lie in the middle," all I am doing is destroying all incentive for either party to tell the truth. The bigger the whopper that they tell me, the more they tug "the middle" their way - and the other side just replies in kind if only in self defense. And that is my argument against "moderate" trust in splitting the difference.

I just have to run the risk of straining my brain in order to associate my opinion with the side that is closer to the truth. My analysis of the propaganda war is that journalism is the pilot fish of liberalism, that celebrities typically are in over their heads in a serious analysis of global warming claims and suchlike, and that celebrities - including individual journalists - therefore mouth what they know journalism will not attack.

The perspective of journalism is negative and superficial because journalism is the mass production of cheap talk - second guessing and easy (but unsustainable) answers. The resulting facile perspective is called (in America) "liberalism." And all you do to be a liberal politician is to count on the resulting propaganda wind to propel you to electoral victory. It's all just a matter of never showing courage.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[mcrommert]

I agree with you. Using Primary sources in the source for truth does much more good than listening to the media, if they are liberal or conservative.