[Texasforever]

I remember when buckley was a conservative. He has been carrying water for the socialists for years.

My gosh folks did you even read the article? He skewered Clarke.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Request someone help me understand what Mr. Buckley means in the following:

... the year 1998 when President Clinton was called upon to implement the Iraq Liberation Act. He did not do so and the surmise was that he could not credibly present himself as a war leader while simultaneously fighting against his own impeachment. An apology here would not seem to be presumptuous. -William F. Buckley Jr.

Is he comparing the standing of Mr. Clinton versus Mr. Clarke? In other words, Clinton could credibly apologize for screwing up in such a way that he got impeached and therefore performed badly as a statesman - missing an opportunity to advance the world's case against Iraq. He would be apologizing for a failure of the United States, for something that he was in charge of, and for something he did. Whereas Clarke's apology was not for anything he did; moreover was not really in charge of.

It seems as though there is more to this connection than I am getting.

[Spotsy]

Texas is right, this article condemns Clarke.

Clarke was grandstanding when he apologized on behalf of the government - and Buckley sees the apology for what it was - a political tactic to place blame squarely on the shoulders of Team Bush.

This 9/11 Commission charade is doing so much damage - making our country look weak - and no doubt encouraging the evildoers (that would be the terrorists, in case any Dems are reading this) to believe that our resolve is weakening