Posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:31 PM PDT by dead
John and Scott are dead wrong, of course: Clinton knew there was danger to Americans from a terrorist group called Al Qaeda and did do something about it, if perhaps not all the right things, whatever those might have been
What specifically did Clinton do about Al Qaeda in response to their greater than half dozen attacks on American interests while he was President? (Bombing an aspirin factory while Monica is testifying, which the owner of later won in court millions of dollars from US taxpayers to rebuild doesn't count.)
And, if Clinton knew Al Qaeda was such danger to the US, and clearly the most pressing threat facing us, why did his Administration not discuss Bin Laden or AQ a single time in any of the security briefings given to the incoming Bush admin?
And why did their written security assesment given to the Bush admin not mention Bin Laden a single time and AQ only once in passing?
Further, why did Clinton admin hacks, post 9/11, repeatedly claim that they gave indepth briefings and warnings regarding Bin Laden and AQ being a threat to America when infact they did no such thing? Wasn't that clearly a coordinated effort at trying to rewrite the Clinton legacy?
Then would I be right in assuming that you scorched the skin off of the Democratic Party for selling the last shreds of its soul to keep Bill Clinton in power?
Dan
PS — doesn't count if you didn't write it before his Senate "trial."
Consider this an invitation...
Gosh that sounds really fun. Especially the part where you get to define my character in advance.
Atos
This'll be off the record. Won't use it for any article.
How sad that a Jew would side with the anti-Israel, anti-semitic left, and brag about it.
A self-hater.
Baghdad will become Beirut: Iraq's three major religious and ethnic groups, the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, will consolidate their respective positions in the center, south, and north of the country, recruit their militias, and get down to fighting for control of the power vacuum that is the post-war "peace."
Do you have any timetable on when the major fighting will commence? Aside from the random, though deadly, car bombings, this explosion in violence that you predicted has yet to materialize. Where exactly are the militias massing? When does the shooting war start? When are the Kurds going to break away, risking war with Turkey?
And will the “Last Copter Out of Baghdad” depart before the election?
I give you credit for entering the lions den. Good luck.
Thesis: You and your liberal colleagues find George W. Bush offensive for one reason alone. He possesses moral clarity, and you live in a world of monochromatic shallow gray.
Decisiveness, moral absolutes, confidence in American values, understanding right from wrong..........those are the qualities which we admire, and you are offended by.
That, and the fact that he's smarter than all you liberal elitests combined, and he's driving you all insane. :o)
I second Liberty's question.
---IMO, a little unfair to bash Kerry on this one. He can't be expected to know everything, and his talking point on this topic is controlled, no doubt, by his foreign policy specialist Joe Wilson himself. :)
This was my comment to your Bush Church article:
I read this again at my leisure. I don't think it worth my time to dissect your article....however,as we are want to do I started to do just that ....
My inner dialogue lead me to reflect again on the word "bigotry." Growing up in Texas I had heard the word since childhood and had always assumed it meant racist. When I looked it up I was surprised to find this:
bigotry
\Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
It struck me then (I looked it up years ago) that one did not have to be a racist or stupid to be a bigot ... in fact the more educated I became the more I realized that the educated among us were the more bigoted.
Why do I reflect on this in regard to your article? Because clearly you went into it with your permis firmly in place and emerged with that same permis completely unscathed...and you discovered nothing in your journey ....So the next time you get with your friends and colleagues and chuckle snidely with your superior airs about "Bush" look around and ask yourself "Is anyone here a bigot ?"
>>Logged On To Freerepublic.com So I Could Come Up With Some Fresh Ideas<<
A little plagerism perhaps??
Oh-wait-I forgot that liberals are very good at this:>)
A sadist says, "No."
You have an aknowledgeable audience... please respond directly to the questions.
Thank you.
4 - Do you think that the use of American military force when it is aligned with American security interests is more effective than a purely humanitarian intervention with no compelling US security interests? Does a compelling security interest in any manner taint a US military action?
Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.
First the "ascension of George Bush" happened when he won the election as laid out in the constitution. 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled that what the Democrats were trying to do in Florida was unconstitutional. In effect, the Gore-bots were caught trying to steal the election through a 100% partisan Democrat Court in Florida and they got slapped down. Ever since then they've been screaming about how Bush was "Selected, not elected." I guess they don't support and defend the Constitution, then?
As to conservatives "beginning to care more about power than principles," this is classic Saul Alinsky agitprop. Accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing, loudly and often, all reality to the contrary. The current Democrats, dating back to 1992 at least, have abandoned all principle in the naked quest for power, since it is theirs "by right" (not divine right, that wouldn't be PC). The left cares about power and nothing but. They will sell any snake oil, embrace any lie, commit any crime, because in their mind they serve a "higher truth." They know "what's good for us." Look out, they want to enslave us for our own good!
The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.
I could care less if you are interested in the "right" or not. Frankly, "whiny" and "shallow" are the farthest things from accurate characterizations of the right as any observer could possibly come up with. Self righteous, unwilling to consider contrary points of view, maybe, but whiney and shallow? Pot, kettle, black. Nuff said. And if you have spent 10 minutes on FR you would know that your comment about "uncritical devotion to President Bush" is total BS.
If you're going to make such broad, unsubstantiated claims without any examples of evidence then this will be a real short and totally unproductive "debate." All of the bad comments about you fishing for nasty quotes seems much more likely to be true now. Otherwise the only possible explanation is that you are a moron or delusional, and I don't accept either possibility.
I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.
Ah, the McCarthyite attack. You and Teresa, accusing your enemies of being "un-American" (quick deny you said it - accuse me of misquoting you) I know my Madison, as well as my Jefferson and Adams (most of the others, save Franklin, are too obtuse to try to apply to today). I also know my McCarthy, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Goebels and Gore. Hate is not a substitute for critical thinking or honest debate. The left, yourself included, has become what you always claimed to despise: mindless doctrinaire establishment drones. You are captives of the institutional bureaucracy, vomiting back the talking points and NY Times editorials instead of actually thinking for yourselves, incapable of thinking that anyone other than your fellow travelers has any right to exist, let alone control the reigns of "your" government. Fortunately we still live in a democracy. That means you lose (unless you cheat).
There is no cure for the pride of a virtuous nation but pure religion.
If you truly believe America has become to prideful and should become virtuous, if you agreed with Rev. Niebuhr, you would argue for more religion in our government. You would welcome a religious man like Bush as President.
How do you maintain this odd contradiction?--you say you agree with Rev Niebuhr and then excoriate Bush for his religiousness....
I see a lot of these odd contradictions in your writings: "We should never have attacked Iraq (but the world is better off without Saddam)."
Lets turn that around and ask about your committment to the principle of democracy:
Do you support a national vote by the American people on gay marriage, or do you support the changing of our entire system via unelected state or federal judges?
5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.