Reference his article, there's no insight necessary for such a thin and transparent attempt to be clever.
So it's the non-subtlety of the approach that you're taking issue with.
But he made his point.
Maybe he intended to be transparent because the reasons some of the readers have for supporting the current Administration for actions said readers would never tolerate from the barely-departed Administration of Clinton are equally, if not even more, transparent?
Whatever the reason for his style...do you agree with the message he was trying to present? If not, why not?
posted on 12/04/2001 11:44:59 AM PST
Agree? It would be difficult to agree with a document that so thoroughly intermingle animosity with naivete. If an event of similar magnitude impacted us during President Clinton's term clearly the country would have backed him equally in his efforts to prevent a recurrence. To think they wouldn't underestimates our ability to rise above the personal animosity felt towards the man, and also defies the quantitative polling data which emereged after his response to the USS Cole bombing. Unfortunately, it appears many of his diehard supporters from that time can't find it within themselves to do the same for President Bush now.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson