Re: President Bush given the Indian name of "Walking Eagle"

[John <john@xxxxxxx>]

Karl Magnus wrote:

> >>Funny how our "dismantled" defences kicked so much ass. In fact, in
> >>Gulf War One we had about 10% of our bombs as "smart" bombs. In Gulf
> >>War II, we were at 90% "smart" bombs. ALL FUNDED, INSTALLED, AND
> >>TESTED DURING CLINTON.
> >
>
> >
> > Dig deeper, Karl. Had our intelligence service not been crippled, and=

> > nuclear technology not been sold overseas, we'd be a lot better off n=
ow.
> > Thanks, Bubba.
> >
> >
> >>Wow!
> >
> >
> > Indeed.
> > js
>
> Dig this:
>
> Bill Clinton gave the CIA "every inch of authorization that it asked
> for" to carry out plans to kill Osama bin Laden, the former president's=

> national security adviser testified Wednesday, bluntly disputing claims=

> that the spy agency lacked the authority it needed.
>
> and:
>
> It's possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying=

> the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn't know about the successes in th=
e
> 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi
> terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It
> stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert
> action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in=

> Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped
> many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania.=

> And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida; it also
> launched military strikes against al-Qaida.
>
> Both from Richard Clarke
>
> But, I know the answer from you:
>
> "But, but.....he, he's a a a  a a  Klintonite!!!! He's a
> Liberal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or something along those lines.=

>
> So, although a criticism of Clinton's approach to fighting terrorism is=

> certainly fair game, May implies here that Clinton did nothing and that=

> Clarke is giving him a pass on the issue. It is possible that Clarke is=

> easier on Clinton than Bush in his book, but if so, there's a perfectly=

> good reason for it=97Bush is the current president. Criticizing his
> terrorism policies might make a difference, unlike criticizing Clinton.=

> Furthermore, it's clear from the substance of his complaints that Clark=
e
> finds Bush's actions against terrorism insufficient and much worse than=

> Clinton's. Of course, May has another motive in this passage. He's
> implying that Clarke is nothing more than an anti-Bush Clinton-lover
> which is decidedly untrue. Clarke served under four different
> administrations. Impugning his motives as nothing more than partisan
> bitterness is ridiculous.

Clarke has discredited himself several times over.  It is very telling, f=
or
example, that his own book conveniently skipped over 8 years of the Clint=
on
administration while bombings were happening (i.e. World Trade Ctr 1993, =
the
Towers in Saudi Arabia, Cole, embassies in Africa, and at least one chanc=
e to
have bin Laden handed over) as if it was a long weekend, then focuses hea=
vily
on the first months of the Bush administration.  Remember the indignity o=
f
Bush authorizing flights of Saudi brass out of the country in 2001, then =
we
later find out that none other than Clarke authorized these flights.  And=
 why
was Clintonite Sandy Berger so eager to steal classified documents stuffe=
d
down his pants and socks out of Archives, some of which were written by
Clarke?   Clarke has been a partisan through and through, even contributi=
ng
the big bucks to Democrats.  Impugning his motives anything other than
partisan is ridiculous.