Can you tell the political season is in full swing? Attacks on the President are now coming from nearly every direction , and a great portion of the mainstream media seems to be playing happily along.
In regards to the media attack on the President, Peggy Noonan, syndicated columnists and author, noted recently:
The media this year are to an unusual degree--even for them--keen to give Mr. Bush a hard time and Mr. Kerry a boost. The daily anti-GOP pounding is taking a toll.
We all know the reasons the press is doing what it's doing--its biases, its need for a horse race. But this year the press is also taking it on itself to make up for the disparity in war chests. They don't think Mr. Kerry is going to catch up with the president in terms of money, and they're trying to even the score.
Now we have former counter-terrorism aid, Richard Clarke, who served for two years under President Clinton and then another two years under President Bush — a fact which most of the media seems to be conveniently ignoring — coming out with a new book which is, of course, highly critical of the Bush Administration for its stance on terrorism and Iraq. But, as noted in an Opinionjournal.com editorial, posted today, Clarke might also be attempting to cover some of his own intelligence failures:
We'd take Mr. Clarke's words more seriously if, as America's lead anti-terror official from 1998 through Mr. Bush's first two years, he had warned someone that al Qaeda might have a strategy to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. He already knew that an Egyptian had flown one plane into the drink and that al Qaeda was interested in flight training. Why didn't Mr. Clarke connect those dots?
As for Iraq, he and other Bush critics want to claim that the U.S. invasion has only created more terrorists--as if there weren't any before March 2003. And as if those terrorists are only striking at Americans and our allies in Iraq, not also at Turks, and Indonesians, French and Saudis.
Mr. Clarke lambastes the White House for seeking links between Iraq and 9/11, even as he himself asserts that he knew in the immediate aftermath that there were no such links. How could he have known that? Mr. Clarke fails to mention that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the one conspirator from the 1993 WTC bombing still at large, had fled to Iraq and was harbored by Saddam Hussein for years. In our view, a U.S. President who failed to ask questions about Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 would have been irresponsible.
As for the 9/11 commission, the one which the President has been criticized for "trying to dodge," this too has become a political bat for Democrats eager to swing away at the President. Conveniently, the NY Times received leaked information from former Clinton officials scheduled to testify this week before the commission. These officials allege that, in 2000, the new Bush Administration received "urgent" warnings from Clinton officials regarding the threat posed by Al Qaeda.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doc
Sorry, it's the *terrorists* that want BUSH elected (they'll be much safer with King George II) and have already endorsed him. Check it out:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721
----------------------------
Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades Endorses Bush
The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
-------------------------
Quit regurgitating Rush. Bush has been the best thing for terrorist recruitment...maybe Johnny Ashcroft should look into that. :)
2 - Shark
Dave, Have you heard the LATEST?!
Kerry is trying to negotiate Saddam Hussein's release so he can be his running mate for Vice President!
BTW: On Sunday, I became a born-again Christian, so I've changed my politics and will be voting FOR BUSH in November.
Not that I think he'll make a better President, but I CAN'T WAIT for The Apocalypse, which Bush is sure to expedite!
PS: In case of rapture, keep your mits off my car!
3 - David Flanagan
I love this line:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
You realize, of course, that al-Masri is saying that Kerry and his fellow Democrats are deceitful? That they are liars? He's not saying that Kerry will stop terrorism, he's saying that he'll bring down their entire civilization, destroy their nation and their culture, through his deceitful lies.
Glad to see you are proud of such a ringing endorsement for your candidate! ;-)
BTW - Using this whole argument, I would think that terrorists would never have attacked us on 9/11. After all, don't you and others like Shark accuse Bush of doing nothing before 9/11? If thats the case, and terrorists only attack when being attacked, then we should never have been attacked in the first place... right?
Thanks.
David
4 - Ms. Tek
Oh Jesus Fucking Christ...
Who the FUCK cares?
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to not like Bush. Who the fuck cares what the Arabs have to say, or the Europeans, etc... etc...
People don't like Bush because of his actions... not because other people tell them to not like Bush.
If you want to b a Bush supporter, that is cool, David... But you excerpt for this post is equating John Kerry in the same group as Al Quida. That is no better than the Bush- Hitler scenario.
5 - Mark Saleski
remember ms. tek, the terrorists want kerry elected because dems are known to be 'soft on terror'.
if pres. bush is not reelected then you better head to the store to get yourself measured for a burka cuz' we're sure to be overrun by the wild islamists.
here's a helpful link if you'd like to get a head start.
6 - Hal Pawluk
I see that Peggy Noonan has not suddenly become any brighter than she ever was, and the The Opinion Journal is still spewing out all that neocon junk.
Pretending that the Bush administration has actually done anything positive against terrorism, particularly with the evidence of Iraq, Afghanistan, non-funding of first responders, no port inspections, etc. is ludicrous.
7 - Ms. Tek
Oh right...
I get it.
A vote against Bush is a vot for terroism.
How could I have been so daft!
Do they make a Burka in lepoard print?
8 - JR
I keep hearing this line about the "law enforcement" strategy vs. a military strategy. What's the difference? I mean, Clinton did lob a few cruise missiles at bin Laden, if to no great effect. That's not exactly cops and robbers level stuff - hell, that's over and above even LAPD operations (as far as I know).
And what's so great about declaring "War" on stuff anyway? It didn't exactly turn the tide on poverty or illegal drug use.
9 - Hal Pawluk
"because dems are known to be 'soft on terror'."
Now that's pure tripe.
Does anyone actually believe that sort of propaganda? I mean besides the knee-jerk right?
10 - David Flanagan
If you want to b a Bush supporter, that is cool, David... But you excerpt for this post is equating John Kerry in the same group as Al Quida. That is no better than the Bush- Hitler scenario.
No, I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying they have the same goal. And I think it is very fair to make this argument considering that in the so-called "peace" marches this weekend there were many people who were holding up signs that had Bush's head pasted onto a Hitler's body.
Thanks.
David
11 - David Flanagan
remember ms. tek, the terrorists want kerry elected because dems are known to be 'soft on terror'.
Well, to your point, what did the Clinton Administration do in the years as al Qaeda began a series of attacks against the US and US interests which grew bolder with each passing year? Oh yes, thats right, they "warned" the Bush administration. ;-)
Thanks.
David
12 - David Flanagan
Do they make a Burka in lepoard print?
You might want to ask the Taliban. You can find them hiding in fear of their lives somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan. Oh yeah, and you can't wear socks, sorry, Allah says no.
David
13 - Ms. Tek
If you want to b a Bush supporter, that is cool, David... But you excerpt for this post is equating John Kerry in the same group as Al Quida. That is no better than the Bush- Hitler scenario.
No, I'm not saying they are the same, I'm saying they have the same goal.
John Kerry and al Queda have the same goal?
David, can you please tell me in simple words what the goals of John Kerry and al Queda are?
Are you for real David? Do you seriously believe this?
14 - JR
You might want to ask the Taliban. You can find them hiding in fear of their lives somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Actually, if you can find them anywhere, you might want to let the authorities know. The Bush administration is having no such luck.
15 - Ms. Tek
^^ LOL
16 - Mark Saleski
so since clinton 'failed' in his dealings with terrorism, kerry will continue on that path. guilt by association. bad logic (actually, no logic).
really, you've gotta lay off that talk radio.
17 - David Flanagan
David, can you please tell me in simple words what the goals of John Kerry and al Queda are?
Victoria,
Did you read my post above? If you did, then you would know that what they both have in common is that they want Bush out of the White House.
Thanks.
David
18 - Mark Saleski
victoria, did you read my post above?....
geezuz dude, your condescension and smugosity appears to be limitless.
you wearin' your slippers and smoking jacket while you type that stuff in?
gawd.
19 - David Flanagan
Actually, if you can find them anywhere, you might want to let the authorities know. The Bush administration is having no such luck.
I think your comment goes to the point that liberals care nothing about anything unless it might hurt President Bush (an extension of the ABB philosophy). You've probably heard that Pakistani forces, with American intelligence officers (AKA, Special Forces) are working to root out al Qaeda and Taliban forces hiding in the mountains. What you do not seem to have heard is the fact that Afghani and US forces are conducting a joint operation to root out al Qaeda and Taliban forces as well. Here is an article link discussing some of their successes to date.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114731,00.html
This weekend, hundreds of terrorists have been captured or killed by Pakistani forces. As well, Afghani and US forces in Iraq have kept the Taliban in dissaray and are actively pursuing them so as to prevent any kind of future reorganization.
Thanks.
David
20 - Ms. Tek
So...
Saddam Invades Kuwait.
Bush Invades Iraq.
So I guess that with that logic, both art tyrants.
Or...
My neighbor hates jews (but never killed one)
Hitler hates jews (and killed many)
My neighbor wants the same thing or is in the same class as Hitler?
21 - David Flanagan
so since clinton 'failed' in his dealings with terrorism, kerry will continue on that path. guilt by association. bad logic (actually, no logic).
Mark,
Do you even KNOW what it is your candidate is saying in his public speeches? He has said that he believes we should go back to treating terrorist attacks as "law enforcement" issues!
Now, you can argue whether or not we've gone too far in removing Saddam from power, but to go back to the pre 9/11 strategy of handling a global terrorist organization like al Qaeda is a ridiculous notion. Its exactly that kind of rhetoric which has gotten Kerry into trouble; and please do not doubt that, if Kerry is perceived as soft on national security, he will never be elected president.
Thanks.
David
22 - David Flanagan
As well, Afghani and US forces in Iraq have kept the Taliban in dissaray
Sorry, correction here. Not in Iraq, in Afghanista of course. :-)
David
23 - Mark Saleski
liberals care nothing about anything unless it might hurt President Bush
this is pure bunk.
you paint 'liberal' with your easy-to-handle broad brush and the 'discussion' is over.
it's talk radio poison, i tell ya.
24 - David Flanagan
Saddam Invades Kuwait.
Bush Invades Iraq.
So I guess that with that logic, both art tyrants.
Oh, I don't know. You might want to ask the Iraqi people about that one. A recent poll finds that the vast majority say they are better off now than they were a year ago.
In June Iraqis will have the power of self-rule for the first time in 35 years. The rape rooms are closed, their children are no longer murdered just to gain information from the parents, and there will be no more secret mass graves to bury the hundreds of thousands murdered by one of the world's greatest tyrants.
If I were to follow your philosophy, then we would have to call President Lincoln a tyrant, and FDR, and Clinton for invading Haiti.
But, if thats how you want to simplify the issue for yourself, then go for it. :-)
Thanks.
David
25 - JR
I think your comment goes to the point that liberals care nothing about anything unless it might hurt President Bush (an extension of the ABB philosophy).
I want lots of things: open, representative government; a healthy environment; social justice; economic opportunity; security; promotion of the sciences in education and public policy; etc.
The problem is that George Bush Jr., perhaps more than any person in America, stands in the way of these goals. That's why I want him out of office. I don't care whether or not it hurts him.