You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What i get a kick out of with the media and the democrats and leftys concerning "Dick" clark>
- Thread starter PatPatriot
- Start date
It really is a laugh. Not only thatb, but this Dick Clark character has got to be the most pompous person in government. I wonder who could have appointed this egomaniac to oversee terrorism. Billy boy?
He and his book promoters scheduled in a advance appearances on all TV networks to promote his book except FOX. Partisan media.
He and his book promoters scheduled in a advance appearances on all TV networks to promote his book except FOX. Partisan media.
Yes, pre-emption against a serious known terrorist threat who had already committed numerous terrorist attacks against US interests, who was actually under an arrest warrant, who we had already attempted to assassinate and who we will probably soon find out we had very specific and direct info that an attack was imminent. That qualifies for "pre-emptive" action for which I, and I don't think anybody, has a probelm with.
Contrast this to Iraq, which had nothing to do with the doctrine of pre-emption. Iraq was a PREVENTIVE war at best, not pre-emption. Iraq was not a direct or imminent threat to the US and it was not in our best interests to invade.
Pre-emption and prevention and the like are not black-and-white for it or against it type things. You need to be able to discriminate and think a little. As hgas been said, it requires doing "nuance". This President, and obviously the posters above, don't do nuance very well. That's a shame. Clark is obviously a brilliant guy and has been a foremost expert on counterterrorism for decades serving prominent roles in 2 previous Repub Admins. But somehow now the guy is a blithering idiot because he dares question the Boy King.
Contrast this to Iraq, which had nothing to do with the doctrine of pre-emption. Iraq was a PREVENTIVE war at best, not pre-emption. Iraq was not a direct or imminent threat to the US and it was not in our best interests to invade.
Pre-emption and prevention and the like are not black-and-white for it or against it type things. You need to be able to discriminate and think a little. As hgas been said, it requires doing "nuance". This President, and obviously the posters above, don't do nuance very well. That's a shame. Clark is obviously a brilliant guy and has been a foremost expert on counterterrorism for decades serving prominent roles in 2 previous Repub Admins. But somehow now the guy is a blithering idiot because he dares question the Boy King.
Guys,
Remember that Reagan and Bush held him over, that he is a Republican and that Dubya himself wrote what a fine job he did upon his resignation.
Also, from what some aides have said, the supposed new beefed-up anti-al qeada initiative that took until late July 2001 for the Bush Admin to approve is almost identical to the one supplied by Clarke in January 2001 which Rice tried to spin as not aggressive enough. I hope they release all testimony as Frist grandstanded and Clarke subsequently agreed to.
Pat, you are right as far as preemptive strikes. I believe Clinton and Dubya both would've caught flak from both parties.
But remember, he and ex Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill are bona-fide stalwart Republicans who previously served in multiple Republican Administrations with distinction and their stories corroborate each other's.
Remember that Reagan and Bush held him over, that he is a Republican and that Dubya himself wrote what a fine job he did upon his resignation.
Also, from what some aides have said, the supposed new beefed-up anti-al qeada initiative that took until late July 2001 for the Bush Admin to approve is almost identical to the one supplied by Clarke in January 2001 which Rice tried to spin as not aggressive enough. I hope they release all testimony as Frist grandstanded and Clarke subsequently agreed to.
Pat, you are right as far as preemptive strikes. I believe Clinton and Dubya both would've caught flak from both parties.
But remember, he and ex Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill are bona-fide stalwart Republicans who previously served in multiple Republican Administrations with distinction and their stories corroborate each other's.
I like how after George Bush ran his 1st ad all of the libs said that using 9/11 as a campaign issue was out of bounds. Then comes this book ,which in amazing coincidence comes out just as he is ready to "testify" to the 9/11 commision, and all of a sudden its an issue to them.
Why is there no pressure on Clinton and Algore to testify? Ah,nevermind.
Why is there no pressure on Clinton and Algore to testify? Ah,nevermind.
Using 9/11 as a campaign issue is not out-of-bounds but using images of the smoldering towers and random firefighters in a campaign ad is in poor taste. I can't figure out what that has to do with Clarke. Is Clarke running for some office that I'm unaware of?
And I believe that Clinton said he would be willing to testify. Don't know where that stands as of now.
And I believe that Clinton said he would be willing to testify. Don't know where that stands as of now.
