| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Clintonians Berger &, Clarke Spin for Kerry on Iraq | |
| 2004-03-21 | |
| via NewsMax Friday, Mar. 19, 2004 5:29 PM EST Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke are set to hit the spin cycle this weekend on behalf of Sen. John Kerry. As the Bush White House commemorates the first anniversary of the Iraq war, the two former Clinton officials are coming out of the woodwork to trash Operation Iraqi Freedom as an unnecessary distraction to the war on terror. "How we conducted the war in Iraq - hurried, alone, unprepared for the day after - has made the terrorism problem more difficult," Berger told a Kerry campaign briefing on Friday. Clarke, who recently proclaimed that "fighting Iraq had little to do with fighting the war on terrorism, until we made it (so)," is set to appear on "60 Minutes" this Sunday. He’s expected to address charges that the Clinton administration failed to act when the CIA pinpointed Osama bin Laden’s location on several occasions before the 9/11 attacks. Democratic spinmeister Paul Begala, who announced Clarke’s "60 Minutes" spot during a radio interview Friday morning, signaled the public relations blitzkrieg on terrorism, daring Republicans: "Ask the nonpartisan national security experts who worked in both administrations, who was tougher on bin Laden, who was aware of the problem, who was going after bin Laden."
Put on your seatbelt - the truth will be as dizzy as a dervish with the Clinton cabal pulling out all the stops. Those who think this is about helping Skeery are suckers for the sub-spin. This is about the Clinton record. To quote a line from a Firesign Theater routine, "Have you seen the past? You’d better hurry, they’re cleaning it, you know." And they are, indeed, trying. | |
| Posted by:.com |
| #3 Richard Clarke is no non-partisan former NSC expert. He was a gopher for Mort Abramowitz, INR Director, at the State Department. And then after eating dirt, as all State types must to get ahead, threw his lot in with the Democrats. As his former associates know, he has a nasty temper and does not like to be told, or to find out, that he was wrong on anything. |
| Posted by: Tancred 2004-3-21 10:32:29 AM |
| #2 Notice that Madalaine Halfbright isn't among the spiners. Maybe she doesn't want to see that picture of her and Dear Leader on the networks. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-3-21 8:27:29 AM |
| #1 "How we conducted the war in Iraq - hurried, alone, unprepared for the day after - has made the terrorism problem more difficult" Alone? It was us, the Brits, Aussies and Poles who had boots on the ground. To me, that doesn't sound any more "alone" than the invasion of Europe in 1944. "Ask the nonpartisan national security experts who worked in both administrations, who was tougher on bin Laden, who was aware of the problem, who was going after bin Laden." Any "expert" who would claim Clinton was tougher on bin Laden is no expert. Clinton's risk-aversion, his timidity, his neglect, and his obsession with legalistic remedies in the face of repeated, escalating Islamist aggression are what caused 9/11. What we are doing now, is the cure. "...the two former Clinton officials are coming out of the woodwork to trash Operation Iraqi Freedom as an unnecessary distraction to the war on terror." They really have become the Party Of The Big Lie, haven't they? None of them has ever said what, specifically, we would/should have been able to do against bin Laden or any other terrorist group, had we not been "distracted" by Iraq. They haven't, because they can't: the claim is an outright lie. The truth is, invading Iraq and deposing Saddam was the single most effective step we could take to promote the war on Islamic totalitarianism, and was a prerequisite for carrying the war forward. Anyone who is reasonably intelligent, and who has not forgotten his history, should be able to sit down and, in the space of a few minutes, list at least 10 very positive consequences for the WoT of taking out Saddam. And it's not all that difficult to list three times that number. "Distraction," my ass. "Espen Barth Eide, who led the Norwegian delegation in Washington, D.C., said she hoped the meeting would help bring about 'political globalization.'" Sounds an awful lot like a "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" to me... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-3-21 7:28:44 AM |