Are you saying that we can't point out the faults of the "current" leader without pointing out the past leaders either? I guess we could go
all the way back to the Roman days and point the mistakes their leaders made as well, so that we can show no agenda eh?
Certainly not John, you and others can point your fingers as well as I can, correct? The agenda with those who oppose Bush and the Iraq war is the
"here and now", correct? Is not the "here and now" not also effected by the past? Would not the past also show that the prior administration
lacked sufficiently against terrorism?
IMHO, its a matter of how one wishes to view this. I mean, if the "danger signs" and "blinking neon signs" were being placed or going off prior to
this current administration, then wouldn't the past have a bearing on the "here and now"?
As to no major terrorist attacks...I guess it depends on how we again view terrorist attacks, correct?
Anyone asked the parents of those that lost sons on the USS Cole if that was a major terrorist attack? How about those that lost loved ones in the
number of embassy bombings in in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania? Nairobi alone, 290+ dead and 5,000+/- wounded.
No, I have no problem at all with those who wish to stick to the "here and now"....thats cool, of sorts. In such, the jest of Mr. Clark's criticism
of Mr. Bush boils down to the fact that before 9/11, like everyone else in the United States, Mr. Bush did not make Al-Qaeda, and terrorism associted
with this, his absolute number one priority. Besides that, what is he saying that hasn't already been accused or claimed against Mr. Bush?
As linked above, seems to me that the "world-wide" plans to combat Al-Qaeda was sitting on Mr. Bush's desk. In such, after 9/11 occured, despite
the questions and allegations of "who might have done this or was behind this" (9/11), the Bush administration went after whom? Iraq? Nope. The
Taliban in Afghanistan. Why? Because they were harboring Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden.
So Mr. Clark's point was again?
Again, as linked above, Mr. Clark, the same one that is criticizing this administration, also
sayed likewise of the previous?
IMHO, if terrorism was being ignored, it was being ignored by a number of administrations. Btw, I hear and read that Mr. Clark is saying that the
previous administration could have prevented 9/11. As shown in links above, he is "flip-flopping", but then again, since he is or did work/working
for the the Kerry for President campaign, starting back in May of last year, its not surprising that he is doing such now....I mean Kerry is doing
[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Seekerof]