David Limbaugh
Friday, Mar. 26, 2004
The essence of Richard Clarke's book and public testimony before the 9-11 investigative commission is: "Don't believe your lying eyes," and "Don't believe my prior statements praising President Bush's decision to combat terrorism far more aggressively than President Clinton had.
Would Richard Clarke, the Democrats and the partisan media now have us believe that Bush, at heart, is soft on terrorism? Is that the point of all this? To believe that, we have to ignore what Clarke himself said previously and, more importantly, Bush's unambiguous conduct of the War on Terror.
.........................
Indeed, we know from Clarke's prior utterances not someone else's interpretation or inferences from Clarke's words that President Bush, before 9-11, directed that we make a dramatic course correction in our approach to terrorism, from "swatting flies" to draining the terrorist swamp. In his previous life, Clarke was quite clear that Bush's pre-9-11 approach to terrorism was much more aggressive than Clinton's.
.........................
It is incomprehensible that Democrats are painting Bush as weak on terror, given his record, especially considering that their own torchbearer, John Kerry, recently complained that Bush has been exaggerating the terrorist threat.
...........................
One of the worst aspects of this investigation is its implicit assumption that we could have prevented 9-11, as if intelligence is an exact science and as if all terrorist attacks are wholly preventable. This is not only an unspeakably arrogant attitude, it also shifts our focus from the true culprits in this war and robs us of some of the moral energy necessary to fight them.
...............................
President Bush's remarkable record in the War on Terror speaks for itself -- no matter how brazenly Democrats are trying to suppress it.
Read the entire article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/26/92030.shtml
Friday, Mar. 26, 2004
The essence of Richard Clarke's book and public testimony before the 9-11 investigative commission is: "Don't believe your lying eyes," and "Don't believe my prior statements praising President Bush's decision to combat terrorism far more aggressively than President Clinton had.
Would Richard Clarke, the Democrats and the partisan media now have us believe that Bush, at heart, is soft on terrorism? Is that the point of all this? To believe that, we have to ignore what Clarke himself said previously and, more importantly, Bush's unambiguous conduct of the War on Terror.
.........................
Indeed, we know from Clarke's prior utterances not someone else's interpretation or inferences from Clarke's words that President Bush, before 9-11, directed that we make a dramatic course correction in our approach to terrorism, from "swatting flies" to draining the terrorist swamp. In his previous life, Clarke was quite clear that Bush's pre-9-11 approach to terrorism was much more aggressive than Clinton's.
.........................
It is incomprehensible that Democrats are painting Bush as weak on terror, given his record, especially considering that their own torchbearer, John Kerry, recently complained that Bush has been exaggerating the terrorist threat.
...........................
One of the worst aspects of this investigation is its implicit assumption that we could have prevented 9-11, as if intelligence is an exact science and as if all terrorist attacks are wholly preventable. This is not only an unspeakably arrogant attitude, it also shifts our focus from the true culprits in this war and robs us of some of the moral energy necessary to fight them.
...............................
President Bush's remarkable record in the War on Terror speaks for itself -- no matter how brazenly Democrats are trying to suppress it.
Read the entire article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/26/92030.shtml
