Every single word.
Twice, if you’ve ever written “Amerika” unironically.
Welcome Back. Hope you really enjoyed the time off.
It should be noted that Feaver is certainly no shill for the Bush Administration either. His bio indicates he worked in Clinton’s NSC from 93 to 94.
Beyond the spin
This is far more clear than anything Albright will ever say: The Clinton record on military operations was clear: frequent…
The article is worthless because it refuses to acknowlege that Bush took the same approach to Terror that Clinton did until 9-11.
The writer seems to mind cognotive dissonance a little too much.
This should alleviate some of the pressure
Of course, it won’t. It seems that the Bush Administration already had plans to deal with Afghanistan: “President Bush and his entire national security team understood that terrorism had to be among our highest priorities and it was,” Powell said….
Wow. The article is worthless?
Did I get that right? Because the author neglects to make one point that you would have had him make, that invalidates all the points he does make?
Or would you just like to disqualify his argument, because that’s easier than refuting it?
Jediflyer, perhaps you need to see this. Someone disagrees with you about no terror policy changes until 9/11.
Who? Richard Clarke. Here’s one quote from a background interview given by Clarke in early August of 2002:
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you’re saying is that there was no – one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of ’98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. That’s right.
Read the whole thing here:
You’ll note that Jim Angle wasn’t the only reporter there. And the “no plan” he’s referring to is the supposed Clinton plan for getting rid of terrorists that Bush is accused of throwing in the garbage.
Umm, no he didn’t, he upped CIA spending and did a few other things.