THE CLARKE AFFAIR
Re: George Neumayr’s The Latest Clintonite Bashes Bush:
“Last night’s 60 Minutes launched a week of shameless attacks by Clinton-Kerry forces who wouldn’t know a terrorist if he blew himself up in front of them.”
I must disagree with the statement above. The Clinton/DNC cabal knew the terrorists very well. They were receiving large chunks of cash and other valuable commodities from them so as to look the other way.
Flagler Beach, Florida
The news Sunday that a trusted Bush administration security official had apparently accused President Bush of both misfeasance and malfeasance in his policy against terrorists dismayed me and I went to bed in a funk. Even postings on the usually reliable Lucianne.com offered no relief for my dread of the morning and the inevitable Detroit Free Press‘s disclosure of the latest evidence of Bush’s Machiavellian assault on the Muslim world. However in the morning, after tossing and turning all night, coming awake in a fever every half hour, I logged on to the Spectator and learned that Clarke was at the table next to Madame, Sandy, Holbrooke and Cohen, during his years of service for that administration.
Unfortunately, I suspect the fact of Clarke’s actual provenance is like the sound not heard in the woods with no ears present — the “main media” will refuse to record it, rendering it a non-fact. In fact the headline and story in the Free Press was “White House Denies the Claims by Ex-Official,” with no reference to Clarke’s past quixotic irenic efforts — indeed none at all to his valiant Clintonite service.
— J.R. Wheatley
Harper Woods, Michigan
Yeah! Yeah! Just pick on these individuals and ignore the facts that these government officials including a former cabinet member, Mr. O’Neill, are brave men who came out and told the truth. You can attack and smear them, but you cannot defend how this president and his administration have squandered our resources and put our next generation at risk with policies and programs that were unjustified and totally wrong.
Let us go to the root causes of terrorism. Al Qaeda, extreme Islamic forces, are the result of uneven handling of the Israel and the Palestinian conflict by U.S. and international Middle East policies.
— Kenneth Ng
Regarding George Neumayr’s column on Richard Clarke’s back-stabbing the Bush administration: let this be a lesson to the President and his top advisers. Do not retain top level Clinton holdovers. This type of back-stabbing was present in almost every Republican administration since Reagan. In an attempt to appear “bipartisan” these holdovers end up leaking tips to the press and working to undermine the Republican administration they serve. Rare is the holdover who gives his complete loyalty to a GOP president. And once they’re in, it’s hard to get rid of them. Hopefully future administrations will heed this warning.
— Dennis Vest
Why is it so astonishing that President Bush would have an inordinate interest in terminating the Iraqi regime after 9/11 attacks? It was official government policy to seek “regime change” in Iraq since a 1998 Congressional Resolution sought by the Clinton Administration. No other country had this distinction. Bush would have been derelict in his duties for not connecting a gross act of terrorism with Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
— Jerome Brick
Beaver Dam, Arizona
I am relieved that so many saw the petty little man Clarke the way I saw him. Nervous, blustering and in denial as the interview blundered its way through the opening sixty minute program- segment. Soft ball garbage with little or no relevance to the truth, easily discredited by the guest’s own contradiction of statements.
This was a Clinton professional in action.
— L. Hyak
Not only did Lesley Stahl do a second rate job interviewing Richard Clarke about his book, but she covered herself in shame for failing to disclose the conflict of interest that exists between CBS (her employer) and Simon and Schuster (publisher of Clarke’s book) and the ownership of both companies by Viacom. This wasn’t a news interview as much as it was an infomercial for a book that served the political agenda of the companies involved.
— Dick Melville
Ozone Park, New York
David Stockman was not an “establishment liberal” by any stretch of the imagination. Other than that, excellent piece.
— David Dodenhoff
CHIANG AND CHEN
Re: Jed Babbin’s Palm Beach County, Taiwan:
Mr. Babbin is a little disingenuous to suggest that Chiang Kai-Shek “stayed in the fight with us” during World War II. In fact, most of the fighting against the invading Japanese was done by the Chinese Communists, a fact not lost on the great Winston Churchill who dismissed Chiang as a crook. Is it really worth risking American interests for the sake of a showboater like Mr. Chen who is only concerned with his own place in history (others who have assumed this role in the past include Hitler and Milosevic)?
— Craig Gerrard
Jed Babbin replies: I think Mr. Gerrard and I have a point of departure. The Kuomintang did stay in the fight after the Japanese offered them a separate peace. Whether Churchill considered Chiang a crook or not is immaterial. And comparing Chen to Hitler is simply out of bounds. I agree he’s a showboater, but Mr. Gerrard’s comparison to Milosevic and Hitler removes any credibility from his entire argument.
Re: Shawn Macomber’s Singer’s Plague:
I momentarily lost the thread of Shawn Macomber’s argument when I read, “Unfortunately these intellectuals didn’t have the personalities to win elections and so were forced to use the simple-minded ‘patrician’ marionette to seize power.” For just a second, I thought he had switched and was talking about the Dems and Kerry.
— Jenny Woodward
Mr. Macomber’s piece on Peter Singer’s idiocy left out a rather significant point — the good professor (and judge) of ethics has declined to relieve his own mother of her suffering, oddly enough — or, is it perfectly predictable?
— P.A. Melita
Shawn Macomber replies:
Actually, in an interview Singer said he would likely relieve his mother of her suffering if only his sister wasn’t involved in the decision making process.
Re: Shawn Macomber’s A Million Austins:
Thank you for taking the time to let the nation know about what’s happening in Austin, Texas and for supporting us!!
Boycott Supporter and Austinite,
— Tiffaney Evans
Re: Nicolas Ziener’s letter (“Greetings From Grenoble”) and “From a European” (“It Must Be Love”) in Reader Mail’s Jan Scruggs’ Vietnam Wall?, Dr. Patrick Rosa’s letter (“Chilled Bordeaux”) in Reader Mail’s The Games People Play, and Reader Mail’s The New Derrida:
Three points to consider, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Salman Pak. Others would be mass graves, rape rooms, torture chambers and 400,000 plus dead citizens. All found in genial kind Grandpa Saddam’s paradise. If that isn’t terrorism, what is? Think about it for 30-40 years. As for Santa, it goes with Christmas which you in your secular cynicism do not believe in anyway.
Mr. Ziener must know what he’s talking about when he asserts the war in Iraq was about oil. France was definitely neck-deep in oil deals with Saddam and not only hid, but initiated, the corruption in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
With this as background for France’s position, and the personal betrayals of our government by Chirac and De Villepin, I would rather see France out of Afghanistan. They can even withdraw their foreign service staff from the U.S., for all I care. The French ceased being our allies long ago!
— Kenneth E. Lizotte
While we may be all those things [“European” says we are] (tho I doubt it), at least we have the integrity to sign our names if and when we proffer such a noxious screed! Hopefully, if you truly are a “European” not a Democrat you will stay where you are and disgrace our shores with your presence.
— C.D. Lueders
Boca Raton, FL
The French and their “Pink Panther” approach to dealing with terrorists is laughable at best. I am reminded of the story of a man standing on the corner snapping his fingers for no apparent reason. When asked what he was doing he replied, “I’m keeping the lions away.” The questioner looks at the man and says, “Don’t you know, there haven’t been any lions around here for many years.” To which the finger snapper replies, “Works, don’t it?” Dr. Rosa and the rest of his ilk should just keep on snapping. Maybe the lion will stay away.
— John Finger
Concord, North Carolina
“I am still very much convinced, like a lot of Europeans, that this war is about oil, and nothing else.”
If it is, then why is Europe so unconcerned, since most of it goes to them? I guess it is because they are incapable of acting even in their own interest to cut off the oil money that is flowing to the terrorists.
— John Schuh
Lake Dallas, Texas
Weasels wobble, but they don’t fall down.
— Judd Clark
Dubuque, Iowa USA
I was reading online email comments concerning Europe being used to terrorism since they have been putting up with it for 30-40 years and how they will show us, the US, how to defeat terrorists. This got me to thinking.
I keep hearing how all terrorism is the fault of the United States. It’s our fault that we were attacked. It’s our fault that everyone gets attacked. Well, to the rest of the world, I say ….
If the worthless idiots in France , Belgium and the rest of the EU had not lowered their education levels to six steps below turnip, they might take the time to research and find out who the real culprits are that caused this current situation.
If we go back in history past yesterday or last month, we will see that the advent of terrorism in the world is a direct result of the failure of the United Nations. Yes Tommy, the UN is responsible for the terrorism in the form that we see in the world today.
Prior to the turn of the century (1900s) Jews and Palestinians lived in the Middle East region in relative peace. They lived this way for several hundred years.
Now, along came World War II. At the end of the war, the UN was created. Somewhere around 1949, if memory serves correctly. At this time, Britain had guaranteed the patch of land that Israel now sits on to both the Jews and the Palestinians. Along comes the UN and Britain hands off the issue to them. Remember, this is the first action that the UN took as a world body. They gave the land to Israel, thus starting the problems in the Middle East. We can see in this that they were a useless in the beginning as they are now.
This is the first act and the first failure of the United Nations (not that they have had any legitimate successes). From there, we see Egypt, Syria and company get their collective butts kicked by the new Israel. Well, from here, we have Arafat become the kingpin of the PLO. The PLO tried, initially, face to face conflict with Israel. The PLO got their collective butts kicked. This led to the PLO starting terrorism, as we know it today, in the late 1960s to early 1970s in the form of plane hijackings.
During this time, Arafat started training his soldiers in the terroristic attacks that have grown to what we see today. In fact, many of the terrorist organizations that we see today received, if not all, then the majority of their training from the PLO.
The first instance of the U.S. having interests bombed by terrorists would be the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983; the second would be the Marine barracks in Beirut, later the same year.
And so it has continued ad nauseam.
Now, knowing this information, we can see that if anyone is to be blamed for modern day terrorism, it would be the UN and to a slightly lesser extent Britain.
Now, I am just a little guy busting his butt for a living and yet I know this. Does this mean that the rest of the world has become so stupid that they are not even able to read history or is it a matter of them doing like they do with terrorism and hiding their heads in the sand? And why is it that you never hear of this in the mainstream, left wing, radical, terrorist supporting media?????
If I can do my homework, then why can’t the rest of the world?
— Ronald Renner
WARS OF WORDS
Re: George Neumayr’s The Bolshevik in Kerry:
I found your article, The Bolshevik in Kerry to be alarming at the very least. I would encourage you to take a less militant stance against those with whom you disagree. The two-party system we have in our government presently is a great system that allows for constructive dialogue between people on opposing sides of important issues. Unfortunately it also allows for the harsh, hyperbolic and reactionary hate-speech articles like yours promote. This country will NEVER progress unless we respect the PEOPLE on the other side of debates. People will disagree and to expect everyone to agree with you in every matter is immature and idealistic. Please stop writing these hateful articles.
— Joshua Myers
Re: “Standing on the Corner” letters in Reader Mail’s Jan Scruggs’ Vietnam Wall?, Jed Babbin’s letter (“For the Record”) in Reader Mail’s The New Derrida and Kevin McGehee’s letter (“Foxettes “) in Reader Mail’s Games People Play:
I am shocked, shocked I say. It is inconceivable that I should be the only reader to stand up for the feminine virtues of the auburn haired among us.
As very likely the oldest respondent, I attempt to claim a certain excess of wisdom in this discussion. I will also have to say that my highest highs and at least some of my lowest lows have been in conjunction with ladies with auburn locks. A true redhead’s temperament almost always matches their hair. I am almost at a loss to explain those among us that would deny a comely redhead, old enough to not need to be carded, that is a part time motorcycle mama, AND knows her stocks and bonds and financials.
Now don’t get me wrong, every one of the ladies cited is a definite keeper (although Kirin could put on a couple of pounds). I would be hard pressed to not rank Patty Ann Brown #1 in the darker haired group. Oh, and in the blonde category, Is Rita Cosby losing weight? I do appreciate a husky southern accented feminine voice.
Now ain’t this more fun than arguing about politics and health food and the like?
— Ken Shreve
Re the 3/22 Reader Mail, I must agree wholeheartedly with Albert Wilson — Patti Ann Browne is the best there is on Fox News Channel. Like Kiran Chetry, she is no blonde — but unlike Ms. Chetry, Ms. Browne has talent and modesty to go with her looks. Moreover, Ms. Browne would never (as Ms. Chetry did on air) confuse President Lincoln’s assassin with Matthew Broderick’s son.
— David Zinkin
Pittsford, New York
First Place: Carol McKinley, usually reporting out of Denver or the Mountain West for Fox. She’s no kid with shiny lipstick and costly coiffure. Even the makeup, if any, is minimal.
Second place, Catherine Herridge.
Third, the much-brighter-than-a blonde-should-be-expected-to-be Laurie Dhue…..
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.