spankin glutes, was Re: Re:

Jbor:


<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it was the previous

> US Administration's (pseudo-Left Democrat) unwillingness or inability

> to confront the looming horizon of terrorism which allowed the

> deliberate and tactical "scattering", the heinous attacks themselves,

> and the conservative political backlash we are now experiencing?


</color>Actually, no...........not at all.......the above is the consequence of 
sloppy, partisan hackery from Andrew Sullivan and her ilk........


<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param><bigger>"<FontFamily><param>Times New Roman</param>A month before Clinton left office -- and nine months before 
the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- those 
successful operations were praised by the nation's most 
experienced diplomats in this field, including conservatives. 
"Overall, I give them very high marks,"<bold> said Robert Oakley, 
who served as ambassador for counterterrorism in the 
Reagan State Department,</bold> to a reporter for the Washington 
Post. "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with 
Osama, which has made him stronger." <bold>Paul Bremer, who also 
held the same post under Reagan and later was chosen by 
congressional leaders to chair the National Commission 
on Terrorism,</bold> disagreed slightly with his colleague. Bremer told 
the Post he believed that the Clinton administration had 
"correctly focused on bin Laden."


This citation is taken from a Joe Conason article responding to 
Sullivan. I cannot link you to it because it is a Salon Premium 
offering, but should anyone want larger chunks, I'd be pleased to 
oblige......Such chunks would include specific actions taken by 
the WJC administration in response to the issue......


(jbor, look for the huge file comin at ya!)


love,

cfa 


But to give Clinton any credit would scarcely serve his critics, 
who have more sinister and explicitly political aims.





<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param><FontFamily><param>Arial</param><smaller> Isn't

> the election and increasing popularity of the more right wing

> governments in the West, and in the East also, and the reversion to

> even more conservative policies and leaders, due to the general

> public's lack of faith in "the Left's" stand on, and ability and

> willingness to counter, terrorism?

> 

> The analogy you make between the Lambton Worm scene in _M&D_ and the

> Vietnam War is totally inapt as well.

> 

> best

> 

> 

> Doug Millison wrote:

> 

> > 

> > 

> > It's tempting to think of the Worm coiled around the White House,

> > whose occupant is so quick to identify an Evil Other and seek to

> > slay it, no matter what the cost or how suicidal the project might

> > be.

> > 

> > That Enemy able "to reassemble itself and fight on" sounds a bit

> > like the the US's opponent in  Vietnam, the Viet Cong and North

> > Vietnamese army, in the 60s and early 70s when Pynchon is believed

> > to have begun work on this novel...and like the al Qaeda forces that

> > Bush the Younger, Slayer of Evil-doers more recently scattered

> > around the world.

> > 

> > 

> 

> 



<nofill>