Originally posted by Harald
When Tony Blair was elected (I was allowed -- and did -- vote for him), I was exstatic. We had a progressive, smart, humane human as leader of the country I live in. And a pro-European too. A friend of similar, progressive leaders all over the planet. I stuck up for him when ever anyone said things like, "He's a dangerous guy because he believes his own lies" or "he's an opportunist from hell you know."
It took me a good 4 years to realise that he wasn't what I thought he was. It took the war on Iraq for me to really open my eyes and see that for whatever reason, he'd aligned himself with the most right-wing leader of the US in its history, and was an appalling deciever of himself and the world, and was engaged in a path of incredible danger.
Some of y'all should try opening your eyes, thinking for yourself. It's liberating.
It's not just TWO heads of counter-terrorism, a cabinet sec., a Pentagon official and a bunch of other people saying it, *THE NEO-CONS PUBLISHED A PAPER ON IT* saying that Iraq should be a priority. They TOLD you THEMSELVES and still you don't believe you were lied to about WMD -- where are they by the way? -- and you actually think invading Iraq diminished the threat from al Qaeda. You actually believe this.
THEY WEREN'T THERE BEFORE WE INVADED.
Indeed. The Bush-Can-Do-No-Wrong crowd on this board are too busy convincing themselves that Clarke is a hack rather than actually "hearing" what the man has to say. A hack, by the way, that was credible enough to work for TWO Reagan terms, Daddy Bush's term, both of Bubba's terms and Bunnypants.
Then you've got guys like DVIANT on this board who makes statements like, "Could it be that he was demoted when Bush took office? Nawwww..." I mean, guys like this don't even bother with the actual FACTS before making these types of snap judgments. Clarke wasn't demoted when Bush took office. He was RE-HIRED! Jeebus! He must only get his news from Fox, Rush and Hannity.
Then they go on illogical rants like "First Bushies are criticized for their policies of preemption and unilateralism and now the bandwagon is criticizing them for not unilaterally preempting the Taliban and al Qaeda." ****! How did the argument about OBL and Iraq get fused into one? Is it really that hard to understand that Iraq has NOTHING to do with Afghanistan and al Qaeda and that you can argue about tactic and policy separately? Apparently not.
Again, they resort to the same tired "anti-Bush" rhetoric. The cataclysmic failure of the federal government on 9/11 apparently is not open for discussion to guys like DVIANT. Apparently, an honest debate about the "War on Terror" can only be had between Republicans...liberals need not apply (after all...they're liberals).
Apparently when a Republican terror Czar complains about the administration it's okay to lie, distort and revise history in order to tar and feather a great patriots reputation. Apparently that type of gross behavior is acceptable to the right.
How many Republicans made millions off their BLOWJOBGATE tell-alls?