 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« One Year After Kelo, Tennessee Private Property Owners Still At Risk | Main | Failing You » June 22, 2006None So Blind As Those Who Will Not SeeOne of the downsides of being a thoughtful, intelligent blogger instead of a raving, ranting lunatic is you are subjected to a lot of email from raving, ranting lunatics from the other side of the political aisle. Case in point, an email I received today from "Clarence Swinney," a self-styled "political historian" from Burlington, N.C. Norah O'Donnell told Dean--do not you think you should give Bush some slack for we have not had a terror attack in 5 years.Swinney seems to forget that we had at least four attacks on America during the eight years of the Clinton administration - the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by al Qaeda (with an Iraqi bombmaker with ties to Saddam's government, btw), the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by al Qaeda in 1998, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole by al Qaeda in October 2000. By my count, that's four attacks on America and Americans during the Clinton administration - three if you count the simultaneous embassy bombings as one attack instead of two. And while the Cole was attacked in a Yemen port, the WTC is most definitely "America," and international law recognizes a country's embassies as its own territory. Attacks on our embassies are attacks on America. I will give Swinney credit for one thing. I agree with his email's subject line: "I give up expecting intelligence from Democrats." Posted in War on Terror
Comments
"One of the downsides of being a thoughtful, intelligent blogger instead of a raving, ranting lunatic..." Don't forget modest! :) Posted by: brittney at June 23, 2006 6:37 AMYou are unbelievable Bill. We have had tons of attacks on U.S. embassies since Bush has been in office, definitely more than four. That doesn't necessarily strengthen your point. Of course, the four you mentioned definitely occured under Clinton's watch. Posted by: Josh at June 23, 2006 10:49 PMPat Buchanan wrote a good book-"Where The Right Went Wrong" I agree with most his writing but cringe with his idolization of Reagan. I asked him to provide me with NUMBERS which reveal Reagan as above average. Reagan proponents use subjective analysis not objective numbers. Historical societies wait until a president has been out of office for five years before polling it's members In 1994, one of top societies polled it's members. 21% rated Reagan above average--Only 1% of those rated him as great. 79% rated below average- of those 18% rated as a disaster. In same year a poll of 500 history professors in colleges and universities rated him as tenth from bottom tied with Tyler. In the meantime, millions have been spent on his legacy. $$$ can re-invent history. Not the facts. Details on Reagan can be found by a Google Search- clarence swinney + reagan firsts clarence swinney + reagan scandals clarence swinney--self described historian as Hobbs self described himself as a journalist. Posted by: clarence swinney at December 26, 2006 12:09 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
