| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
What no one seems to be noticing about all this fuss Clarke is making, is that it endorses a very pro-active, aggressive approach to taking out terrorism, and that strongly favors Bush over Kerry. Kerry’s approach is to take a very limited approach to fighting terrorism.
As LGF points out, speeches made by leading Democrats at the recent “unity dinner” for Kerry didn’t even mention terrorism.
Everyone’s talking about how Clarke is attacking Bush on his strong suit. He’s doing nothing of the kind. He isn’t claiming that Bush did nothing after 9-11. Clarke’s arguments boost Bush’s current strategy, and slam Kerry’s.
