Streisand: "The Myth of Bush as Hero"

barbrastreisand.com ^ | March 29, 2004 | Barbra Streisand

[freekitty]

I wonder how long it took BS to write this article. You know she had to look up the spelling of all the words.

[lilylangtree]

This was reposted on FR earlier today. Appears that Babbling Babs needs to get a mind-refresher email.

How Gore aborted air safety: How Gore aborted airline security
worldnetdaily ^ | Sept. 24, 2001 | Joseph Farah

MONDAY SEPTEMBER 24 2001

How Gore aborted air safety

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

The country is united politically right now, so I'm sure I'll be accused of divisiveness, partisan sniping, maybe even being unpatriotic by raising this issue.

But, heck, I've been accused of worse. Last week the Wall Street Journal called me a "purveyor of obscenity." I'll let you be the judge of whether that description suits me.

I never let those criticisms bother me – especially not from uptight, corporate media establishment mouthpieces and spoiled, little, ivory-tower reactionaries.

So, today I'm going to tell you how Al Gore may have contributed, in his own politically ambitious, selfish way, to the deaths of some of the victims of the terrorist attacks Sept. 11.

Following the downing of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, Gore was entrusted by President Clinton to investigate airline safety. He was named chairman of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety.

The Gore commission produced what most observers considered to be a tough preliminary report unveiled Sept. 9 of that year – one that included tough counter-terrorism procedures.

But within days, according to an insider on the commission, the airline industry jumped all over Gore. As a result, 10 days later, Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett promising that the commission's findings would not result in any loss of revenue.

In what can only be seen as a pure political payoff, the Democratic National Committee received $40,000 from TWA the next day. Within two weeks, Northwest, United and American Airlines ponied up another $55,000 for the 1996 campaign.

But the money trail didn't stop there. In the next two months leading up to the November elections, American Airlines donated $250,000 to the Democrats. United donated $100,000 to the DNC. Northwestern put $53,000 more into the kitty.

Following the election, in January, Gore floated a draft final report that eliminated all security measures from the commission's findings, according to the insider. Two commission members balked, as did CIA Director John Deutch.

Fearing more political heat, Gore pulled back the draft report. A month later, the final report was issued – one that included requirements that would cost the airlines some money, but, perhaps, save some lives in the future.

The report's requirements included:


high-tech bomb detectors; more training for airport security; criminal background checks for security personnel; increased canine patrols. Only one thing was lacking from the report, said the whistleblower – there was no deadline by which those requirements would have to be met. It was open-ended. In other words, it wasn't worth the paper on which it was written.

In a meeting with other commission members Feb. 12, 1997, Gore said he would leave room for a dissent by those who opposed the report. But within minutes, Gore was announcing to the president and the public that the report was the work of a unanimous commission. In other words, he lied – again.

In Washington, that might have been the end of the story. Scandals like this often go unnoticed. But one courageous lady, the dissenting member of the commission, Victoria Cummock, filed suit to gain access to files she was denied and for the right to file her dissent.

Who is Mrs. Cummock? She was appointed to the commission by Clinton because her husband was killed in the terrorist downing of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland. She's the insider. She's the whistleblower. She's the heroine of this story.

All this was chronicled in a Tony Blankley column a year ago – a year and five days before the latest terrorist attack that killed all passengers and all the crew on four airliners as well as thousands on the ground at the World Trade Center and Pentagon Sept. 11.

Would any of that death and destruction have been prevented had Gore not crawled into bed with the airline industry thinking only in the short term about potential financial losses, not realizing it might be saving itself from much bigger losses in the future?

I guess we'll never know for sure. But remember this story the next time Al Gore rears his opportunistic political head on the national scene.

[Theresawithanh]

"I DO BELIEVE THAT EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT TRULY CARES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY, AND LEARNS THE FACTS, ...(blah-blah-blah)... AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN NOVEMBER!"

I do, and I have, and I'm voting for President Bush in November. As usual, your rantings are way off-base. You did manage to spell most of the words correctly, though. Did you finally install spell-check on your computer?

[cyncooper]

OK, I went and skimmed just her timeline. She's going for the crackpot theories, I see.

Point of fact the Bush administration was agressively addressing the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11. Here is an article from June 2001:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105829/posts

[bikerman]

with that beak she can pop a beer can thru a picket fence.

[pgyanke]

Ironic that the Party that blocked all security initiatives, and continues to do so, should be complaining about this.

Very ironic indeed. BEFORE 9/11 NO ONE connected the dots and those claiming they could have in hindsight are hind ends.

On the other hand, when you consider actions AFTER 9/11, it is plain that one side clearly had a plan to prevent further attacks and the other side couldn't yet be bothered...

- Blocking the Patriot Act which sought to overcome the very intelligence-sharing failures they love to selectively cite.
- Opposing racial profiling of airline passengers even though there is a very narrow demographic of historical attackers.
- Opposing arming of pilots which would have surely given the pilots an edge over their box cutter-wielding attackers.
- Blocking judicial nominees while the country is in a "judicial crisis" as recognized by both political parties.
- Obstructing the work of the President and the executive branch while we are at war.
- Opposing funding ongoing operations in Iraq.
- AND GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO OUR ENEMIES AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

[cyncooper]

A lot of personal attacks on Streisand on this thread

There are more points of fact disputing her idiotic transcription faithfully taken down as dictated by clinton.

As to Rice and Bush being bullied into testifying because of craven liars? No. There has been ample public and private testimony--including from Rice--to refute the odious Richard Clarke and all the chest beating in the world can't change that.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Rice testified under oath in private already, bush plans to do the same thing. If this is about finding out what went wrong (if anything) and fixing it, then why, other than to help the liberals on the commission (they are all liberals and/or RINOS) bash the Bush administration?

Telling all on world wide TV, could very easily reveal our weaknesses to other terrorists. If this farce is about security and preventing new attacks, then it is being conducted by incompetent idiots.

I tried to watch it at first, but it became obvious immediately that it was all about partisan politics, almost entirely ruled by Democrats and designed to Bash President Bush, Dr. Rice and the entire Administration.

We sure as hell won't be any safer from any actions taken by this bunch of jackasses-just the opposite is almost a certainty.

[Steve_Seattle]

"A lot of personal attacks on Streisand on this thread...Not helpful..."

Not helpful, indeed. I haven't seen a single factual rejoinder to her accusations, just name-calling. I believe there are responses other than name-calling, so if anyone has the facts, please weigh in.

[cyncooper]

Uh, look again. There's plenty.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

We need Rice and perhaps Bush to testify under oath in public and that will shut up those who are asking such questions.... Until the answers are presented, this is giving the left a valid attacking point that needs to be taken away...

Why not get clinton and algore to testify too? They have yet to agree to a public hearing.

[hosepipe]

[ Streisand: "The Myth of Bush as Hero" ]

Hosepipe: "The Myth of Streisand as Intelligent"
blah.blah.blah.blah.blah.blah.blah.blah.blah.blah.
( /end blahs )

[William Martel]

This article is a good sign. Usually, when Streisand jumps into the fray with her inane comments, it's usually a signal that momentum will soon shift in our favor...

Keep up the good work Babs!

[GeorgiaDawg]

With apologies to Laura Ingraham...

SHUT UP AND SING! No one gives a damn what your political point of view is, Babs!

[BigWaveBetty]

-WHY DIDN'T OUR GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO BEEF UP SECURITY AT AIRPORTS AND ON AIRPLANES?

-WHY WEREN'T WARNINGS ISSUED TO THOSE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT OUR FLIGHT SECURITY?

Ya might want to ask your pal Pepe LePew, Babs.

[Steve_Seattle]

One rejoinder is that this plot was in the works for three or four years, and if Bush should have detected it in eight months, why shouldn't Clinton have detected it in three years? (Of course, "Bush" and "Clinton" are shorthand for the entire defense/security/police apparatus of the federal government. Probably the real failures, if there were any, were at the mid-level of the FBI and in the fact that there were barriers to cooperation between the CIA and FBI.)

[PlanetOZ]

another liberal disquised as one of us. nice try. go back to reading your chomsky there Nakita...

[pgyanke]

I believe there are responses other than name-calling, so if anyone has the facts, please weigh in.

It would take too long. It's too full of BS (the non-singing kind).

HOWEVER, for all of the democrats and their enablers, they have only to look at actions AFTER 9/11 to see who took the WOT seriously. Whether or not Bush and Co. took it seriously before is plain to any who will look at the evidence. Even if you doubt their commitment before the war, the democrats' commitment since is laid bare.

Could anyone connect the dots BEFORE 9/11? No one seems to have. However, there is a political party and a media that can't even connect the dots NOW.

Back to your question... why should be take these morons seriously?

[Congressman Billybob]

"Babs" -- "The Myth that I am an intelligent, grown-up, capable woman." Did I miss anything?

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Please do it now.

[bondjamesbond]

You know, I think she might be voting for John F'n Kerry...