Posted on 09/12/2001 5:13:03 AM PDT by truther
The worst, single most tragic day in the history of America has just passed. Tuesday more Americans likely died than all the casualties of the Battle of Antietam on Wednesday, Sept. 17, 1862.
Already the media spin on yesterday's events is relentless.
The talking heads are pushing several themes, including:
* Now is not the time to point fingers at responsible parties in America, i.e., political figures like Clinton or our own security agencies.
* The events of Tuesday are the "worst-case scenario" – the worst is over.
* Osama bin Laden is the culprit.
On these points of spin, the first one is baloney. Of course we need to find why our security failed. This is basic.
And unless the big media are consulting a psychic better than the one I use, no one knows what the future days, weeks and months may yield. This is not the worst-case scenario. A worst-case scenario is a 25-megaton nuclear bomb detonated in New York or a full-scale attack against the U.S.! These should not be ruled out.
These dangers can be avoided, we pray, but only if we stop listening to the media idiots that feed us a diet of blow-dried nonsense. Is Katie Couric going to say how bad she feels for the terrorists who were driven to these cowardly acts?
It is the big media and the hack politicians that led us to this nightmarish day.
We are Amercans, so let's get our feet back on the ground and use common sense.
The media say we shouldn't point fingers. (Funny, isn't it, how the media have spent 30 years pointing fingers at Richard Nixon for his alleged crimes, but when one of their liberal favorites is due for some blame, they feed us the mantras like "Let's move on!" and "No time to point fingers!")
Common sense, in fact, dictates that we need to critically examine the people who are to blame for this incident, both the perpetrators (and if you believe Osama bin Laden was the major mastermind behind this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you) and the people we pay to protect us – that is, our national security agencies.
Without question, these agencies failed miserably in preventing this sophisticated, wide-scale and coordinated attack against America.
Tuesday I received an e-mail from a recently retired high-ranking CIA official. I will identify him as "Harry":
Here's what Harry said:
"... Reacting effectively and justly to this [attack] makes us hugely dependent on intell [intelligence] capabilities that failed us miserably. This is an enormous liability, which we shall not be able to fix before we have to react. Payback time for the last eight years!"
He continued: "There were clearly enormous failures here. This operation was ingenious in its simplicity, which would have limited the size (number of people, actions) of the operation and hence detectability. But it could not have been that small for at least a dozen men to hijack four carefully chosen aircraft (routes, fuel load) with carefully coordinated timing. And to get through security with knives big enough to subdue four relatively large crews. If the intell and security systems claim that this challenge is simply too hard for them, they have to be replaced, root and branch. Because this challenge is the challenge. It is now pretty self-evident that claims of reform and adjustment [at the intelligence agencies] to new realities that we've heard over the past eight years or so are hollow."
Of course, it's obvious why the media doesn't want any finger pointing.
Guess who ran the U.S. government and was responsible for our national security for the past eight years? Yes, you got it,
The Clintons were supported vociferously by the media through the worst imaginable scandals.
During that time I was one of the lead reporters opposing the Clintons. I was mocked and vilified by my colleagues for doing so. I said throughout that period that Bill Clinton's personal corruption was wholesale and mirrored how he was corrupting America's national security.
I wrote articles and said repeatedly that America, sadly, may end up paying a heavy price for Bill Clinton and the major media's complicity.
I don't believe the worst has passed with the incidents of today.
Brutally, we witnessed our weakness today.
During eight years, Clinton decimated America's military. Our forces were cut almost in half under his stewardship. Research and development on all new weapons systems were brought almost to a halt as other nations continued to build. Clinton destroyed nearly our entire arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Monsters like Saddam flourished as Clinton bombed aspirin factories, tent cities in Afghanistan and worthless radar stations in the Iraqi desert.
These are open facts, easily verifiable.
But Clinton, the ever-clever bastard, was more insidious. Little, systematic changes were undertaken to destroy America's intelligence agencies.
Let me explain. A regular NewsMax reader, "Roger," was a CIA spy in the Mideast.
I met him almost two years ago. Roger wanted to tell me why a gung-ho American quit the CIA in disgust. Roger said the CIA was not interested in recruiting spies.
Clinton and company knew they could not just tell the CIA to stop recruiting spies. That would look stupid and embarrassing.
So they just changed the rules of how spies are recruited, raising the bar on requirements to such a high degree that the most valuable spies could never meet CIA standards and couldn't work for us.
Previously, I wrote how Clinton effectively stopped the recruitment of Chinese nationals by demanding that only high-ranking embassy officials could be recruited – knowing this is almost impossible.
Roger told me that. Roger reminded me again of this today. He noted that Clinton policies reached their zenith under CIA Director John Deutch and his top assistant, Nora Slatkin. The pair ran Clinton's CIA in the mid-1990s and implemented a "human rights scrub" policy.
Here's how Roger described it in an e-mail Tuesday evening: "Deutch and Nora, Clinton's anti-intelligence plants, implemented a universal 'human rights scrub' of all assets, virtually shutting down operations for 6 months to a year. This was after something happened in Central America (there was an American woman involved who was the common law wife of a commie who went missing there) that got a lot of bad press for the agency.
"After that, each asset had to be certified as being 'clean for human rights violations.'
"What this did was to put off limits, in effect, terrorists, criminals, and anyone else who would have info on these kinds of people."
Roger says the CIA, even under new leadership, has never recovered from the "Human Rights Scrub" policy.
But we, the American people, Congress, and honest media need to examine all of these issues, now and quickly. If we don't, we risk even more grave dangers than those that we just lived through.
The silent stare wasn't a moment of frustration, it was self control. One thing that I absolutely refuse to do, is jail time, because some liberal is running his mouth.
HE HAD TO SHUT DOWN THE CIA SO THEY WOULDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT HIM SELLING SECRETS TO THE CHINESE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.