Posted on 08/06/2002 9:33:47 AM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
As we approach the year anniversary of our American tragedy of September 11, a new investigative report exposes exactly how the Clinton administration did nothing about al-Qaeda for years. It even reveals how Clinton cynically ruled out action against the terrorist Islamist bin Laden for political reasons.
But that’s not the headline you’re being fed this week by Time magazine. No, the spin you’re getting from Time is — get this — the Clinton administration had a plan to boot al Qaeda and bin Laden, handed it over to the incoming Bush administration, which then dropped the ball causing thousands of deaths. Yes, it’s all Dubya’s fault.
The gift that Clinton and his cronies have of being blissfully unable to see beyond themselves exposes how truly morally corrupt they all are. This article, although infuriatingly insulting to every American, exposes the corruption of people who once again want to get their grubby little hands on the White House. They believe this will work because you won’t notice, or because you’re corrupt like them and don’t care. It’s time they learned we’re better people than they.
In order for you to forget about 9-11 being a result of Bill Clinton’s incompetence, the Democratic Party Elite need you to go into a state of suspended disbelief. With help from Time, and their other Left Elite media minions, the Clintons are sure they can make the truth false, the sky green, turn cats into dogs, and make Clinton’s massive terrorism fiasco George W’s failure.
This kind of blatant bias and spin would be laughable if it wasn’t anchored in the deaths of close to 3,000 Americans. One thing about groupthink, however, in which the Time reporters seem to be well immersed, is that the truth is usually right out in the open. It is missed simply because it is such a stranger to them. Here’s one excerpt about the real story from the article itself:
Berger was determined that when he left office, Rice should have a full understanding of the terrorist threat. In a sense, this was an admission of failure. For the Clinton years had been marked by a drumbeat of terror attacks against American targets, and they didn't seem to be stopping.Is it possible to be any more patronizing? I think it’s safe to say that Condi Rice, of all people, had an ‘understanding’ of what the terrorist threat was, as did most Americans. From the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, bin Laden had literally declared war on America. What was Bill Clinton doing? Instead of focusing on capturing a man who was a mass murderer of Americans, we had a president who spent his hours chasing down an intern and who knows who else. Bill Clinton’s sexual compulsion took priority over life itself for close to 3,000 Americans.
Elsewhere in this article is this little gem:
After the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, the secretive Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., drew up plans to have Delta Force members swoop into Afghanistan and grab bin Laden. But the warriors were never given the go-ahead; the Clinton Administration did not order an American retaliation for the attack.17 young men and women died in that terrorist attack. With this excerpt Time magazine reveals Clinton actually stopped a planned retaliation. That is the story. It does not require spin. It is not one of bias. It is simply the truth. Clinton’s inaction after the Cole was probably viewed by bin Laden as American weakness, giving him more aid, comfort and confidence as he planned his mass murder for September 11, 2001. Even when their own reporting reveals this depth of Clinton’s culpability, Time chose to blame the nine month old Bush administration for the Islamist attack on our soil. How dare they.
Even more appalling, Time reports Clinton also chose not to strike al-Qaeda because, as a Clinton staffer put it, "If we had done anything, say, two weeks before the election…we'd be accused of helping Al Gore." Clinton condemned Americans because of politics. That, too is to the story. It seems, however, that Time doesn’t think you’ll notice that particular dancing elephant because they have not deigned that to be the spin.
We heard months ago, after 9-11, how Bill Clinton had gathered his party faithful in his Harlem offices to discuss a new PR battle plan to restore his so-called legacy. He didn’t need to do that. The tragedy that visited this nation on September 11 is his legacy. The sick thing is he knows this. The Clintons, their cohorts and cronies, if they had healthy consciences, should be emotionally crippled by having to face their responsibility for the deaths of so many Americans at the morally diseased hand of bin Laden. Instead, their depravity compels them to blame others, point the finger and try to politically capitalize on our great nation’s tragedy.
I do believe Bill and Hillary Clinton are two of the most dangerous people in this country because they represent how hideous we can become. They strive to appeal to our greed, our selfishness, and our indecency. They hope we, like they, will allow the ugly side of ourselves to consume all that is right and good. It happened to them so, they must reason, they can make it happen to us.
The next election as well as 2004’s can and must be an undeniable denunciation of the party that elevates leaders like Clinton, Kennedy and Condit creating sexually harassed and dead interns, drowned women, marital infidelity, staffers driven to suicide and murdered Americans en masse. It’s time we took this country back from those who care only for themselves, and show both Bill and Hillary Clinton that their kind are better suited for carnival sideshows and not in the hallowed halls of this nation. We deserve better and we had better act on it.
Tammy Bruce is a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW and author of The New Thought Police (Prima, 2001).
Bravo, Tammy! Let's see her and Dr. Laura share a TV show as co-hosts! Ratings WINNER!
A little bit of historical perspective is in order here. According to my reckoning, this "meeting" was the only time Clinton's name was mentioned in a "current context" (i.e., in which Clinton was the subject matter because of something he did or said that day) in a two-month period between his infamous Georgetown speech in late November and another public appearance in late January.
It is worth noting that the media was not present at this "meeting," and in fact nobody has publicly stated that they had even seen Clinton getting out of his limousine, entering his office, etc. I have always suspected that this "meeting" never occurred, and was actually nothing more than a story that was floated to the media by the Clinton team just to make it seem as if he were still involved in day-to-day affairs in some way. Otherwise, people might have started to wonder why he was nowhere to be seen for two months, after a speech at Georgetown in which his speech was clearly slurred and he had the physical appearance of someone who had slept in the trunk of a car for three days.
I'd be interested to hear someone else's take on this.
Oh man! If I were wealthy I'd put this up on billboards all over the country.
FMCDH
At the bottom of the menu, on the left hand side of the same page as the Time Mag article They Had A Plan, you will find an email form for Letters to the Editors. Why not let Time and Michael Elliott feel your FReeper wrath.
The Time mag piece is as disgraceful an example of leftist, liberal spin as I have ever tried to read. Michael Elliott is either a traitorous fool or an egregious liar or both. The "lost cause" he refers to is the failed Clinton presidency, the endless quest for a legacy and pathetic Clinton sycophants such as Elliott. I don't know why I am so surprised or aggrieved over this outrageous piece after all Time carried Clinton's water for 8 long, miserable years. I suppose I'd been hopeful they would have seen the error of past decisions by now. Regrettably, that was wishful thinking, another "lost cause" not unlike those promoted by the fantasy spinning Mr Elliott and his motley gang of contributors. It makes me wonder if Michael Elliott is Clinton's latest psuedonym.
Leftist Democrats held control of Congress for most of the 20th Century. We have them to thank for the income tax; the bloated size and reach of the federal government; the ever accelerating breakdown of the nation's social fabric and cultural cohesion; the vicious political correctness movement; the breakdown of our public school system; irrational immigration policies; etc.
Actually, to be historically precise, although the founders followed British precedent and set up a largely independent judiciary, they did not view the judiciary as on a par with the legislative and executive branches. The founders intended for Congress, not the judiciary or executive, to be the arbiters of Constitutional interpretation and application.
Unfortunately, all of the societal, cultural, media, immigration, and political cross-currents that were operative before 9/11/01 are still operative today. The overwhelming majority of people are still largely ignorant of the facts you mention in your post. So there is every reason to believe that the November elections will result in continuation of a very closely divided Congress, which in turn will result in continued ineffective national security subject more to political considerations than to genuine attempts to serve the national interests.
I agree, but I would like to "see" her on the radio again. She was a weekend host on a local station where I reside and I remember listening to her evolve into a clear thinking conservative. Though she has a "certain" issue, I'm not bothered by that in the least. She is a bright thoughtful woman, a real "FMCDH" supporter of the Second Amendment, and can't stand the Clinton's. She could do national radio without breaking a sweat. Sic' Em Tammy!
George Walker Bush was sworn in as president at about noon on January 20, 2001. February 20, to March, to April, to May, to June, to July, to August 20 = SEVEN MONTHS. August 20 to Sepember 11 = 22 DAYS. George Walker Bush was president for SEVEN MONTHS AND 22 DAYS on 9/11/01.
The incoming Bush Administration had a very short transition period due to Al Gore's machinations in Florida. Within three months of Inauguration Day, the traitorous Jeffords pulled his switch and the Dems DELIBERATELY began slowing down the process of confirming the new president's nominees. (Remember: their strategy back then was to harp on how Bush was not a "legitimate" president.) So, on 9/11/01, although all the Cabinet secretaries had been sworn in, most of the secondary and tertiary appointees had not, and many of those positions were still temporarily staffed by Clinton appointees. I can't emphasize enough how important these facts are in putting the lead-up to 9/11/01 into its proper perspective.
We must also never forget that the 9/11/01 attacks were followed ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY by the anthrax attacks. Whoever did them, the fact remains that they also are a legacy of the monumentally negligent Clinton administration.
Hannity is doing yeoman's work on refuting Time on Fox tonight.
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.