Posted on 08/06/2002 9:33:47 AM PDT by Mr. Mulliner
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.