Rush Limbaugh: Political Class Circles Wagons To Cover Clinton Terrorism Failure

RUSH: The headline is really all you need to know: "Clinton: I Would Have Attacked bin Laden." Bill Clinton here, in... I guess New York magazine, got the first post-stroke interview with the former president. He was out in Chicago today at the memorial service for John Johnson, the publisher of Ebony and Jet magazines. He was escorting Mrs. Johnson to her seat in the church and you just see (Clinton impression), "I want my legacy, folks. I'm still working on my legacy," in everything he says and does. "Former President Clinton now says that he would have taken out Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks if only the FBI and CIA had been able to prove the Al-Qaeda mastermind was behind the attack on the USS Cole. 'I desperately wish I had been president when the FBI and the CIA finally confirmed officially bin Laden was responsible for that attack. I mean that. We could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early. I mean, I don't know if it would have prevented 9/11 but it certainly would have complicated it.' Despite his failure to launch such an attack, Clinton said that he saw the danger posed by bin Laden much more clearly than the Bush administration has." (Laughing.) I can't keep a straight face. I'm sorry. "I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did," Clinton said to New York magazine. Well, now, this is just so much BS. Where do you start with it? He did launch attacks.

He sent a missile into an empty building in Baghdad on a Saturday night, killed a janitor. He sent missiles to an ibuprofen factory in the Sudan. He sent missiles to an empty terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He did all this. (impression) "I would have taken bin Laden a lot more seriously than the Bush administration ever did, Limbaugh, because I knew." How did you know? "Well, I mean, I really didn't know because we had this wall out there, you know, I couldn't find out. If we didn't have this wall but, you know, I can't say that publicly. Everybody would know I'm responsible for that wall." That's exactly right, sir. Folks, I mean, just the sheer immaturity and childishness of this, "I was taking bin Laden more seriously than Bush was. If this would have happened on my watch, we wouldn't have been doing what we're doing right now. It would have been over with and done with if I was there because I would have taken bin Laden far more seriously." You weren't taking terrorism seriously at all in your administration, Mr. President. You were shuffling it aside, moving it aside. It was a big issue and you dealt with small issues. You were so worried about your legacy you didn't want anything going wrong. One of the reasons that the Pentagon, supposedly this Able Danger story, one of the reasons the Pentagon did not pass the information along is that nobody wanted to hear it in the Clinton administration. No one wanted to hear it, particularly after the Waco invasion. Nobody wanted to hear that there was a terrorist cell, Al-Qaeda terrorist cell on American soil because that would have required somebody to do something about it, and why did the wall exist, where did that wall come from, Mr. President?

It came from your assistant attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, who ran the place while Janet Reno was out there buffaloing people through her press conferences and stealing Elian Gonzales and sending him back to a communist hellhole. I mean, if Clinton would have launched an attack on Mrs. Gorelick, 9/11 may not have happened. If he killed bin Laden when he had the opportunity, 9/11 would not have happened. If Bill would have not treated terrorists the same as cat burglars, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I mean, if bin Laden was such a huge threat to Bill Clinton, why didn't he mention him in his farewell address to the nation? Clinton mentions the word terrorism, but the speech is worth reading to put in context just how a big deal Clinton thought the issue of terrorism was, and you can get the speech at AmericanRhetoric.com/speeches/Clintonfarewell. According to Clinton, if you look at his farewell speech, the world was perfect as he left office. He had no clue what the hell was about to happen, and it wasn't the FBI or CIA's fault. They knew what was going on. If only Clinton would let them talk to each other about it, then we might have had some idea. How often did Clinton meet with his CIA director? He met with him twice. He met personally with George Tenet twice, folks, when Tenet was named the CIA director, seven years, Clinton met personally with him in the office twice. There was no way Clinton was going to do anything. He didn't want to know what was going on in these places. This is just comical.

RUSH: Yeah, it's real simple here, folks. If only the executive branch, those offices of the executive branch that Clinton had direct control over had done their jobs, Bill would have been able to kill bin Laden. If only Gorelick had not built the wall, if only he had killed bin Laden when he was asked to -- if only, if only, if only, if only, if only, if only! Bill Clinton is one of these If-Onlys. It's like the dog ate my homework. "If I'd have found out about that and if I'd had known that and if I didn't have that wall, and if and if and if and if and if, I'd have killed bin Laden. I'd have taken bin Laden at lot more seriously than Bush is, but I had all those ifs in the way, and I couldn't get there. Wish I had a second chance." Speaking of all this, the Washington Times today: "Pentagon lawyers, fearing a public-relations "blow back," blocked a military intelligence unit from sharing information with the FBI that four suspected al Qaeda terrorists were in the country prior to the September 11 attacks, after determining they were here legally, a former Defense Department intelligence official says. Members of an intelligence unit known as Able Danger were shut out of the September 11 commission investigation and final report, the official said, despite briefing commission staff members on two occasions about the Mohamed Atta-led terrorist cell and telling them of a lockdown of information between the Defense Department and the FBI. The intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Pentagon lawyers 'were afraid of a blow back' -- similar to the public's response to the FBI-led assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, which left more than 70 people dead -- and decided to withhold the information from the FBI. The official said the decision was made at the Army's Special Operations Command (SoCom) headquarters in Tampa, Fla.,which concluded that Atta, the ringleader of the September 11 hijackers, and the others were in the country legally and thus had the same legal protections as U.S. citizens. 'If something went wrong, SoCom felt it could get blamed,' the official said. But Pentagon officials have said they have uncovered no specific intelligence data from the Able Danger unit concerning an Atta-led terrorist cell, other than a few intelligence analyses that mention his name, and September 11 commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton disputed the source of the information." They keep changing their stories, too.

"Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said in a joint statement that the military source of the accusation 'could not describe what information had led to this supposed Atta identification' and that no other information placed three other September 11 hijackers with Atta in a purported terror cell. The intelligence official said he was interviewed in October 2003 by members of the September 11 commission staff, including Executive Director Philip Zelikow, and sought to arrange a follow-up meeting that the staff had requested when he returned from Afghanistan in January 2004, but was rebuffed. 'They took good notes and scribbled the entire time I talked. Two staffers took four to five pages of notes each. Other members from Special Ops Command also were in attendance,' he said, adding that he was 'shocked' in January 2004 when the staff members told him, 'We don't need to talk to you.' Mr. Weldon said he wants to know 'who made the decision and why was it never mentioned in the final document... It would have changed the completion on the final 9/11 report.'"

I tell you what's going to happen here, folks. The good old Washington CYA is going to get into full gear here. Remember what these commissions are all about, these blue-ribbon panels are all about -- and I hate saying this but I've seen too many of them to know. The Washington political class, even though they may be diametrically opposed to each other on occasion, some are Democrats, some Republicans, liberals and conservatives. The political class will circle the wagons to protect itself, i.e. the Clinton impeachment and the Senate Republicans' decision not to take the whole thing seriously. Base closures. You bring in these guys that used to be elected officials, but now they're retired. Bring them back, give them big expense accounts at nice hotels; give them the limelight for whatever period of time. Let them make up their minds which bases get closed, insulating any elected official from blowback, if you will, from controversy, because when a base gets closed in a member's district and the people raise hell they can say, "I didn't do it. The Pentagon did it! A blue ribbon committee did it." Here comes the 9/11 Commission, and it's the same thing. Even though there were plenty of partisans in that commission, the primary objective of that commission I think on the left was to protect Bill Clinton and Jamie Gorelick, and on the other side the primary effort was to protect Bush. The primary effort was not to find out what happened. The primary effort was not to find out who knew what happened and dig into it. If the primary effort of the commission was to find out what happened, the wall would have been something that was a focal point of the 9/11 Commission.

As it was, it gets a couple mentions. The architect of the wall is one of the commissioners, Jamie Gorelick. She's there so that she can run interference for herself and her presence... The way the political class operates, "We can't go after a valued member of this commission! Why, how dare you level this accusation? These are some of the finest people in this country. We are some of the finest people in Washington. Why, we've been in Washington all of our lives. We've devoted our lives to public service. How dare you suggest that we are out here trying to cover up for one of our prestigious members?" Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So the whole point here is: circle the wagons and make sure that at the of the day, the political class regardless of ideology or party doesn't take a big hit. They'll have their ideological battles on other issues. When it comes to something like this, a big terrorist attack that apparently enough data was known about in advance to at least get some advance warning and maybe do something about it, we're not going to focus on this. It makes the political class look bad, no matter who was in charge, where, and when, it makes the political class look bad. So basically what you have here is you have a commission that came up with all of these suggestions. "We need to do this, need to do that, need to do that," and the media treated them with such gusto because there was enough anti-Bush sentiment and there weren't enough anti-Bush moments during the campaign year of 2004 that the commission was pumped up and made to feel really big sort of like Cindy Sheehan is being made to feel now, and so they issued out of their suggestions and demands, and then when the other members of the political class didn't act on them soon enough, the commission said, "What are you going to do about what we said to do?" because the fastest way to provide the old CYA is to implement what they've said. Because if Congress implements what these other guys in the political say to do, why, then everybody is on the same page. We're working together to save America! Why, that's what we're trying to do here, bammo! And then this stuff leaks out, and, "Uh-oh," and now it's, "We gotta circle the wagons here. We gotta do something, because a member of the political class is making these charges." That would be Curt Weldon, and members of the political class don't turn on one another and live to tell about it very long in a political sense. So we'll see what happens with this, folks.

CALLER: I'm your biggest airborne fan listening in the flight levels from the cockpit of my CRJ.

CALLER: You bet. The reason I'm calling in is that I tried all day yesterday I was so fired up on this after watching Fox News Sunday, Charles Krauthammer had some comments about the Able Danger revelation that just absolutely mystify me. I cannot understand how a guy who's so pro-conservative can come out and dismiss the Able Danger claim as, what did he say, a conspiracy theory that went beyond the pale, I think if I have the quote right. And I was hoping you could explain why a guy who we would count on to back us on this, to at least give it some kind of inspection, a guy like this would come out and immediately dismiss it.

RUSH: You have come to the right place, Sean, I'm glad you called. Interesting you bring this up. I got an e-mail this morning from a friend of mine, Jim Geraghty. Jim Geraghty writes The Kerry Spot . It was so popular during the Kerry campaign that they kept it alive as a blog. Now they call it TKS at NationalReview.com. But here's what he says: The title of this e-mail is, "ARRRRGH. Darn You, Congressman Weldon." He says: "Just heard from a guy I trust that the Pentagon will be releasing information regarding Able Danger in the not too distant future. The short version: Don't expect any bombshells. Thank you, Congressman Weldon, for getting just enough of this story right (the existence of Able Danger and its mission) to get folks like myself and lot of others to take you seriously. Those others weren't just bloggers, by the way - I'm talking about the New York Times, the AP, the Bergen Record... And thanks a (really bad word) heap for getting more than enough wrong that we look like idiots for trusting you. You know, like that rather key element that Able Danger had picked out four of the 9/11 hijackers and recommended they be picked up by the FBI. [italics in original] I can see how you could mix up that pesky little detail." So apparently Geraghty here has a source from the Pentagon that says that's not true, that Able Danger had not picked out four of the 9/11 hijackers and recommended they be picked up by the FBI. He also writes:

"Thank you for making all of these stunning allegations without any supporting evidence. Thank you for not having any documents, memos, or anything beyond allegations from an anonymous former defense intelligence guy who is unwilling to come forward and speak on the record. Thanks for using us to goose your book sales this month. Thank you for making the 9/11 Commission, a group that seemed to have done a sloppy, incomplete job, look absolutely on the ball and well-organized and coherent in comparison. (In retrospect, should the Commission have mentioned Able Danger? Sure. They were a small part of U.S. counterterrorism efforts before 9/11. But if they never found anything that tied into the attacks, then the Commission is right, they weren't all that signficant [sic] in the big picture. They warranted a paragraph or two.) If Weldon generates some actual evidence, or if any of the 11 guys in Able Danger come forward and make a persuasive case that 'yes, we did spot four hijackers in 2000', then I'll backtrack on all of this. But right now, I doubt that we will ever hear from any of them. The only silver lining to this mess? I can gloat to Mary Mapes about how to burn a source that leads you astray."

So that's Jim Geraghty from National Review Online, and I've been noticing on some of the -- are you still with me, Sean?

CALLER: I sure am. I didn't want to interrupt you. You seemed like you were on a roll.

RUSH: You know, I've been reading the conservative blogs on this. One of the things I've noticed on conservative blogs -- this is Rush here out to make big friends in the movement. I have noticed in these conservative blogs, and not just in this story, but I think there's so many pseudo-intellectuals out there on these blogs. Some of them are very good and some of them are really nice guys, but some of them have just got caught up in the blog chatter and they're trying to be the smartest people in the room, and I've also noticed this about some -- not just bloggers; I shouldn't just limit it to them -- but some of the people in the conservative movement are doing their best to avoid being considered part of what they think is the kook fringe of the right wing, and I gather from reading Geraghty's note here to me today that that's one of the things that bothers him. He's afraid that we jumped to the conspiracy theory on the word of a congressman that it can't be backed up and can't be proven and they all look like idiots, so now I think this might have been what Krauthammer was doing to run to the middle here to make sure you don't get tarred much as Cindy Sheehan is getting tarred, or some of the left-wing kooks are getting tarred.

CALLER: Well, Rush, maybe Krauthammer could have at least said let's investigate this, let's perhaps reopen the 9/11 Commission, because that was my position. I called my senator, Lamar Alexander, yesterday, and, you know, I was emphatic with the aide I spoke with. I said, "They must either reconvene a new 9/11 Commission or reopen it because the American people are never going to know the truth unless we get to the bottom of this."

RUSH: Wait. I can understand your passion on this, but let me again share with you and tell you rather than read it to you what Mr. Geraghty said to me in his e-mail. It's posted at National Review at The Kerry Spot blog. It's posted. Anybody can go read it. I am a featured member of the undisclosed recipients list that Mr. Geraghty sends his dispatches to before they get posted or right at the same time. He's saying that no evidence from the Pentagon that's going to be presented soon backs up anything that Curt Weldon says other than there was an Able Danger but that they didn't have details on four hijackers, they didn't have details that they were plotting 9/11, none of this, and Geraghty is basically saying that until we hear something different, actually get some proof and documentation from Congress or Weldon, that the commission was right to treat Able Danger the way they did with a couple references.

CALLER: Congressman Weldon said on Sean Hannity I believe, that some of the Able Danger people were willing to go on the record.

RUSH: I've heard him say that. I hope that's true, and I hope they do. I hope they do. I'll tell you something else -- and this is not just specifically tied to -- let me give you a little story here to help put some of my comments in context. The Fiftieth anniversary of National Review magazine is coming up in October. They're having a big bash on October 7th, and the New York Times is doing a story on the 50th year of National Review and Mr. Buckley as the, quote, unquote, "patron saint" of conservatives, and they asked me if I would consent and submit to being tied down in a room with a little light bulb for an interview, and I said, "No, but I'll talk to you on the phone." So I did the interview last week, and one of the questions was, "What's changed in the conservative movement in, say, the last 30 years? Buckley started it and how does it exist today?" I gave him one story as an example. When I came to New York in 1988, National Review was pretty much it as far as conservative publications. There was no conservative media other than when my show started. The bloggers hadn't kicked up yet. There was no Fox News or any of that. It was basically just National Review and Buckley and, you know, whatever adjuncts. The American Spectator was there, too. Bob Tyrrell and his bunch, they were doing some good work, but it wasn't a diverse group of people at all. It was very small, and after I've been on the air only a year and a half -- and Buckley was one of my idols -- after I've been on the air a year and a half I get a phone call, and I'm invited to one of the editors meetings. They have editors meetings, or did, when Buckley was the editor. He's retired since. But they have editors meetings every other week, and at this point in the time of the year it was summertime. They did it at his home in New York and I was invited to one of these. They wanted to get to know me. They wanted to find out who I was.

They were appreciative that a new conservative had arrived on the scene and basically the purpose of the dinner was to welcome me to it all, and I said that would never happen today. There is no William Buckley to welcome new arrivals into the conservative movement. I told the Times, "If you look at the conservative movement now it's a bunch of competitors. The conservative movement has changed drastically." I mean, it's grown. This is not a complaint. I'm just illustrating. It's gotten big, and there's so many people in it that they all think they're the leaders, they all think they run it or they all think they're the smartest of the movement or whatever -- and so there's competition in the movement now, and there isn't a singular source that will welcome any new conservative arrival in and anoint them, if you will, and say welcome to the team and have them join the team. There is no team now, despite what you people may think, there is no conservative team. There's conservative competition. There are conservative beliefs, and there are conservative principles and those are hard and fast and they are true. But there's also mass competition. You've got half the conservative movement that lives and dies to be invited on cable television shows that nobody watches. Half of them live and die just to be on TV. Half of them live and die to have their names published there or mentioned there or whatever. It's sort of comical to watch because I've been through it myself many, many, many moons ago, but what it all adds up to is that that's why you're going to have factions, as you've noticed, in the conservative movement because there are elements of the conservative movement that, frankly, embarrass other elements. I will tell you for a fact that many of the intellectual, pseudo-intellectuals hate talk radio. They despise the conservatives of talk radio. They don't like them; they think they give conservatives a bad name. They think this because of what the mainstream press writes about talk radio. These are people that want to be accepted by the mainstream press, they want to be quoted by the mainstream press, and yet they're conservatives, and there's also a branch of the conservative movement which does not want to be tied at all to any element of the conservative movement that can't get over Bill Clinton.

So I think that when this Able Danger thing came up, Sean, and when what Weldon was saying made the focus of the Clinton administration, there are a lot of conservatives, "I'm not going there. We have not been able to nail Clinton and I'm not going to look like all I've got is Bill Clinton on my mind. I'm going forward. I don't care about Bill Clinton. He's past history. It doesn't make any difference to me and I don't want to be lumped in with those neophyte conservatives who can't get over Bill Clinton." I think that's why you get some separation and distance on this story. It's just part and parcel of growth. There's now competition in this movement in all kinds of ways. There's competition for power, competition for influence, competition for dominance, competition for identification, recognition, praise, and all that. Whereas back in Bill Buckley's day, there wasn't time for that. It was grow the movement and anybody that showed up on the scene that was conservative, welcome them in, and don't make them competitors and don't turn them into enemies or whatever. But now you've got factions of the conservative movement just like you've got factions of the liberal movement, and I think that's why when you get a story like this, these various factions anchor their positions and in many cases some of these positions are anchored so as not to get disfavor from the mainstream press. I hate to say it but there's a Washington, DC culture and it exists and it affects to one degree or another virtually everybody who lives there, liberal, conservative, atheist, Catholic, Jewish, doesn't matter, affects them all. That's the best thing I can do to tell you about this, Sean. I can just tell you that there is in the conservative movement, so to speak. There's a body of thought that says this story is fraught with danger, it's leading us down a path that's going to make us look like kooks, it doesn't really say what it purports to say. The Pentagon's going to have an announcement someday soon and they're going to release some information that's not going to back up what Congressman Weldon said, blah, blah, blah, blah. So people protecting their reputations. I mean, that's the best I can answer it for you.

RUSH: Now, let me tell you what I think about this Able Danger business after trying to explain it to Sean why some conservatives are backtracking on their original enthusiasm. If you go back to this Washington Times story there's something fascinating here. It just kind of glides by you if you're just reading it. It's this paragraph: "Pentagon officials have said that they have uncovered no specific intelligence data from the Able Danger unit concerning an Atta-led terrorist cell other than a few intelligence analyses that mention his name." Well, that's one of those sentences that doesn't flow. It doesn't work. The sentence to be read correctly would be this: "Pentagon officials have said they've uncovered no specific intelligence data from the Able Danger unit concerning an Atta-led terrorist cell," but when you add to that "other than a few intelligence analyses that mention his name," well, I mean, you have uncovered something about Atta! Too many people are changing their stories too often here. At first the 9/11 Commission says, "Oh, never even heard about Able Danger." Oh yes they had heard about Able Danger, and then there was another reference and then there was a second reference to Able Danger. Then we learned they took a lot of notes and decided to leave it out because they were conflicted about the data and the times that Atta was supposedly here. I mean, when this story first hit, when the first barrage of details hit, the people on this commission got very defensive. I mean, they started running for the tall grass themselves. If there was nothing to it, that would have been the time to say, "Yeah, we heard about this. Yeah, we talked about it. Yeah, there wasn't anything. There wasn't enough to go on," but they acted all "Uh Oh."

The commissioners and the chairman went out there, the co-chairs went out there to try to mend some fences and so forth. I don't think we're near the end of the story. I have no clue what it is, but I can tell you that there's too many blowbacks, if you will, here. Too many fallbacks, too many runbacks, too many retreats on both sides, but yet the Washington Times today apparently, this is a new, a new source that they have found. This is not one of Weldon's as I read this, and this Pentagon source is a lawyer. Well, he's not. He's a defense department intelligence official, and he's saying that it was the lawyers in the Pentagon who say this. Well, of course that makes sense. That makes sense to me because it was the lawyers who essentially, the justice department who created all these walls that prevented the exchange of information, and there's no denying the wall existed, and there's no denying that this Able Danger unit knew of Atta in the country, and there's no denying they couldn't tell anybody. Now, what other facts emerge from that will be very interesting, but I don't think we've heard the last of this story. There are too many people acting like they could be harmed by the release of this information to make me think there's nothing to it. I mean, if something comes out and you've looked at it, and you've examined it, and you rejected it then you're not going to act frightened when somebody brings it up, after your report's over, and that's what's happened here. So patience, my friends. Patience.

I will never understand why anyone would think Limbaugh isn't intelligent. And his instincts? They're spot-on?

We've been warned. The political establishment will circle the wagons concerning Able Danger. Our job is (finally) to not let them get away with it.

He was. bump.

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

"While the Republicans are (place some nasty verb here), a clinton is working hard for the people"

the MAD hillary series
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN,
FOR AMERICA,
FOR THE WORLD

madhillary.com (coming soon)
madhillary.blogspot.com
_{COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005}

MAD hillary talks series #1
ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON
+ CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY

THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AS CLOSE AS
A CLINTON TO OVAL OFFICE

MAD hillary talks series #2 HILLARY'S MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET Do you really want THAT finger on the button?

MAD hillary talks series #3
"What, me worry?"

THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AS CLOSE AS
A CLINTON TO OVAL OFFICE

MAD hillary talks series #4
NANO-PRESIDENT

the danger of the unrelenting smallness
of bill + hillary clinton

MAD hillary talks series #5
SCHEMA PINOCCHIO

how the clintons are handling
the hillary dud factor

What Rush said today about Charles Krauthammer applies just as well to Fred Barnes. Conservatives are disgusting when they run and hide from Clinton scandals.

Conservatives are disgusting when they run and hide from Clinton scandals.

Right on. Which is exactly why I am so terrified that Ms. Rodham will be our next president. Because NO ONE in the republican party seems willing to saying anything about the criminal activities of that "family".

Maybe he will figure out that "The Political Class" is all that is low, vile and foul. The "Class" for various reasons is composed of those that are not even traditionally included in Western Society i.e. the vice addict, the alien etc.

We have reached that glorious stage where the lowest member of our society is better than the 'persons' at the top!

Any thoughts on this?

When I saw the post about the First Pervert yesterday, I refrained from posting. Today, I can't. If I ever interviewed him on this topic I would ask him if he would have launched the attack before or after Monica serviced him in the Oval Office. I would also ask him if he would launch the attack before or after he transferred the satellite and missile technology to the ChiComs. That man is lower that whale do do and it is found on the ocean bottom.

" ... if only, if only, if only, if only, if only! "

Yeah ... If only!

Build their gallows high

Instead of fighting islamist terrorism, clinton and the rest of his horrible zoo aided it by bombing, sanctioning, and demonizing the Serbs. The Serbian people are still suffering from the disabilities that the clintonites imposed on them, and that the current administration has not removed or reversed.

And islamist terrorists and criminals and their financers and enablers are still running amuck in the Balkans, and using it as a base of operations to attack and inflitrate outside the region.

That is clinton's legacy!!! It is the curse that won't go away!

"I shouldn't just limit it to them -- but some of the people in the conservative movement are doing their best to avoid being considered part of what they think is the kook fringe of the right wing..."

I think this is certainly the case. Too often, people abide by the mainstream media's definition of what is acceptable in terms of political discourse. And, I think, conservatives lack the kind of self-confidence that would make it possible for us to simply follow where the evidence leads.

That's what it is all about, really. On any given issue, what is important is the evidence presented. There isn't much else. And we would do well to put our faith in reason to good use and ignore what the Left considers to be beyond the pale.

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.