U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is interviewed on 'Meet the Press'
during a taping at the NBC studios in Washington
September 10, 2006. REUTERS/Alex Wong-Meet the Press/Handout
Posted on 09/10/2006 12:00:15 PM PDT by John Carey
The government has done "a helluva job" guarding America, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Sunday, as President George W. Bush prepared to visit Ground Zero amid an election-year debate on whether the country is safer five years after the September 11 attacks.
Cheney and other top administration officials sought on the eve of the anniversary to promote what they say is progress in protecting against a second Sept 11.
Democrats countered that the administration had used the attacks for political gain, underlining the bitter divisions that have emerged since the attacks on New York and Washington killed nearly 3,000 people and united the nation in grief.
"I don't know how you can explain five years of no attacks, five years of successful disruption of attacks, five years of defeating the efforts of al Qaeda to come back and kill more Americans. You have got to give some credence to the notion that maybe somebody did something right," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Since we haven't been attacked again, it's kind of hard to argue with that.
alrighty then!
The leftists here would just throw up their hands in surrender. Cliton has been on the run trying to preserve his legacy hasn't he?
Always Remember: Al-Qaeda grew while Moanica blew.
Close the border with Mexico and deport the criminal illegals and jail their employers Mr. Cheney then you can
give yourself an attaboy.
Timmie Russert did his best to try to trip up Cheney. Cheney is very intelligent and he did fall into the trap. Russert declared his allegence to the left and the enemies of the American soldier.
Basically Cheney told Timmie to go do to himself what he told Lahey to do to himself.
Revisionist History: "Path to 9/11" Prompts the Question; Are Disney/ABC or the Clinton Administration Guilty?
By John E. Carey
September 10, 2006
Let’s just review for a moment the affair of one Samuel “Sandy” Berger and the National Archives.
On Thursday, July 22, 2004, Washington Post staff writers John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt, wrote “Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. ‘Sandy’ Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m. What he did not know as he labored through that long Thursday was that the same Archives employees who were solicitously retrieving documents for him were also watching their important visitor with a suspicious eye.”
The employees of the National Archives suspected that Sandy Berger was stealing classified government archives about terrorists from his tenure as President Clinton’s National Security Advisor.
They were right.
John F. Harris and Susan Schmidt wrote, “The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking -- some of which remain missing -- are different drafts of a January 2000 ‘after-action review’ of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger's direction when he was in government.”
Harris and Schmidt also reported that, “Sources have told The Washington Post, and other news organizations, that Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing.”
Transporting classified government documents without proper authorization is a serious offense. Stealing historical records from the national Archives is equally heinous.
But the real crime that Sandy Berger, and other Clinton Administration personnel, may be guilty of is this: “revisionist history.”
After September 11, 2001, everyone in Washington DC asked the same questions: How could this happen and why weren’t we forewarned?
In fact, “we” were forewarned. There were many events that should have set off alarm bells during President Clinton’s Administration.
A few of the events among these warning signs include: the first World trade center bombing (February 1993), the discovery of the Lincoln and Holland tunnel plots (Spring 1993), the car bombing of the U.S. military headquarters of the United States in Saudi Arabia (November 1995), the truck bombing of the U.S. military housing facility Khobar Towers (June 1996), the truck bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (August 1998), and the bombing of USS Cole (October 2000).
Less than one year later, the World Trade Center and the pentagon were hit on September 11, 2001.
This brings us to the loud and vocal protestations from Clinton Administration loyalists to the Disney/ABC production which starts to air tonight, “Path to 9/11.”
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band all wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over “The Path to 9/11.”
What do they have to hide?
Add to that, highly partisan Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York reportedly composed a tough letter to Robert A. Iger, CEO of Walt Disney, ABC's parent company. The letter cites two scenes from the program casting doubt on the Clinton administration's legacy in fighting terrorism.
Slaughter added as co-signers of the letter three senior Democrats who would join her as committee chairmen if Democrats won control of the House. They are Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, senior member of the House; Rep. Jane Harman of California, a top party spokesman on national security; and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, a left-wing leader.
What do they have to hide?
And what respect do they have for freedom of speech?
When Oliver Stone made his movie “J.F.K.” depicting the president’s assassination as the product of a government conspiracy, do you recall this level of protest?
So we take caution and pause when we hear these vociferous protestations from the Clinton Camp.
We don’t much like revisionist history. And we wonder what the members of the Clinton Administration want to shroud from public view.
Mr. Cheney...you are half right....the Government has done a great job in preventing terror from the muzzies...ubt has done squat in protecting our nation from the mexican invasion!!!!!
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney is interviewed on 'Meet the Press'
during a taping at the NBC studios in Washington
September 10, 2006. REUTERS/Alex Wong-Meet the Press/Handout
Reading this article and watching Russert grill Cheney this morning, it's really hard to figure out where the talking point accusations originate....MSM or DNC?
There's a difference?
"It is the private citizen who will save this nation, if it is saved."
And They'll do it while having half of everything they produce stolen to pay for Big Stupid Government.
Of course that puts the Democrats in charge and guess what ..... the new House bill will make you beg for the passage of the old Senate bill. But the new Senate bill will be just like the new House bill. Unlimited immigration and fast tract to citizenship.
Bush will sign it and you get the same situation with Mexican citizens that we have with Canadian citizens. That is they can come to the USA with a passport and work and stay anywhere they want to for as long as they want.
On the other hand you can vote for the Republicans. Then Mexicans get amnesty for those in the USA and the border closed.
Those are your choices .. Your only choices.
I suspect you will pick stay at home. That will result in the conversion of Illegal Immigrants to Legal Immigrants and the border stays open.
Well that's what the Vice President is calling success, then Clinton did one hell of a job since it was 8 years between the first terror attacks in the U.S. at the World Trade Center and the second terrort attack in the U.S. at the World Trade Center. Three more years and the administration can claim the same. </sarcasm>
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.