Margaret Carlson in Drag?
Posted on 08/06/2002 8:23:37 AM PDT by hattend
Oh, so I guess terrorists destroying two embassies, bombing the WTC, attacking the Cole, and killing scores of Americans in the process wouldn't be construed as mass casualties? And doing nothing about ANY of these acts would constitute an act of bravery, patriotism, or just flat out balls?
Who ARE these wingnuts? I'm sorry, but if 'understanding' the new terrorist threat means holding a kumbaya session with the likes of Arafart while our boys in uniform die, I don't want any part of understanding. The only understanding those terrorist ba$tards need is the understanding that we won't be satisfied until they are all burning in hell.
Margaret Carlson in Drag?
This is a desparate attempt by the DNC to reverse the obviouse advantage we have in the security/trust numbers. If BJ was in office we would have never invaded or stood up to Pinhead Laden. The comparison in the two Presidents when it comes to honesty and likability must be driving the commiecRats crazy. Fortunately for a liberal it is a short trip!
Pray for GW and the Truth
"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."
Time magazine gives *historical revisionism* new meaning.Forget Josef Goebbels. When it comes to unbridled and shameless propaganda, the twisting and perverting of truth to fit a political agenda, the Clinton-lovers at Time are second to none.
Indeed, this time Time out-does even itself.
The "blockbuster" 'cover story', They Had A Plan, by Michael Elliott, isn't journalism -- it's naked proselytizing. Mr. Elliot serves up a plateful of fusty excuses, sprinkles it with thin alibis, as he tries to negate or minimize arguably the most momentous dereliction of the Clinton "presidency": To wit, its failure to tackle effectively the growing menace of international terrorism; principly, the burgeoning threat posed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Under Clinton, al-Qaeda not only survived, it thrived -- spreading its tentacles out of its base in Afghanistan to dozens of countries around the globe. Under Clinton, al-Qaeda became a phenomenal growth industry, prospering beyond its wildest dreams; membership swelled, coffers bulged. The groundwork for 9/11 had been laid; thousands of al-Qaeda sleeper agents, like swarms of killer viruses, would worm their way inside our porous borders.
Under the Clinton & the gang, with impunity would al-Qaeda repeatedly attack the U.S. The group was clearly behind the February '93 (first) World Trade Center bombing, killing six, wounding thousands.
Clinton's response?
Zilch, zero, nada.
Later that year, 18 U.S. Army Rangers were slaughtered in Mogadishu, breeding ground of al-Qaeda terrorists. Their bodies were dragged through the streets, locals celebrating in triumph.
Clinton's reaction?
He turns tail and runs, further emboldening the enemy..
Then, on June 25, 1996, al-Qaeda strikes again. Target: The Khobar Towers apartment building in Dahran, Saudi Arabia. A powerful truck bomb kills 10 American airmen and wounds 400.
Clinton's response?
Zip, zero, nada.
Two years later, in August of '98, al-Qaeda brutally attacks two U.S. Embassies in eastern Africa, killing 258, including 12 Americans. Five-thousand were wounded.
Clinton's reaction?
He launches a few cruise missiles, hits a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and some empty tents in Afghanistan. The strikes were seen more as wag-the-dog -- Monica Lewinsky was set to testify before a grand jury in Washington -- than as a response to terrorism.
The next al-Qaeda strike came October 12, 2000. The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole killed 17 sailors, wounded over 34 others.
Clinton's response?
The Plan! Ah, yes, finally....The Plan!
Uh-Oh....wait a sec...
Only one, itsy-bitsy problem. Clinton, our brave commander-in-chief, didn't want people to think he was doing another 'wag-the-dog', what, with presidential elections looming, says Mr. Eilliot.
So he deferred.
Well, what about after the elections? Why no action even then?
Oh, C'mon! Give Clinton a break, why don'tcha? Can't you see, far more pressing, far more urgent issues needed attention? Handing out pardons, for one; think of how time consuming that can be ....Too many fugitives, too many traitors to pardon, and oh so little time!
Kidding aside, the truth is, there was no "blueprint", there was no "Plan", only a set of disjointed, half-hearted policy "options"; some of this stuff had been kicking around for years -- one as far back as August '98. None were "actionable", none were aggressive enough, none involved real military action in Afghanistan.
In short, the Time article is a sham -- nothing more than a politically motivated shot at the Bush administration by Clintonistas desperate to pass the buck for their own stupidity and culpability.
Culpability? Yes, culpability.
Bottom line: In 1996, Sudan had offered Osama bin Laden to Clinton on a platter; the offer was rejected. 9/11 was the result.
That's a damning fact of history.
No amount of cunning spin, artful dodging or crafty maneuvering by Clinton-lovers at Time will change that.
Further, the claim that C.I.A. surveillance flights over Afghanistan were halted by the incoming Bush administration is another sick lie.
The Predator drone, as Rep. Peter King explained meticulously on Hardball Monday night, had been taken down in October of '00 -- four months before Bush became President. At the time, a new missile system was being developed. To avoid signature detection by the enemy, missions were stopped. The Pentagon had not completed the project until the summer of '01.
Time magazine, and Michael Elliot in particular, owe the 9/11 families, as well as the President of the United States, a very public apology. His article is tantamount to a hate crime.
Shame on Time.
But don't hold your breath waiting for mea culpas.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
.... This specter of a dangerous rivalry in South Asia is but one of the many signs that we must remain strong and vigilant against the kinds of threats we have seen already throughout the 20th century -- regional aggression and competition, bloody civil wars, efforts to overthrow democracies.
But also, our security is challenged increasingly by non- traditional threats from adversaries both old and new, not only hostile regimes, but also terrorists and international criminals who cannot defeat us in traditional theaters of battle, but search instead for new ways to attack by exploiting new technologies and the world's increasing openness.
As we approach the 21st century, our foes have extended the fields of battle from physical space to cyberspace; from the world's vast bodies of water to the complex workings of our own human bodies.
Rather than invading our beaches or launching bombers, these adversaries may attempt cyber attacks against our critical military systems and our economic base.
Or they may deploy compact and relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction -- not just nuclear, but also chemical or biological, to use disease as a weapon of war.
Sometimes the terrorists and criminals act alone. But increasingly, they are interconnected and sometimes supported by hostile countries. If our children are to grow up safe and free, we must approach these new 21st century threats with the same rigor and determination we applied to the toughest security challenges of this century.
We are taking strong steps against these threats today. We've improved anti-terrorism cooperation with other countries; tightened security for our troops, our diplomats, our air travelers; strengthened sanctions on nations that support terrorists; given our law enforcement agencies new tools. We broke up terrorist rings before they could attack New York's Holland Tunnel, the United Nations and our airlines. We have captured and brought to justice many of the offenders. But we must do more.
Last week I announced America's first comprehensive strategy to control international crime and bring criminals, terrorists and money launderers to justice.
Today I come before you to announce three new initiatives -- the first broadly directed at combating terrorism; the other two addressing two potential threats from terrorists and hostile nations -- attacks on our computer networks and other critical systems upon which our society depends and attacks using biological weapons. On all of these efforts we will need the help of the Navy and the Marines. Your service will be critical in combating these new challenges.
To make these three initiatives work, we must have the concerted efforts of a whole range of federal agencies, from the armed forces to law enforcement, to intelligence, to public health.
I am appointing a national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counterterrorism, to bring the full force of all our resources to bear swiftly and effectively.
First, we will use our new integrated approach to intensify the fight against all forms of terrorism, to capture terrorists no matter where they hide, to work with other nations to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries overseas, to respond rapidly and effectively to protect Americans from terrorism at home and abroad.
Second, we will launch a comprehensive plan to detect, deter and defend against attacks on our critical infrastructures -- our power systems, water supplies, police, fire and medical services, air traffic control, financial services, telephone systems and computer networks.
Just 15 years ago, these infrastructures -- some within government, some in the private sector -- were separate and distinct. Now they are linked together over vast computer electronic networks, greatly increasing our productivity but also making us much more vulnerable to disruption.
.... If we fail to take strong action, then terrorists, criminals and hostile regimes could invade and paralyze these vital systems, disrupting commerce, threatening health, weakening our capacity to function in a crisis.
In response to these concerns, I established a commission chaired by retired General Tom Marsh (ph) to assess the vulnerability of our critical infrastructures. They returned with a pointed conclusion. Our vulnerability, particularly to cyber attacks, is real and growing. And I made important recommendations that we will now implement to put us ahead of the danger curve.
We have the best trained, best equipped, best prepared armed forces in history, but as ever, we must be ready to fight the next war, not the last one. And our military, as strong as it is, cannot meet these challenges alone. Because so many key components of our society are operated by the private sector, we must create a genuine public-private partnership to protect America in the 21st century.
Together, we can find and reduce the vulnerabilities to attack in all critical sectors. Develop warning systems, including a national center to alert us to attacks. Increase our cooperation with friendly nations, and create the means to minimize damage and rapidly recover, in the event attacks occur.
We can and we must make these critical systems more secure, so that we can be more secure. Third, we will undertake a concerted effort to prevent the spread and use of biological weapons. And to protect our people in the event these terrible weapons are ever unleashed by a rogue state of terrorist group or an international criminal organization.
Conventional military force will continue to be crucial to curbing weapons of mass destruction. In the confrontation against Iraq, deployment of our Navy and Marine forces have played a key role in helping to convince Saddam Hussein to accept United Nations inspections of his weapons facilities. But we must pursue the fight against biological weapons on many fronts.
We must strengthen the International Biological Weapons Convention with a strong system of inspections to detect and prevent cheating. This is a major priority. It was part of my State of the Union address earlier this year, and we are working with other nations and our industries to make it happen.
Because our troops serve on the front line of freedom, we must take special care to protect them. So we have been working on vaccinating them against biological threats, and now we will inoculate all our armed forces, active duty and reserves, against deadly anthrax bacteria.
Finally, we must do more to protect our civilian population from biological weapons. The Defense Department has been teaching state and local officials to respond if the weapons are brandished or used. Today it is announcing plans to train National Guard and Reserve elements in every region to address this challenge.
But again, we must do more to protect our people. We must be able to recognize a biological attack quickly in order to stop its spread. We will work to upgrade our public health systems for detection and warning, to aid our preparedness against terrorism, and to help us cope with infectious diseases that arise in nature.
We will train and equip local authorities throughout the nation to deal with an emergency involving weapons of mass destruction, creating stockpiles of medicines and vaccines to protect our civilian population against the kind of biological agents our adversaries are most likely to obtain or develop.
And we will pursue research and development to create the next generation of vaccines, medicines and diagnostic tools. The Human Genome Project will be very, very important in this regard. And again, it will aid us also in fighting infectious diseases. We must not cede the cutting edge of biotechnology to those who would do us harm. Working with the Congress, America must maintain its leadership in research and development. It is critical to our national security.
In our efforts to battle terrorism and cyber attacks and biological weapons, all of us must be extremely aggressive. But we must also be careful to uphold privacy rights and other constitutional protections. We do not ever undermine freedom in the name of freedom.
....
________________
Nauseated yet? full transcript
He is indeed, nauseating!
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.