Posted on 08/06/2002 8:23:37 AM PDT by hattend
BTW, when he said this:
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.
does anybody have a clue who he appointed????
This is another media-spawned spin towards "moral equivalency." They promote Clinton by saying he's no worse than other Presidents. But this piece in Time is even more flagrant. It implies that Clinton had the plan to wipe out al-Qaeda, but that Bush didn't implement it. This makes Clinton seem superior.
The whole Time piece is rubbish. Sure, Sandy Berger may have given Time a few choice quotes about the "Clinton plan," but he has an interest in protecting is own rather substantial rearend on this matter....AND, by the way, the Clinton Administration has a trackrecord of simply making things up as they go. If they said they had a plan, you can bet they didn't have one, and are now lying simply to elevate their sorry carcasses in the eyes of history. As someone on FR recently said, Clinton is a "pink turd of a man..." That characterization applies to most in his Administration.
Your basic point -- to tear down Bush before the elections -- is spot on, btw.
Well-said. But in the case of the deaths at the Pentagon and the WTC, they have finally seen that simply talking about things, and not taking action, can lead to the deaths of many innocent people. It's the horror of this realization which has caused some in x42's Administration to concoct this fantasy about a "plan."
What is his claim to fame?
Bombing a Sudan aspirin factory in a wag the dog Monica diversion.
Ignoring direct intel on the whereabouts of bin Laden.
And lastly, handing over a classroom note at his post impeachment good riddance party.
And what else did we learn from this recent hit piece in Time? Both the Clinton joint chiefs and Sec. of Defense Cohen were DEADSET against taking any action against al Queda.
Is the news biased? No. What gave you that idea?
Clinton is a lying braggart. If it were true, Clinton would have been crowing about it on 9/12 or whenever he got back from Australia.
(Why the F didn't CLINTON implement the "plan"?)
Time Magazine continues to decline. They needed a big story boost circulation? (Anybody know the audit period for advertisers? Magazines "Sweeps" period?)
This gives me even more incentive not to watch the blatant and deceitful lying of NBC and CBS "News".
(Why the F didn't CLINTON implement the "plan"?)
Too busy with a cigar and "taking care of the people's business."
I honestly think it's due to the AOL T/W accounting fiasco, which makes it even more desperate a motive to drive up ad revenue in the face of a declining market. That, and the fact that Ted Turner needs to buy another 200,000 acre ranch out west.
The sad thing is that Clinton's truth - "I talked about having fought terrorism, therefore, I fought terrorism" - also is the "truth" the news media will slavishly regurgitate as they continue to act as Terry McAuliffe's trained monkeys.
Then in August 2000, more than two years after the Africa bombings, Osama and al-Quaeda strike America once again killing 17 Americans on the U.S.S. Cole and dozens more sustain injuries.
On 9-11, President Bush had only been in office for less than 8 months. Clinton had had 2 full terms, 8 years in office to identify the threats we faced, develope a plan and take action but he did absolutely nothing. Now that vile, disgusting excuse of a man is out there pontificating and blaming others. Thank God only Michael Elliott, Time, Dan Rather and a handful of other Clinton apologist are stupid enough to buy it.
Almost no action - let's not forget bombing the aspirin factory or the $2 million missile into the $10 tent and up the camel's butt. Your post is dead on, and my sympathies over Dr. Martin's death. The loss of lives meant nothing to Clinton. Just as the blood of the soldiers in Mogadishu is on his hands, so are the lives lost in the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc., ad infinitum.
The Time article is just a lame and transparent attempt to give Clinton a fig leaf while slamming President Bush. The networks just mouth the party line, especially Dan Rather on CBS.
It's all BS and won't play in Peoria because George W. Bush is seen by the majority as an honest man of integrity and Clinton as the irresponsible liar he is.
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.