Posted on 03/22/2004 5:14:50 PM PST by John Lenin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 12:07 PM EST
All right, so, media, predictable. I mean, the moment I saw that this Richard Clarke character had a book coming out while John Kerry is on vacation, and I when I found out that this Richard Clarke character teaches a course at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard with John Kerry's foreign policy advisor, Rand Beers, it's all I needed to know. That's all anybody needs to know. What is it, my friends, that I have been telling you. I wish, by the way, so much of what I say is original, but this isn't. I wish I could claim it as original. Victor Davis Hanson said that it is near the end that the losers often launch with all the firepower they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Failed institutions are the most violent when they realize their time subpoena. If it is true overseas, it will be true here at home, and what a weekend of attacks we have had on our president, what a weekend of attacks we have had on our leader." Do you realize, ladies and gentlemen, that what's going on here is the Clinton administration understands -- and, by the way, for those of you who are just all excited about Dick Clark last night, I have a story here to which the headline ought to be: "Thanks George Bush." Story just cleared an hour ago on the Associated Press. "International inspectors have completed their inventory of Libya's chemical weapons stockpiles, reporting more than 20 tons of mustard gas and the materials to make thousands of tons of sarin nerve gas."  The source? The Hague, International inspectors at The Hague. Among the potential weapons declared and verified by Libya, 50,700 pounds of mustard gas, 2.9 million pounds of precursor chemicals for the production of nerve gas. This did not happen because of anything the Clinton administration did or because of anything Dick Clark -- I don't want to say "Dick Clark;" you'll think American Bandstand -- Richard Clarke did. This had nothing to do with anything Madeleine Albright or Sandy Berger did, or any of the other Clintonistas -- who I'm telling you right now are desperately trying to save their reputations, because of the profound victories the Bush administration is having, and this Libya is just one example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| They are a bunch of spoiled, elitist, sourpuss brats who realize that by virtue of the action taken by the United States since they left office, real progress is being made. They are doing everything they can to diminish this progress and to claim that it is not happening, to cast aspersions on the competence of our current president, all to cover the incompetence of their entire leadership in this area for the previous eight years prior to George Bush's inauguration in January of 2001. Jimmy Carter, I'll tell you. The Nobel Peace Prize people, if they ever take those things back, they'd better start looking at Jimmy Carter. Is he losing his cookies? His latest rant, my friends, makes me wonder who will get to the funny farm first, Jimmy Carter or Uncle Junior of the Sopranos who was found wandering aimlessly in Newark last night in the early stages of Alzheimer's, slash, Carter disease. Richard Clarke. Unfortunately he does have some credentials but he also has some uncredentials. His alleged tell-it-like-it-is comes a bit late, doesn't it? He was there for eight years. If these problems existed and so much was being done or not being done, where was he at the time when he was sitting at the seat of power? Why wait now, when John Kerry is on vacation. His tell-it-like-it-is comes... By the way, you talk about incestuousness? We learn now that the book is a property owned by Viacom, which owns 60 Minutes and CBS. So in essence we had last night an infomercial by CBS for a property it owns. And you notice how soft the gloves were that Lesley Stahl was wearing last night. So what do we have? Let's put the time line in action.  Eleven years after the first attack on the Twin Towers, after the attack on the Cole, two years-plus after 9/11, 11 years before the first attack on the Twin Towers and X-number of years after attack on the Cole, whenever that was, two-plus years after 9/11, that's when we get this guy's book. Just in time for him to hype it, to insert himself into the election, just in time to cover his own keister before the 9/11 hearings begin. Now, if Clarke is as well intentioned as the left would like to think he is, where was he when it mattered, ladies and gentlemen? It is easy at this stage to come forth and to say, "I recommended this and I did this and I sat there, and they're not doing it because they don't believe it and they don't understand what's going on."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| And then he said because of our war in Iraq, more will join Al-Qaeda. All right, you know, I love this. And Clarke also makes it plain he had an essay in Time magazine last week, two weeks ago, and he said, "We really got to understand why these people hate us." That's not going to help us. We know why they hate us. We already know anyway, and it doesn't matter. It's not going to help us stop them because we're not going to change who we are and that's why they hate us they hate us because of who we are we're not going to change so it isn't going to matter. Now, according to him, he says if we catch or kill Osama, these guys all say we've muffed that. We haven't tried that. We haven't done enough. We haven't focused obit enough and so we went into Iraq, and that's going to spur all of this anger among terrorists and they're going to go out and join Al-Qaeda. Let me ask you a question. If we catch or kill Osama, isn't that going to do the same thing? Isn't that going to make 'em mad? If Spain catches the bombers and puts them in jail, won't that cause more to enlist the Al-Qaeda? We put Ramzi Yousef and that diabetic sheik in jail after the 1993 bombing, didn't stop anything, did it? And that's how the Clinton administration fought this thing as a legal matter. You know, the idea -- and I said this last week -- what if Spain backs out of Iraq, say, "We don't want any part of this." Why in the world are they trying to catch these terrorists, then? Isn't that just going to make them madder? Shouldn't you be trying to cut a deal, Spain? Shouldn't, according to the Richard Clarke's advice, shouldn't we be trying to understand why they did it and talk to them about it, instead of making them mad by apprehending them, attacking them, or trying to root them out?  You know, we're told that the War on Terror is unlike any war in history, and it is. But what we're not told is that politics during this war is also unlike any war in history. Just as things are not what they seem to be in the Middle East, ditto the Beltway. We have election posturing; we have Clinton legacy posturing; we have Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, now Richard Clarke posturing. We have the old media posturing. We have factions in the military posturing against modernizing. Despite all that, Barbra Streisand and BS, thank goodness we have a leader, a wartime leader who is able to stay focused on it all, not get distracted by these ancillary events which are as selfishly motivated as I've ever seen. If I've ever told you that the left will put themselves above the interests of the country, if you've never believed me, simply take a look at the news media coverage and Richard Clarke since last night's 60 Minutes appearance. This is exactly what the media has wanted: a way to poke holes at Bush as an incompetent boob, doesn't know what he's doing, personally driven by an agenda in Iraq, had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. All that's BS, by the way, but this is what Clarke is saying and (unintelligible) saying, and the media now trumpeting all of this. So all of this is being done to protect other people's rear ends and reputations at the expense of a serious conflict in which we find ourselves in a battle from our very existence and freedom. You know, and a lot of people are talking about, "country is too divided. We need a country back together! We gotta put all this partisanship aside." Okay, I'll agree, and I've got a way to do it. Finally I'm going to tell you people how to do this and be done with this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Right on cue, the media has picked up the question, "So what more could the president have done before 9/11?" Is this not preposterous? And don't think, by the way, that I, you, and your friends are the only ones to pick this up, I mean pick up on this. I mean, for eight years the Clinton administration did nothing. George Bush is in office in January of 2001. Nine months later here come the attacks, and the President Bush wants to know why didn't Bush do anything to stop this? Can we review some of the events of those eight years? In 1993, we had Somalia, Mogadishu. Bin Laden working hand in hand with Mohammed Farrad Adi Sahib Skyhook. We cut, we ran when they refused to fully equip according to commanders' requests our forces there to put down this little warlord, and from that happen point forward? It became known as "the Mogadishu Strategy," and even Hussein thought that it was still applicable when Bush did assume office, and that is that the U.S. will not incur casualties; the U.S. will cut and run. Why doesn't anybody ask the president and his former advisors out there now to protect their keisters about that? 1994 Al-Qaeda plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila; 1995 they plotted to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines; 1995, had a plot to bomb simultaneously in midair a dozen U.S. transpacific flights and it was discovered and thwarted at the last moment. 1998 conducted the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others. I forget 1993 that World Trade Center bombing; 1999, another millennium plot, bomber caught en route to LAX, and in 2000, they bombed the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen, killing 17 U.S. Navy members and injuring another 39. So all of those events and more taking place during the eight years of Bill Clinton, and the media today not interested in asking any Clinton administration, that's appearing on TV about any of that. All they want to know is why didn't the Bush administration in nine months do anything to stop 9/11? Why weren't they focused on it? It is to the point here, ladies and gentlemen, of being absurd to the point that everybody can see this! END TRANSCRIPT |
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.