Or was I just hearing things (which may happen from time to time)?
Show 'em my motto!
Posted on 04/09/2004 5:10:16 AM PDT by beaureguard
The testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission yesterday by Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice finally put to rest all of the nonsense that has been out there, peddled by Richard Clarke, that Al Qaeda simply wasn't a concern or a priority for the Bush administration. The three hours of testimony (carried on all the networks) was electric, and a political home run. There were a few heated exchanges between Condi and the liberals on the panel...and she wasn't going to have any of it. This woman is tough as nails. Like I said yesterday, she could run for president in '08. Wouldn't that be something...Condi vs. Hillary? Anyway, back to the testimony.
Dr. Rice told the commission what the Democrats and the conspiracy nuts didn't want to hear: there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001. None. Despite the best efforts of the disrespectful Richard Ben-Veniste and partisan Democrats Timothy Roemer and Bob Kerrey (who blamed Bush for not reacting to the USS Cole bombing, which happened during the Clinton administration,) there is not one shred of evidence that said how, when and where the attacks were going to take place. So what if there is some memo that says airplanes may have been hijacked? What does that mean? At that point the logical assumption would have been that the airplanes would have been hijacked overseas and the passengers held pending the release of some terrorists from jails? How many thousands of flights are there a day in US and overseas airports? Do you think for one minute that people were in a mood to tolerate increased airport security based on vague intelligence? Of course not. It took what happened on 9/11 for people to quit worrying about worthless, unimportant issues and take the national security threat from Islamic terrorism seriously. As Rice said, the nation was not on a war footing.
She also correctly pointed out that terrorism was a "gathering threat" across several administrations, and that the United States historically did not respond to gathering threats until it was too late. You don't believe me? Here's an example: imagine if on September 10th, 2001, President George W. Bush, citing increased "chatter" about an attack on the United States decided to shut down all airports nationwide. Furthermore, in an address to the nation he announces that Osama Bin Laden is behind the threats and has decided to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. Can you imagine the response? The same people pinning responsibility for 9/11 on the Bush administration for not doing enough would be calling for his head. And then, when nothing happened as a result of all of these measures, people would be blaming Bush for overreacting. Anyone who believes otherwise needs their head examined. Remember the Air France planes we grounded not that long ago? The U.S. got blamed for being too aggressive. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
And then the media is making a big deal about her not apologizing for the attacks. What for? The type of apologizing that Richard Clarke presented uring his now-discredited testimony is nothing but moral exhibitionism. The only people responsible for the attacks on 9/11 are the Islamic terrorists in Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Why should she apologize? People should have been offended by the condescending, phony theatrics of Richard Clarke's apology, but the media ate it up.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 could not have been prevented because there was not the political will to fight the war on terrorism at the time. Period. All that can be done is to not make the same mistake twice, which is what President Bush has been doing for 2 1/2 years.
WHAT WAS THAT BIG FUSS ABOUT PREEMPTION?
Let's expand on some of the thoughts made in the previous section and talk about preemption.
Do you remember the controversy that erupted before we attacked Iraq? Bush's plan to depose Saddam Hussein was described as a preemptive effort. Democrats and their media pals were quick to oppose the policy of preemption. It just wasn't right to strike first.
Now just what did you hear from these same Democrats on the panel yesterday? What have you been hearing from Democratic spokesmen for weeks? Why didn't George Bush launch a preemptive strike on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan before 9/11?
Typical ... damned if you do, dammed if you don't. You just can't please those guys.
I hope she has shown by example that the Senate Republicans need not be fearful of their liberal brethren.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45 | Nebraska | 95.00 |
3 |
31.67 |
82 |
1.16 |
3.00 |
1 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
It's too bad that Kennedy, Kerry, Byrd and their ilk don't shut up or get with the program.
If America was 100% behind the President, the terrorists would lose much quicker and other rogue states would roll over like Libya did.
Looks like Muamar Kadafi supports Bush more than the Democrats.
Really punctuates for us who are the enemies of America.
Notice that Hillary has been very quiet.........
She knows which side is the winner.
Or was I just hearing things (which may happen from time to time)?
Show 'em my motto!
"I don't think I look like Dick Clarke." Man! That's like calling me Burt Reynolds.
Show 'em my motto!
Trouble is that she has more... um... nerve than all of them put together.
I like what Limbaugh said yesterday. He said, "...and if anybody after today wants to insist that Hillary Clinton is still the smartest woman in Washington or in the world, they've got to re-examine their opinion."
Show 'em my motto!
LOL
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.