Skip to comments.Political Left Beginning to Finger clinton for Terrorists' Success
Posted on 10/01/2001 12:24:07 PM PDT by Mia T
Political Left Beginning to Finger clinton for Terrorists' Success
clinton through Rose-colored glasses...
...The September 11 massacre resulted from a fantastic failure on the part of the United States government to protect its citizens from an act of war. This failure is now staring us in the face and, if the errors are to be rectified, it is essential to acknowledge what went wrong.
Two questions come to mind: how was it that the Osama Bin Laden network, known for more than a decade, was still at large and dangerous enough this autumn to inflict such a deadly blow? Who was responsible in the government for such a failure of intelligence, foreign policy and national security? These questions have not been asked directly, for good reasons.
There is a need to avoid recriminations at a time of national crisis. But at the same time, the American lack of preparedness that Tuesday is already slowing the capacity to bring Bin Laden to justice by constricting military and diplomatic options. And with a president just a few months in office, criticism need not extend to the young administration that largely inherited this tattered security apparatus.
Whatever failures of intelligence, security or diplomacy exist, they have roots far deeper than the first nine months of this year. When national disasters of unpreparedness have occurred in other countries...ministers responsible have resigned. Taking responsibility for mistakes in the past is part of the effort not to repeat them. So why have heads not rolled?
The most plausible answer is that nobody has been fired because this attack was so novel and impossible to predict that nothing in America's security apparatus could have prevented it. The only problem with this argument is that it is patently untrue. Throughout the Clinton years, this kind of attack was not only predictable but predicted. Not only had Bin Laden already attacked American embassies and warships, he had done so repeatedly and been completely frank about his war. He had even attempted to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Same guy, same building. ...
The decision to get down and dirty with the terrorists, to take their threat seriously and counter them aggressively, was simply never taken. Many bear the blame for this: Warren Christopher, the clueless, stately former secretary of state; Anthony Lake, the tortured intellectual at the National Security Council; General Colin Powell, whose decision to use Delta Force units in Somalia so badly backfired; but, above all, former president Bill Clinton, whose inattention to military and security matters now seems part of the reason why America was so vulnerable to slaughter.
Klein cites this devastating quote from a senior Clinton official: "Clinton spent less concentrated attention on national defence than any other president in recent memory. He could learn an issue very quickly, but he wasn't very interested in getting his hands dirty with detail work. His style was procrastination, seeing where everyone was, before taking action. This was truer in his first term than in the second, but even when he began to pay attention he was constrained by public opinion and his own unwillingness to take risks."It is hard to come up with a more damning description of negligence than that.
Clinton even got a second chance. In 1998, after Bin Laden struck again at US embassies in Africa, the president was put on notice that the threat was deadly. He responded with a couple of missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan, some of which missed their targets and none of which seriously impacted on Osama Bin Laden...
If the security manager of a nuclear power plant presides over a massive external attack on it, then it's only right that he should be held responsible, in part, for what happened. More than 6,000 families are now living with the deadly consequences of the negligence of the government of the United States. There is no greater duty for such a government than the maintenance of national security, and the protection of its own citizens.
When a senior Clinton official can say of his own leader that he "spent less concentrated attention on national defence than any other president in recent memory", and when this administration is followed by the most grievous breach of domestic security in American history, it is not unreasonable to demand some accounting...
We thought for a long time that the Clinton years would be seen, in retrospect, as a mixed blessing. He was sleazy and unprincipled, we surmised, but he was also competent, he led an economic recovery, and he conducted a foreign policy of multilateral distinction.
But the further we get away from the Clinton years, the more damning they seem. The narcissistic, feckless, escapist culture of an America absent without leave in the world was fomented from the top. The boom at the end of the decade turned out to include a dangerous bubble that the administration did little to prevent.
The "peace-making" in the Middle East and Ireland merely intensified the conflicts. The sex and money scandals were not just debilitating in themselves - they meant that even the minimal attention that the Clinton presidency paid to strategic military and intelligence work was skimped on.
We were warned. But we were coasting. And the main person primarily entrusted with correcting that delusion, with ensuring America's national security - the president - was part of the problem.
Through the dust clouds of September 11, and during the difficult task ahead, one person hovers over the wreckage - and that is Bill Clinton. His legacy gets darker with each passing day.
by Mia T
New York, Sept. 21 -- In an O'Reilly Factor interview immediately following President Bush's address to Congress tonight, Bill Maher, loyal clinton lackey, correctly fingered bill clinton as the proximate cause of the 9-11 terrorist attack on New York and Washington. Maher specifically implicated clinton's feckless, cowardly bombing of the terrorists from three miles high, implying that clinton bombed from that distance because he was fearful that casualties would cost him popularity in the polls.
In a fog of delusion and illogic, however, Maher then incorrectly proceeded to place the ultimate blame for the attacks on the American people, arguing that because clinton was "a poll-driven president" he was only following the people's wishes.
Maher does not seem to understand that he has it exactly backwards, that it is a leader's responsibility to shape opinion, that clinton's failure to lead was a symptom of clinton's overriding egomania, cowardice, fecklessness and depravity, that clinton's failure to lead was precisely the first efficient cause of the terrorists' success.
Washington and the liberal media may be getting the message: George Bush is for real and he's no Mr. Nice Guy when it comes to war.
Even Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a liberal Bush-basher, has had to do a double take this week.
Writing in his column of an Oval office meeting with four U.S. Senators -- including Hillary Rodham -- Fineman described Bush "relaxed and in control."
Fineman, drawing a comparison with Winston Churchill's defiance during World War II, quoted the president as telling the Senators: "When I take action," he said, "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
No doubt, Hillary must have shuddered when she heard that, a clear hit on her husband's eight years of appeasement with terrorists and their backers.
[ASIDE: Have you noticed that as of the morning of 9-11-01, hillary clinton's "best memory" informs her--and she is quick to inform us -- that she was not "co-president" after all?]
Good job, Mia
Looking backward, you were not alone, especially here at FR. We really believed that the damage done would turn out to be monumental. Remember ***** THIS ***** piece? It postulated all or nothing with Clinton. In retrospect, it really DID hit the nail on the head.
Now it looks like we're in for years of deep deadly water while we struggle to correct the influence of the Clintons, and the excesses of the spiteful crypto-Marxist left that not only did so much to support and appologize for WJC, but to undermine the very foundation that not only all of us stand on, but also saw off the the VERY tree limb the America-Hating liberal appologists hung their own hats. Looks like a few are waking up to the fact.
Let's not forget all of the details. He flat out lied to the American public and he,an officer of the court, lied under oath.
Whether Monicagate should have been handled differently is open to debate; but it certainly doesn't have an exonerating effect on President Clinton.
For truth !
....But what's worse is that only a remnant recognizes that when we wake up from this long drunk on the collectivist gin of social democracy, we're going to find ourselves in bed with a very bad hangover. We're going to find ourselves with one monumental headache, and hopelessly married to one of the most blood-thirsty, ruthless demons ever to rise from Satan's pit....
So I just can't help myself on this one. And my comments go directly to every jerk from Hollywood to Manhattan, from London to Brussels, who insists on shoving the Fascist demon of totalitarian collectivism onto our sons and daughters. To every puffed up power broker who has insisted that he is superior to everyone else, and thereby fit to royally rule his own puppet state. To those that insist that the only good monopoly is a state monopoly, especially if it is controlled by them.
And of course everybody, but everybody who's stood up against this executive has been subject to the stealth political weapon of the age: the lawsuit. From Matt Drudge at Drudgereport.com to Jim Robinson at FreeRepublic.com.
Meanwhile, Slick's gone skating. And we're all going with him, whether we like it or not. We're all going skating on some of the most dangerously thin political ice since the Civil War. And to all you on the left, from Hollywood to Manhattan, now that you've formally unleashed the hounds of the totalitarian collective, I hope you're satisfied with the current darkness. To you who have insisted on freely fornicating with this syphilitic harlot, this queen of the lie, you who are absolutely convinced that your hypocrisy will protect you, that no accident will ever happen to you.
Well, what can we say? Except...sleep well!
That was from ***** ANOTHER ***** one written by someone apparently cursed with a clear nightmare vision of at least the end result on the Clinton years. He only got part of it right though. Because what we ended up with was not just a serial dictatorship of the totalitarian impulse, but serial terror as well. Still, the midnight vision this guy had was so vivid, and in retrospect, so prophetic, few could remain sane. And as I understand it, the author went completely mad shortly after this piece and hasn't been heard from since. Let's just hope that the rest of his vision never transpires.
But it bothers me that the left ALSO appears willing to conceded Clinton's solely responsible. I don't think so. It was Republicans who failed to remove him and Republicans who actually were responsible for some of his greatest successes: PNTR for China, passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Transportation omnibus packages and the Schumer Amendment, funding for the NIH's ESCR and Title X abortion monies, to name a few.
(Don't even get me started on the way Bush and Dole sent a message during impeachment advising against actual removal of the Mad Bomber of Sudan or Danforth wiped his bloody Waco blade clean under cover of "election crisis" on November 8th).
Particularly where "Security" and terror are concerned, The Message They're Sending is Essentially the Same Thing.
You're right. But the Republicans haven't been such since at least the early 1950's, and more realistically, since the early 1920's. The poison has crossed party lines, as you well know. Still, the Republican side has probably a slight percentage on the Democrats in favor of Constitutional liberty. It's residual, and only slight.
And as far as his removal, remember that the Clinton's were absolute masters of the craft of blackmail. They hired Lensner's PR firm to steal 1000 FBI files, which they had for a year and "never looked at". At least they promised they never peeked. I'm sure that there were Republican files in that 1000 that belonged to certain members that voted for his acquital. It's impossible to say how much the black mail influenced the vote, Vs the dilution of the Republican ideals over the years. Probably both.
HOW can you keep chanting the same old mantra? If that's all he's done maybe he'd get cut a break, but that's only the beginning! He is a Liar (underoath) he intimidated witnesses, he has a long list of suicidal friends (who are not longer with us), he accepted money from China for our secrets, he played footsie with Arafat, taking money from the local Muslim hoodlums, raped, plundered and prevaricated his way through an 8 yr. term in office, rented out the Lincoln Bedroom like it was Hotel 6, Raised soft money from the Oval office, stole WH treasures, snorted coke (couldn't figure out how to inhale a roach), corrupted everybody he came in contact with. You are a real idiot."None so blind as those who do not want to see".
Now I see that Atty Goebels,ops, I mean Mr. Kendall is going to defend him in front of SCOTUS. I can't wait. Maybe this time we'll get everybody in Court to tell their facts, Monica, Linda, Wiley, Broderick, et.,al., and maybe some of the evidence emassed against him for the Senate will find it's way to SCOTUS. Like Italy's dictator, upside down from a balcony, side by side would work for me.
Oh, I don't know, Coyote.
At the risk of being a one-trick pony, I can't help but hearken to the Right to Life and I do this for two reasons:
The facts are incontravertible.
We are supposed to believe that the Democrats (whose constituents are so lame and so stupid as to DEMAND the right to off their own) have run circles around us using the compelling logic that "it's better to be dead than unwanted."
The ugly truth, however, is that it is the GOP who not only recognizes but mandates that "Abortion is VITAL to the solution" of population control at home and abroad. This is very clearly set forth in Kissinger's NSSM-200 (signed by him for Nixon and signed by Scowcroft -- as NSDM-314 -- for Ford).
As a Bloodhound and "no holds barred" defender of human life, I find the conclusions to be drawn therefrom horrifying and irrefutable.
It was George H. Bush who most clearly exposed (in debate and in discussion) Title X and the "War on Poverty" for the War on the Poor it truly was.
It is the GOP who confected, waged and perpetuated our War on Drugs and -- having outfitted the likes of Clinton with the federal police force necessary to mow down Davidians -- not only looked the other way but wiped his hands clean.
It is the GOP again at the helm now that we are poised to launch a third war on the American people, their civil liberties and personal freedoms under the guise of the "War on Terrorism" our AG of "Justice" Ashcroft wishes to model on the oh-so-successful Drug War.
Truly, it was the Blood Trail and the human life digging that finally brought the Escher drawing into focus for me. GOP's top dog. The Dems -- including Howdy Doody Clinton -- are just a clown car used to distract the crowds from whatever the ringmaster's readying centerstage.
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.