Posted on 11/08/2001 10:38:42 AM PST by VinnyTex
Clinton Assigns Blame By Kevin M. Cherry, a writer living in Alexandria, Va.. |
|
n a speech at Georgetown University, President Bill Clinton blamed, in part, the United States for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Speaking to a group of about 1,000 students, the former president said that our nation is "paying a price" for slavery and for its treatment of the "significant number of native Americans" who "were dispossessed and killed." Osama bin Laden certainly has given no indication that he was concerned about the American sin of slavery partially, perhaps, because Islam provides some justification for the abuse. While Clinton cites the Christian sins of the crusades as something for which "we are still paying," bin Laden prefers to focus on more recent events the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, the sanctions on Iraq, the existence of Israel. The first two of bin Laden's grievances, of course, are just over a decade old; the last... well, it's been an issue since May, 1948. Bin Laden has also cited the post-WWI breakup of the Ottoman Empire, but let's not dwell on that. We don't need to turn to such (relatively) ancient history to understand some of the reasons why September 11 happened. Let's look at some of the policy failings of the Clinton administration that severely hampered American efforts to curtail terrorism. In 1995, the CIA enacted a policy that forbids the recruitment of "dirty" agents foreign agents that have less than spotless human-rights records. Despite the denials that any recruit was ever turned down, this policy undoubtedly had a chilling effect on who was recruited in the first place. One ex-CIA official told Franklin Foer of The New Republic that under Clinton appointee John Deutsch, the agency had "become very politically correct." And just last year, the National Commission on Terrorism chaired by former Reagan counterterrorism head Paul Bremer issued a report with the eerily foreboding image of the Twin Towers on its cover. A bipartisan effort led by Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein was made to attach the recommendations of the panel to an intelligence authorization bill. But Sen. Patrick Leahy feared a threat to "civil liberties" and torpedoed the effort. After the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Kyl and Feinstein tried yet again. This time, Leahy was content with emaciating the proposals instead of defeating them outright. The weakened proposals died as the House realized "it wasn't worth taking up." President Clinton certainly could have encouraged Sen. Leahy to drop his opposition, but he didn't. In 1996, President Clinton charged Al Gore with improving airline security. But the commission he led "focused on civil liberties" and "not effectiveness," according to the Boston Globe. The commission concluded that "no profile [of passengers] should contain or be based on... race, religion, or national origin." The FAA also decided, in 1999, to seal its passenger screening system from law-enforcement databases thus preventing the FBI from notifying airlines that suspected terrorists were on board. When bin Laden fled from the Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996, "some officials," according to the Washington Post, "raised the possibility of shooting down his aircraft." But the plan was never pursued, in part because "it was inconceivable" that President Clinton would approve of it. What President Clinton did do, of course, is launch a series of cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan around the time of his grand-jury testimony in August of 1998. Put aside any talk of "wagging the dog." This low-risk, low-damage effort helped bin Laden in the Muslim world. He looked strong, and we looked weak. We looked (and, of course, were) averse to casualties. It fit a pattern of tepid American responses to serious attacks on our interests the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (which the Clinton administration treated as a criminal matter and not an act of war), Khobar Towers, embassy bombings. The Muslim world senses weakness and feeds on it; they tremble only before resolution and strength. As one senior Defense Department official put it, "I wish we'd recognized [that we were at war] then and started the campaign then that we've started now." Russian President Putin echoed the same sentiment when he told ABC News that he was disappointed by the level of cooperation by the Clinton administration in fighting terrorism: "We certainly were counting on a more active cooperation in combating international terrorism." And they're not alone. Many former Clintonites read recent history, and their part in it, differently than does their ex-boss. Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general, told the Boston Globe, "Clearly, not enough was done." And Nancy Soderberg of the National Security Council admitted, "In hindsight [the administration's effort] wasn't enough, and anyone involved in policy would have to admit that." And, most damning: Joe Klein quotes an unnamed senior Clinton official, who reported that "Clinton spent less concentrated attention on national defense than any other president in recent memory." Bill Clinton, however is his same old self content to pass the buck blaming the Founders, the crusaders, and anyone else in sight for the attacks of September 11. He is entirely unwilling to accept any responsibility for what occurred on his watch. Before, he has pardoned the unpardonable; now he has justified the unjustifiable. |
Typical sh** from a typical sh**head.
Don't know.Ask Peter Jennings
Let me understand this... WJC is saying that we as a society are not supposed to hold Muslims in contempt for the actions of a few (which btw, I wholeheartedly agree with). However, at the same time, Muslims are perfectly correct in holding Christians in contempt for the actions done by some Christians (most likely in name only) over a 500 years ago?
Seems you can't have it both ways. But when did logic enter into this. The PC mindset couldn't care less about logic, it's all about 'feelings'.
And btw, it sounds like a similar pitch to trying to make white people feel guilty for slavery (done by their great great grandparents... and not all of them at that).
One can only wonder at what it is that motivates the lamestream media pukes to keep covering his increasingly deranged statements.
Lest America ever forget why The Nameless One, W(B)-97, and all their enablers should be hectored, hounded, and harried into silence, until "clintonese is only spoken in Hell," look here:
The Cost of Life (Clinton/Gore Sellout of Security for Campaign Contributions) **FR EXCLUSIVE** #2
CIA Officials Reveal What Went Wrong Clinton to Blame
Is Bill Clinton Responsible for September 11?
Clinton's Legacy: A Vulnerable America
Catastrophic intelligence Failure - Clinton's Bin Laden GATE
-The number of "suicides" for people linked to this and other Clinton-related cases--
-Women in the Clinton Era: Abuse,Intimidation and Smears--
-SEND JUANITA BROADDRICK VIDEO TO THOSE WHO WANT CLINTON TO SPEAK--
Nothing phony about response to Hillary at fete
Hillary's delegates spit on and taunt Police Honor Guard at her Convention
-Hillary Clinton-What America Needs to Know--
-Sen. Hillary Clinton--NewsMax.com Hot Topics--
Hillary! and Arafat's wife-
"Has that clinton "legacy" made you feel safer yet?"
WOULD? How 'bout DID?
For someone who's pursuit is one of personal power, rather than power to do justice, that idea has powerful appeal.
He did that long ago. Guess who runs the "spotlight"? Why else would an individual so absolutely devoid of character, decency, & honesty obtain such a completely free pass since he first stepped onto the national stage?
I, too, am immeasurably disgusted, nauseated, & repulsed at the mere mention of the traitor (the former president who won't go away) or his spouse (the equally evil, junior senator from the state that just lost the World Series). However, I take solace in observing how quickly he and his criminal organizations have become irrelevant. This, his legacy, resounds worldwide; and it obfuscates any lame attempt to credit him with something positive. The TRUTH always endures.
Why would Satan bargain for something already in his possession?
So, what does this make it, the 1 billionth time that Clinton assigned blame to zero times that Clinton accepted blame?
-PJ
Apparently, no one was listening when he said that he did all he could do to get binLADen and so this is his new approach. Place blame elsewhere. I cannot print here what I think of this guy. I would get kicked off of here for life.
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.