Clinton had 8 years and did nothing unless it helped hide his impeachment scandel.
Terrorism came to America under his watch.
Credit where credit is due.
Some people say he would do anything to defend his narcisistic self-image, including lie, cheat and steal, let alone distort his record and cast aspersions on his successor with falsehood and innuendo. But some people say it isn't the lying so much as the criminal behavior that is the more offensive. Others chime in with allegations of fraud and the selling of national security secrets for profit.
But are these potential failings really as important as his critics claim? We all have to sort out our priorities in life, and in our leaders.
I don't blame them, because from all appearances, the Clinton plan involved sending in a single cruise missle to destroy an unoccupied tent and perhaps kill a camel -- a meaningless symbolic action. We know this story is false, because when, in eight years as President, did Clinton ever come up with a substantive plan for anything.
Oh, so I guess terrorists destroying two embassies, bombing the WTC, attacking the Cole, and killing scores of Americans in the process wouldn't be construed as mass casualties? And doing nothing about ANY of these acts would constitute an act of bravery, patriotism, or just flat out balls?
Who ARE these wingnuts? I'm sorry, but if 'understanding' the new terrorist threat means holding a kumbaya session with the likes of Arafart while our boys in uniform die, I don't want any part of understanding. The only understanding those terrorist ba$tards need is the understanding that we won't be satisfied until they are all burning in hell.
This is a desparate attempt by the DNC to reverse the obviouse advantage we have in the security/trust numbers. If BJ was in office we would have never invaded or stood up to Pinhead Laden. The comparison in the two Presidents when it comes to honesty and likability must be driving the commiecRats crazy. Fortunately for a liberal it is a short trip!
Pray for GW and the Truth
"Elsewhere in this article is this little gem:
After the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, the secretive Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., drew up plans to have Delta Force members swoop into Afghanistan and grab bin Laden. But the warriors were never given the go-ahead; the Clinton Administration did not order an American retaliation for the attack.
17 young men and women died in that terrorist attack. With this excerpt Time magazine reveals Clinton actually stopped a planned retaliation. That is the story. It does not require spin. It is not one of bias. It is simply the truth. Clinton’s inaction after the Cole was probably viewed by bin Laden as American weakness, giving him more aid, comfort and confidence as he planned his mass murder for September 11, 2001. Even when their own reporting reveals this depth of Clinton’s culpability, Time chose to blame the nine month old Bush administration for the Islamist attack on our soil. How dare they."
Time magazine gives *historical revisionism* new meaning.Forget Josef Goebbels. When it comes to unbridled and shameless propaganda, the twisting and perverting of truth to fit a political agenda, the Clinton-lovers at Time are second to none.
Indeed, this time Time out-does even itself.
The "blockbuster" 'cover story', They Had A Plan, by Michael Elliott, isn't journalism -- it's naked proselytizing. Mr. Elliot serves up a plateful of fusty excuses, sprinkles it with thin alibis, as he tries to negate or minimize arguably the most momentous dereliction of the Clinton "presidency": To wit, its failure to tackle effectively the growing menace of international terrorism; principly, the burgeoning threat posed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Under Clinton, al-Qaeda not only survived, it thrived -- spreading its tentacles out of its base in Afghanistan to dozens of countries around the globe. Under Clinton, al-Qaeda became a phenomenal growth industry, prospering beyond its wildest dreams; membership swelled, coffers bulged. The groundwork for 9/11 had been laid; thousands of al-Qaeda sleeper agents, like swarms of killer viruses, would worm their way inside our porous borders.
Under the Clinton & the gang, with impunity would al-Qaeda repeatedly attack the U.S. The group was clearly behind the February '93 (first) World Trade Center bombing, killing six, wounding thousands.
Clinton's response?
Zilch, zero, nada.
Later that year, 18 U.S. Army Rangers were slaughtered in Mogadishu, breeding ground of al-Qaeda terrorists. Their bodies were dragged through the streets, locals celebrating in triumph.
Clinton's reaction?
He turns tail and runs, further emboldening the enemy..
Then, on June 25, 1996, al-Qaeda strikes again. Target: The Khobar Towers apartment building in Dahran, Saudi Arabia. A powerful truck bomb kills 10 American airmen and wounds 400.
Clinton's response?
Zip, zero, nada.
Two years later, in August of '98, al-Qaeda brutally attacks two U.S. Embassies in eastern Africa, killing 258, including 12 Americans. Five-thousand were wounded.
Clinton's reaction?
He launches a few cruise missiles, hits a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and some empty tents in Afghanistan. The strikes were seen more as wag-the-dog -- Monica Lewinsky was set to testify before a grand jury in Washington -- than as a response to terrorism.
The next al-Qaeda strike came October 12, 2000. The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole killed 17 sailors, wounded over 34 others.
Clinton's response?
The Plan! Ah, yes, finally....The Plan!
Uh-Oh....wait a sec...
Only one, itsy-bitsy problem. Clinton, our brave commander-in-chief, didn't want people to think he was doing another 'wag-the-dog', what, with presidential elections looming, says Mr. Eilliot.
So he deferred.
Well, what about after the elections? Why no action even then?
Oh, C'mon! Give Clinton a break, why don'tcha? Can't you see, far more pressing, far more urgent issues needed attention? Handing out pardons, for one; think of how time consuming that can be ....Too many fugitives, too many traitors to pardon, and oh so little time!
Kidding aside, the truth is, there was no "blueprint", there was no "Plan", only a set of disjointed, half-hearted policy "options"; some of this stuff had been kicking around for years -- one as far back as August '98. None were "actionable", none were aggressive enough, none involved real military action in Afghanistan.
In short, the Time article is a sham -- nothing more than a politically motivated shot at the Bush administration by Clintonistas desperate to pass the buck for their own stupidity and culpability.
Culpability? Yes, culpability.
Bottom line: In 1996, Sudan had offered Osama bin Laden to Clinton on a platter; the offer was rejected. 9/11 was the result.
That's a damning fact of history.
No amount of cunning spin, artful dodging or crafty maneuvering by Clinton-lovers at Time will change that.
Further, the claim that C.I.A. surveillance flights over Afghanistan were halted by the incoming Bush administration is another sick lie.
The Predator drone, as Rep. Peter King explained meticulously on Hardball Monday night, had been taken down in October of '00 -- four months before Bush became President. At the time, a new missile system was being developed. To avoid signature detection by the enemy, missions were stopped. The Pentagon had not completed the project until the summer of '01.
Time magazine, and Michael Elliot in particular, owe the 9/11 families, as well as the President of the United States, a very public apology. His article is tantamount to a hate crime.
Shame on Time.
But don't hold your breath waiting for mea culpas.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
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?