Time Magazine's 'Clinton Plan' Fish Story

Toogood Reports ^ | August 7, 2002 | John Hawkins

[FatherFig1o155]

Probably started as an Onion piece, which Time picked up...

[weegee]

Then on page two Time gets down to the dirty of business of blaming the Bush administration for causing 9-11 by not blindly accepting the Clinton administration's plan,

"Could al-Qaeda's plot have been foiled if the U.S. had taken the fight to the terrorists in January 2001? Perhaps not....But there's another possibility. An aggressive campaign to degrade the terrorist network worldwide-to shut down the conveyor belt of recruits coming out of the Afghan camps, to attack the financial and logistical support on which the hijackers depended-just might have rendered it incapable of carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks. Perhaps some of those who had to approve the operation might have been killed, or the money trail to Florida disrupted. We will never know, because we never tried. This is the secret history of that failure."

And the left thinks that they are outraged at "abuses" by the Bush Administration now? How would it have looked if Jan 21st, the first "working" day as President (before he had even finished appointing his staff) Bush had started rounding up Al-Quaeda suspects, dropping bombs on bunkers in Afghanistan, etc? When in January 2001 (with 3 weeks of the month gone and the nation fatigued by Albert Gore Junior's incessant whining) did he want newly elected President Bush to take action?

Surely they jest.

[Kermit]

Dick Morris doesn't go far enough. With his pardon of the Puerto Rican terrorists, Clinton didn't only put fighting terrorism last, he supported it.

[foreshadowed at waco]

Both of your responses are wonderful--why don't you send them into the NY Post Letters to the Editor--their editorial today was about the Time Magazine article.

P.S.--Dead--you may have to change blow job to bj.

[Stand Watch Listen]

bttt

[mrsmith]

"senior Bush administration official "

Richard Clarke