Bill Clinton's letter to Col. Eugene Holmes, Director of the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas ..3 December 1969.Copy - 1992 Affidavit by Lt. Col. Holmes:Regarding Bill Clinton's Draft Evasion
Bill Clinton's letter to Col. Eugene Holmes, Director of the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas ..3 December 1969.Copy - 1992 Affidavit by Lt. Col. Holmes:Regarding Bill Clinton's Draft Evasion
I'm especially touched by the character, honor and courage visible in Col. Holme's letter about Bill Clinton's quite-evident, draft-dodging lack of character, honor and courage.
(Monday morning, of the three broadcast network morning shows, only CBS’s The Early Show devoted an interview segment to the Time story. Jane Clayson interviewed Time reporter Massimo Calabressi and displayed more skepticism than Rather would later in the day toward the Clinton spin. One of her questions: “So if this plan was so extensive and so important to the Clinton administration why didn't they follow through on it themselves?”)
========================================
“So if this plan was so extensive and so important to the Clinton administration why didn't they follow through on it themselves?”
“So if this plan was so extensive and so important to the Clinton administration why didn't they follow through on it themselves?”
“So if this plan was so extensive and so important to the Clinton administration why didn't they follow through on it themselves?”
Time magazine belongs in the trashcan of history along with Clinton.
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 more than 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"
"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.
Richard Clarke