|
|
|
Or mail checks to: Or you can use: |
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- |
Posted on 04/01/2004 2:13:14 PM PST by Apolitical
Richard Clarke's new book, as related in his interview on 60 Minutes , accuses the Bush Administration of being so inept that anyone who isn't legally blind can see it is politically motivated. In a book released suspiciously close to an election cycle, the former counterterrorism official, a holdover from the Clinton Administration, comes out swinging at the President and his inner circle while going very light on his former boss, Bill Clinton. Clarke does this even though he previously acknowledged that Bill Clinton was responsible for a plethora of oversights regarding al Qaida including botching several opportunities to have Osama bin Laden's head on a plate.
Not surprisingly, then, this latest hatchet job on the Bush administration can only be viewed as another disingenuous and deceitful hatchet job by the DNC, Terry McAuliffe, and the liberally biased elite media -- a tactic used by all of them many times in the past.
In excerpts from his book (and during an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes), Clarke claims everything that came out of the Bush White House after September 11th was focused on Iraq.
What a strange contention. Clarke speaks as if no one remembers the events of that day. I am here to say he is sadly mistaken.
I remember quite clearly watching the news that day. How could it be avoided? I remember being glued to the news stations feeding on every bit of information the media had to offer. I recall learning bit-by-media-fed-bit that our government targeted Osama bin Laden and al Qaida as the ones responsible for the attacks and that they even approached the Afghani government quite quickly about bin Laden's whereabouts. I remember reports of it being conveyed beyond a shadow of a doubt to the Afghani government the severity of the repercussions should they be harboring bin Laden and his inner circle. And I remember the Taliban spokesman denying any knowledge of al Qaida or Osama bin Laden, even as al Qaida issued statements of responsibility.
I remember President Bush addressing the nation for the second time that fateful day to explain who did this. At no time did I ever hear the words "Iraq" or "Saddam Hussein" -- except from the media. If the Bush Administration truly wanted to lay blame at the feet of Saddam Hussein for September 11th, why would they have even mentioned bin Laden, al Qaida, the Taliban or Afghanistan? Conversely, if they wanted to lay the blame at the feet of Saddam Hussein why wouldn't they have centered the President's speech to the American public that day on Hussein's government and Iraq? It doesn't add up.
Clarke also accuses National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, on 9/11, of being ignorant to the fact al Qaida actually existed. This comes as quite a surprise seeing as she had mentioned the terrorist organization in lectures on terrorism prior to her White House service.....
(Excerpt) Read more at iconoclast.ca ...
Another deceitful Clinton acolyte.
|
|
|
Or mail checks to: Or you can use: |
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- |
Yawn. The question it why would "they", the DNC, Kerry and lefty pundits want to erase memories about 9/11, Afghanistan, Bali, etc. etc. in order to highlight Iraq? The purpose is to paint "Iraq" as the singular obsession of Bush so when, they hope, things fall apart there they can claim it's all Bush's fault, Iraq was Bush's "obsession", disassociate all pre-9/11 context from Iraq, and Kerry wraps it up saying he was "misled" by Bush - which explains his vote on the "war" (though not on the ILA).
This is their game plan, Clarke supporting from the flank. It's a semantic war, a political campaign of definition. Did you notice how Kerry in the past few months stopped harping on supporting our troops and how important it was to succeed in Iraq? He's betting on it falling apart. Maybe he's making "gestures" to Iran and Saudi to heat up things there before the election.
That's an insult to the legally blind.
Evidently that's ok with the media and liberal interviewers because Dickie says its just an opinion! Then the media and liberal interviewers can report it as the word of truth - until they want to change it.
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.
