Posted on 05/17/2002 8:54:11 PM PDT by Pokey78
I have to say I'm a little angry today.
Many months after 9-11, the media suddenly want to hold President Bush accountable for what took place.
They are even invoking Watergate and the mantra of cover-up: "What did the president know and when did he know it?”
Don't get me wrong. I believe this president – and every president – should be held accountable to the American people for all the things that happen under his watch.
But I also believe the media should have demanded accountability immediately after 9-11.
In fact, they have yet to do so.
Since 9-11, congressional investigations have begun, but little has come of them so far.
It took five months – five months – before CIA Director George Tenet was brought before the Congress to testify.
He boldly told Congress there was nothing that could have been done to prevent the September tragedy.
The truth is evident for anyone with a brain: Nothing could have been done because of the catastrophic failure of our intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA and the FBI.
Immediately after 9-11, NewsMax revealed – we were the first – that during the Clinton years the CIA had stopped recruiting spies within the terrorist networks.
The media have gone to great lengths to avoid the story.
To date, they have yet to question, seriously and vigorously, Bill and Hillary Clinton for their actions in their eight years in the White House.
In President Bush's defense, he had arrived at the White House just months before 9-11.
But the media have not asked the Clintons, under whose watch the attacks were planned, why they failed us.
In this new era of Clintonian politics (and the Clintons still dominate the political scene), there is no accountability, especially if it involves Democrats.
Obviously, this is an election year, and the Democrats want to score as many points as possible against a very popular president.
Here we are witnessing the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Given the opportunity, the Democrats will always go for the jugular, while the Republicans will always try to take the high road.
It's not difficult to understand, then, why the Republicans are usually on the losing side.
The Democrats also have a very powerful ally in the establishment media, which always back them up.
The Roper Study found that 89 percent of the Washington press corps voted for Bill Clinton. Presumably, they would like to see Hillary in the White House as well.
The serious issue is not what the president knew and when he knew it.
The real question is why the American media gave Bill Clinton a free ride for eight years while he plundered national treasures such as the Lincoln Bedroom, politicized the FBI, gave away our nuclear and ballistic secrets to China, led the most corrupt administration in history – and yet and yet and yet, the liberal media have never viewed any of this as important.
Americans saw the results of the media's blatant failure to perform their job on 9-11.
I'm afraid that unless we take substantial action and find out who really was responsible for not preventing Sept. 11, future tragic events, more sensational than we have ever seen, will happen again. And this time we might not be so lucky.
You hear all this so-called 'news' about Bush's photo being used in an improper context; they don't have the slightest problem with a President who rents out rooms in the White House to his cronies.
Then it's 'Bush knew about 9-11'
All of this is a non-story. It is a created story, crafted by the same creeps who brought you 'Bill n Hill', our dear old friends, the Democrats and their liberal pals.
'United We Stand'......just make sure the Democrat isn't standing behind you.
Are they really?
The Democrats have launched several attacks similar to this one.....including "Arsenic in water"...the ENRON accusations etc. etc. and it is not the Republicans who have been on the losing side but the Democrats. They haven't been able to make any of their manufactured accusations stick to Bush.
How was John Walker Lindh, a nobody from California, able to penetrate Al-Queda, and learn about the attacks that were going to be directed at our country, and our own intelligence agaencies supposedly couldn't?
Don't take this to mean that I think Bush was involved. I don't believe that there is enough evidence to support such a thing. But how can something that obviously took a lot of planning and preparation escaped our attention, given that we have vast technological resources to choose from, and even men in these countries? Something just doesn't add up.
He essentially would have had to shut down the entire commercial air fleet for an indefinite period of time with no way of knowing whether or not he was successful in preventing anything.
The dems would have been screaming their heads off.
Is the criticism of President Bush over the 9/11 warnings just political?
156,016 69% YES
71,294 31% NO
Its just an internet poll, but it gives a snapshot of what people are thinking. The actual numbers of Americans, who thought this was just politics, is probably a lot higher then 69%.
It's not difficult to understand, then, why the Republicans are usually on the losing side.
from the story above
What else needs to be said beyond this?
I believe there wasn't a decision that was made with his legal team that he didn't agree with and his team was masterful in accomplishing the win.
Bush couldn't have become bogged down with the Dems agenda in pulling him into political suicide by going after the Clintons as his main goal in being elected as President.
Now he can continue the campaign of bringing integrity and justice, and pleasing the base, by giving the dems what they want. A full exposure of what really went wrong.
I just really hope he takes this opportunity that has been handed to him.
Can you imagine, going after the terrorists abroad and cleaning house at home? It could happen!
Clinton aides admit little done to foil terrorism
and this:
The Cost of Life (Clinton/Gore Sellout of Security for Campaign Contributions) **FR EXCLUSIVE** #3
For more teeth grinding, check out this little nugget... Americans are too patriotic to accept "good journalism"
Methinks that they (the media, liberals et.al.) are more motivated by the November elections than any sense of finding out the truth or assigning the blame where it truly belongs (on the Clintoon watch).
After all, they need to recaputure the stinking super-majority in both houses which is the only thing they truly care about...
It will die down over the summer, then just wait for after Labor Day -- they have only begun to sling hash.
Stay tuned.
This attempt to tar the president , with this stinking brush, is no different from the Enron thing . DIRTY DEM MUDSLINGING, WITH A CULPABLE MEDIA , READY WILLING, AND ABLE TO HELP . That some here, self proclaimed , supposed Conservatives , choose to pile on , is pathetic.
Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the the goals it seeks.
Propaganda must be creative. It is by no means a matter for the bureaucracy or official administration, rather it is a matter of productive fantasy. The genuine propagandist must be a true artist. He must be a master of the popular soul, using it as an instrument to express the majesty of a genuine political will. Propaganda can be pro or con. In neither case does it have to be negative. The only thing that is important is whether or not its words are true and genuine expressions of the people. During its period of opposition, the National Socialist movement proved that criticism can be constructive, indeed that in a time which the government is in the hands of destructive powers it may be the only constructive element.
The concept of popular enlightenment is fundamentally different. It is fundamentally defensive and evolutionary. It does not hammer or drum. It is moderate in tone, seeking to teach. It explains, clarifies, and informs. It is therefore used more often by a government than by the opposition.
Goebbels at Nuremberg — 1934
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.