hitler e. newman
I'z So Purty!
Posted on 05/26/2002 11:04:50 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, the number two Republican in the Senate, said Saturday that he was "furious" at his colleague, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, over comments she made last week suggesting that President Bush could have prevented the 9-11 attacks.
Then, in a warning to Clinton and other Democrats who have focused exclusively on 9-11 intelligence failures during President Bush's first eight months in office, Nickles added, "If we're going to have an investigation, we should have an investigation of why we didn't respond strongly to previous acts of terror."
"I'm pretty critical of the previous administration," the leading Republican explained during a lengthy interview with his homestate newspaper, the Oklahoman. "They dropped the ball in the war on terrorism. They never engaged in the war on terrorism."
Nickles has already begun laying the groundwork for a Clinton-9-11 terror probe, showing the newspaper prepared charts listing five terrorist attacks on the U.S. during the Clinton administration, not counting the Oklahoma City bombing.
Juxtaposed with the charts' graphics, the Oklahoma conservative has inserted quotes from President Clinton promising a strong and forceful response. But, said Nickles, those promises were never followed by effective action.
The Republican leader complained that U.S. facilities at home and abroad were attacked repeatedly during the Clinton years but, "we didn't do anything about it."
He cited the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, the 1996 Khobar Towers military barracks bombing and the attack two years ago on the U.S.S. Cole.
In light of the Clinton administration's failed record on terrorism, Nickles said that Mrs. Clinton's attack on President Bush was "very inappropriate."
And I hope you do, too........we're resting up for the next 'Canes game!
Weeks after the OKC bombing I was interviewed by the FBI for no other reason than I was a outspoken talk show host.....Clinton made the call after Waco that to win in 96 all he had to do was cast all Conservatives as wacked out Christians/Militia/KKK members etc..going after the real terrorist would not of gotten him re-elected .as I pointed out on my web page
Relaxing on Air Force One after the election, Bill Clinton told reporters it was the Oklahoma bombing that proved the turning-point in his political fortunes. It was the moment when the militias, the Christian Right and the Gingrich onslaught against government, all melded together in the public mind as one rampant movement of extremism. "It broke a spell in the country as the people began searching for our common ground again," said Clinton.
The real sad story is most all conservatives were shamed into silence during the 90's to afraid to speak up in the event they were called politically incorrect....I witnessed this strange behavior of conservatives in Rhodesia and later in South Africa�.....lets hope America does not suffer the same outcomes.....I won't hold my breath!
On Dec. 18, 2000 the Florida electoral college voted for President Bush. On Dec. 19th Clinton went to the UN to push for tougher sanctions. On Dec. 20th the UN reluctantly issued the threat...to go into effect Jan. 20th, 2001, President Bush's inaugeration day.
I just hope Im around to see it.
This is true for everyone on earth except the Clintons.
Was the "ethical Washington Watchdog" on a show that will have a transcript to see at some point?
Attempting to deflect focus from the Clinton Administration, Bill Clinton now claims Americans are to blame for the 911 attack. In a recent speech to Georgetown University Clinton claims slavery, the treatment of native Americans, and the European Christian crusades are the cause of 911.
I think the media is just an excuse move-on'ers use because the media wouldn't trump a real investigation and the courts. The media would have a hard time spinning matters like election tampering, blackmail of Congress, treason, murder and mass murder. The real reason is more sinister. The democRATS have something on Bush and the Republicans ... something just as bad as those crimes. Didn't Stephanopolis say just that? He would know.
And ... how do you know it isn't??
Easy. Because you can't point to ONE indication that an investigation of ANY of the serious crimes committed by the democRATS while Clinton was in power has or is occuring. NOT ONE. You should be able to, given the scope of the investigation that is needed. HUNDREDS of people need to be questioned and many of those will be unfriendly ... people that would lawyer up at the first whiff of an investigation. Their lawyers, being lawyers, would run to a liberal press and liberal congress and cry foul. But that hasn't happened, has it? And some of those who need to be interviewed would be people like Tripp ... i.e., on our side ... and you can't with a straight face tell us that at least one of those DOZENS of people wouldn't have let slip that they'd been questioned by now. But that hasn't happened, has it? And an honest investigation would require that THOUSANDS of documents be subpoenoed and hundreds of computers be searched. And there is no way such an huge investigation could be kept quiet for long. You can't name ONE example from the past where that happened ... certainly in a case as large as this would be. Sorry ... but claiming I don't "know" for a fact that such an investigation is taking place ... after more than a year in office for Bush ... is no different than the delay, delay, delay tactics of the democRATS. More and more, it looks like there is not a dimes bit of difference between democRATS and Republicans where upholding the law where political parties and politicians is concerned.
Soooo, if you will take a cue from how the President handled the after-election fiasco, you will see that he holds his cards close to his chest. The repubs never warned the dems of what they were doing or what they were going to do. They all kept their mouths shut. As it should be. Because the repubs kept their mouths shut, I believe we had the advantage over the dems, in that they did not know what we were doing - in fact they said "Bush is in hiding at the ranch". Of course, Bush wasn't in hiding, and quite the contrary, Bush had people hard at work trying to keep Al Gore from stealing the election. But the dems said he was in hiding because they didn't know what he was doing. Bush did that on purpose to keep them off guard.
Sooooo, the fact YOU don't have any information - doesn't mean a thing.
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.