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
Posted on 08/07/2002 7:55:02 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Time broke a story on August 5th which claimed that the Clinton administration was ready to go to war with Afghanistan and al-Queda over the Oct. 12, 2000 USS Cole bombing. But you see Bush was about to take over and,
"With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen."
Time then goes on to talk about the plan and drops this juicy quote,
"In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."
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."
However the Bush administration tells another tale, one totally at odds with the Time story,
"A recent story suggesting the White House sat on a plan developed by the Clinton administration to rid the world of Al Qaeda is wrong in several key respects, a senior Bush administration official said.
The Clinton administration had no "plan" outlining detailed assessments of the threat from the terrorist network and offering ideas on how to counter Al Qaeda, the official said....The incoming administration heard suggestions by the Clinton security team about a response to the terror groups' potential threat and continued on that path, White House spokesman Sean McCormack said....We were briefed on the Al Qaeda threat and what the Clinton administration was doing about it. These efforts against Al Qaeda were continued in the Bush administration," he said."
"...Officials said that action items given to the Bush administration were proposed to the Clinton administration in 1998. The Clinton White House had two years to come up with a plan encompassing the proposals but did not."
Time Magazine is portraying Clinton as having a detailed plan ready for what amounts to a war against al-Queda while the Bush team is saying that 'Clinton's Plan' amounted to little more than a briefing with a few suggestions. So who should we believe?
First off, the idea that the Clinton administration was ready to go to war against Afghanistan is laughable. Beyond a limited number of arrests and a suspiciously timed attack on an aspirin factory in Sudan and a terrorist camp in Afghanistan, Clinton did very little to combat terrorism in his eight years in office. The Clinton administration also crippled our human intelligence with new rules that didn't allow the CIA to hire "shady" characters and refused an offer in 1996 by Sudan to hand a gift wrapped Osama Bin Laden over to the United States. This is despite the fact that the Clinton administration was provoked several times by al-Queda before the USS Cole attack. There was the 1st WTC Bombing (1993), Somalia (1993), The Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1997), & the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (1998).
Yet after all of that, here's how Clinton Advisor Dick Morris described Clinton's view of terrorism,
"...Nothing so illustrates the low priority of terrorism in Clinton's first term than the short shrift he gave the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Six people were killed and 1,042 injured; 750 firefighters worked for one month to contain the damage. But Clinton never visited the site. Several days after the explosion, speaking in New Jersey, he actually "discouraged Americans from overacting" to the Trade Center bombing.
"...Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration's supporters, Janet Reno's objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism."
Now ask yourself how likely it is that Bill Clinton, after eight years of inaction and neglect, was suddenly inspired to start a 'War on Terrorism' by the USS Cole Bombing after ignoring several other attacks of similar or greater magnitude? I think the answer to that question should be obvious...unless you write for Time Magazine.
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.
A transcript of the conversation between Bill Clinton and a recruiting sergeant for the Israeli Army
Source: MULLINGS .com; Published: August 7, 2002;
Author: Rich Galen
A MULLINGS EXCLUSIVE!
This is true ...Bill Clinton says he would 'fight and die' for Israel
Sat Aug 3, 1:22 AM ET
NEW YORK (AP) - Former President Clinton ( news - web sites), who avoided the Vietnam War, told Jewish supporters in Toronto that he would fight and die to protect Israel if Iraq or Iran ever invaded."The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die," Clinton said to cheers at a Hadassah children's charity fund-raising dinner this week.
This is a parody ...What follows is a double-secret transcript of the induction interview between Bill Clinton and a recruiting sergeant of the Israeli army:....."
(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"
The comment noted above in post #5 above is certainly apropos
“So if this plan was so extensive and so important to the Clinton administration why didn't they follow through on it themselves?”
"I'm writing these comments to let everyone know that I love my country more than I do my own personal security and well-being."
Did he mean that as in Arkancide or in terms of press harrassment?
Clintoon's book will be published by Alfred Knopf Publishing.
“Knopf” is 13th Century German for “ incredibly stupid buyer of other peoples’ garbage.” Knopf is a very old publishing house best known for such early classics as
“How to Enjoy The Inquisition” by Father Torquemada
“You Get My Point?” by Vlad the Impaler
“Guillotine Maintenance and Repair” by Citizen Robespierre
Three of their more recent offerings are “PeeWee Herman’s Movie Guide,” “Gary Condit’s Guide to Picking Up Chicks” and “Compared to Us, Ponzi Was a Freakin’ Choirboy” co-authored by Gary Winnick, Ken Lay and Terry McAuliffe.
All available in a dumpster or landfill near you!
It's not only deeply disturbing that Time shamelessly fronts and covers for Clinton and all the baloney, but that other media outlets aren't refuting this blatant warping of events.
Goebbels himself could learn from these people...
The Colonel was simply stating that he knew he was putting himself in a line of fire, and that he was willing to give his life for his country -- as in "Duty, Honor, Country," values that Clinton knows nothing about.
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.