Wednesday, April 07, 2004

I don't know if you follow Neal Boortz, but he's more of a Libertarian and his commentary is always short and pithy and almost always right on with my view. You can also catch him on the radio. His page is updated daily so his comment below will disappear. I wanted to share it with you because I think it summarizes the whole 9/11 "discussion" and the ridiculous claims that Richard Clarke are making about President Bush being lax on the terrorist and particularly Al Qaeda issue. Nobody was more lax than Clinton.

It reminds me of the comment Bill Mahr made about the US being cowards as compared to the terrorists who flew the planes into the buildings, when all we did wa lob some missiles from 3,000 miles away. He took a lot of heat for that remark, but it was mostly because people misunderstood what he was saying. I believe he meant to be critical of the Clinton administration and their lack of attention to a growing problem. But the point is the Clinton administration WAS cowardly toward terrorism. Clinton did not want to get involved in any way, shape or form. I'm convinced he even swept the bombing of the Oklahoma Federal Building and the shoot down of Flight TWA 800 under the rug for fear they might have been a terrorist attack (or he knew they were). I believe they were. Al Qaeda raised its ugly head in no uncertain terms in 1993 when they bombed the World Trade Center. Their intent was to bring that tower down then. What did Clinton do? Lobbed a few missiles into Afghanistan and then called Monica back. Yeah, it was a high priority alright. Nealz Nuze Today's Nuze

"Tuesday, April 6, 2004


Let's review.

You are former president Bill Clinton. Your chief anti-terrorism guy, Richard Clarke, says that Al Qaeda was an absolute top priority during the final years of your term. In fact, Richard Clarke writes a book and testifies under oath telling everyone who will listen how focused you were on Al Qaeda while you were president.

So .. it's the end of your eight years in the White House. December, 2000. You are writing a report detailing your views on the major security threats facing the United States as you leave office. The report, which Richard Clarke helped you write, is 45,000 words long. That would be 168 pages using Microsoft Word, and if published as a book it would be about 220 pages long. Now that's quite a lot of words describing what you think are the major security concerns the next president needs to be aware of. And guess what? In all of those 45,000 words you don't mention the name 'Al Qaeda' even one time. The greatest security concern facing America; isn't that what Richard Clarke said? And you don't even mention it one time in your report? Richard Clarke says that Condi Rice looked confused when he mentioned Al Qaeda ... but he didn't manage to get any reference to Al Qaeda included in your final report on security threats?

What do you expect the American people to think? No ... wait. I'll tell you what they think. They think Richard Clarke was lying. They think he lied when he said that Al Qaeda was one of your top national security priorities. Now, after hearing this about your final report, they not only think Richard Clarke was lying, now they know he was lying.

Nice going."


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home