Clinton friends angry

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Admittedly a blog. But a pretty good one.

Friday, September 08, 2006
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

Evidently, a new ABC miniseries called 'The Path to 9/11' has the Democrats fighting mad. It is worth noting that if the Democrats were as willing to fight the war on terror as they are for their reputation as fierce warriors, Iraq would be a tourist destination by now.

The other day, Democrat Gary Hart (who hadn't seen the movie) went on “The O'Reilly Factor” to set the record straight, indignantly telling Bill O'Reilly that he 'warned' the Bush administration of an impending al-Qaeda attack.
Hart went on to say that his report was backed up by Sandy Berger, William Cohen and Madeline Allbright. When O'Reilly took the bait and asked when, Hart shot back, “On January 31, 2001.”

The Clinton administration had turned over the reins of government eleven days earlier -- after eight years in power, and eight years into the war with al-Qaeda that dated back to the 1993 Somalia War immortalized by the book and movie, 'Black Hawk Down'.
Following the Battle of Mogadishu, President Clinton ordered the military to stop all offensive actions against warlord Mohammed Aideed. He later ordered US forces to evacuate. Osama bin-Laden later bragged that was al-Qaeda's first victory against US forces on the battlefield.
The Clinton administration was in office during the first World Trade Center bombing, the two African embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, etc. It was estimated that the death toll from the terror attacks against US interests during the eight year Clinton administration exceeded four thousand dead, with many more wounded.
Let's climb into the WayBack Machine to January 31st, 2001.
Instead of the traditional 73 day 'transition period' the Bush White House had a ridiculously short five weeks – the shortest transition period of any elected president in American history. On January 31st, the Bush administration was in total disarray.
The fax machines had been packed with pornographic pictures, computers had been sabotaged, the 'W's' had been removed from White House keyboards, the phone systems were sabotaged, desk drawers were super-glued shut, etc.
Historical revisionists claim the vandalism reports were invented by the Bush administration. But the GAO issued an official report that the damage included 62 missing computer keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten antique doorknobs and several presidential medallions and office signs. The damage estimate was about $20,000.
(The GAO had the same civil service staff working for it during both administrations, rendering charges of a GOP partisan cover-up implausible at best.)
The Dems are upset because the miniseries portrays the Clinton administration as too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to pay adequate attention to the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Well, wasn't he? And if not, then what WAS the reason for doing nothing? And if they DID do something, perhaps someone would be able to point out what it was? (Besides blowing up an empty Sudanese factory and sending million dollar Cruise missiles to blow up empty $10 tents in Afghanistan, that is.)
Gary Hart's 'defense' on O'Reilly was really an indictment. The logic of Hart's argument eludes me, if there is any to be found there. If the Clinton administration officials he cited were so certain of an impending al-Qaeda attack by January 31st that it merited immediate action by an eleven day old Bush administration, did they reach that conclusion over the space of that eleven days? Or did they know before and do nothing?
At the same time, they find no conflict in the argument that the Bush administration bears 100% of the responsibility for a problem that existed for eight years prior to his election. The hypocrisy is staggering!
The folks complaining about the ABC miniseries' supposed 'inaccuracies' are the same folks that lined up two deep to go see Michael Moore's “Fahrenheit 911.” Moore's alleged 'documentary' became a legend – not for its facts, but rather for how breathtakingly inaccurate it was in almost every respect.
Sandy Berger, one of the loudest objectors to the film's accuracy, (who hadn't seen the movie) claims that the movie doesn't tell 'the truth' about his tenure in the White House. Berger was arrested (and convicted) of stealing classified documents relevant to the administration's efforts against bin-Laden that he was ostensibly gathering for the 9/11 Commission investigation.
The documents were never recovered. Berger claimed he 'lost' them. THAT's a guy I trust for telling the truth.
Bill Clinton (who hadn't seen the movie) dismissed it as 'indisputably wrong.' There's another guy I trust to tell me the truth about something, even if the truth would make him look bad.
The State of Arkansas disbarred him for lying under oath about Paula Jones. He was hauled before a Senate impeachment hearing for lying to a federal grand jury about Monica Lewinsky.
So if HE tells me that ABC is part of a pre-election Republican conspiracy to help defeat the Democrats, then I will pretend I believe that ABC is really part of a vast right wing conspiracy instead of the most liberal leaning media organization in America. I want to hear what Dan Rather has to say about it all. Then I really will know the truth!

[Cool Hand Clyde]

I watched both nights and didn't see any revelation that wasn't in the 9/11 report or that had not previously been brought into the public.

Madeline Albright, real or actor, is butt-ugly.

[Bill Pup60]

Admittedly a blog. But a pretty good one.

Friday, September 08, 2006
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

Evidently, a new ABC miniseries called 'The Path to 9/11' has the Democrats fighting mad. It is worth noting that if the Democrats were as willing to fight the war on terror as they are for their reputation as fierce warriors, Iraq would be a tourist destination by now.

The other day, Democrat Gary Hart (who hadn't seen the movie) went on “The O'Reilly Factor” to set the record straight, indignantly telling Bill O'Reilly that he 'warned' the Bush administration of an impending al-Qaeda attack.
Hart went on to say that his report was backed up by Sandy Berger, William Cohen and Madeline Allbright. When O'Reilly took the bait and asked when, Hart shot back, “On January 31, 2001.”

The Clinton administration had turned over the reins of government eleven days earlier -- after eight years in power, and eight years into the war with al-Qaeda that dated back to the 1993 Somalia War immortalized by the book and movie, 'Black Hawk Down'.
Following the Battle of Mogadishu, President Clinton ordered the military to stop all offensive actions against warlord Mohammed Aideed. He later ordered US forces to evacuate. Osama bin-Laden later bragged that was al-Qaeda's first victory against US forces on the battlefield.
The Clinton administration was in office during the first World Trade Center bombing, the two African embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, etc. It was estimated that the death toll from the terror attacks against US interests during the eight year Clinton administration exceeded four thousand dead, with many more wounded.
Let's climb into the WayBack Machine to January 31st, 2001.
Instead of the traditional 73 day 'transition period' the Bush White House had a ridiculously short five weeks – the shortest transition period of any elected president in American history. On January 31st, the Bush administration was in total disarray.
The fax machines had been packed with pornographic pictures, computers had been sabotaged, the 'W's' had been removed from White House keyboards, the phone systems were sabotaged, desk drawers were super-glued shut, etc.
Historical revisionists claim the vandalism reports were invented by the Bush administration. But the GAO issued an official report that the damage included 62 missing computer keyboards, 26 cell phones, two cameras, ten antique doorknobs and several presidential medallions and office signs. The damage estimate was about $20,000.
(The GAO had the same civil service staff working for it during both administrations, rendering charges of a GOP partisan cover-up implausible at best.)
The Dems are upset because the miniseries portrays the Clinton administration as too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to pay adequate attention to the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Well, wasn't he? And if not, then what WAS the reason for doing nothing? And if they DID do something, perhaps someone would be able to point out what it was? (Besides blowing up an empty Sudanese factory and sending million dollar Cruise missiles to blow up empty $10 tents in Afghanistan, that is.)
Gary Hart's 'defense' on O'Reilly was really an indictment. The logic of Hart's argument eludes me, if there is any to be found there. If the Clinton administration officials he cited were so certain of an impending al-Qaeda attack by January 31st that it merited immediate action by an eleven day old Bush administration, did they reach that conclusion over the space of that eleven days? Or did they know before and do nothing?
At the same time, they find no conflict in the argument that the Bush administration bears 100% of the responsibility for a problem that existed for eight years prior to his election. The hypocrisy is staggering!
The folks complaining about the ABC miniseries' supposed 'inaccuracies' are the same folks that lined up two deep to go see Michael Moore's “Fahrenheit 911.” Moore's alleged 'documentary' became a legend – not for its facts, but rather for how breathtakingly inaccurate it was in almost every respect.
Sandy Berger, one of the loudest objectors to the film's accuracy, (who hadn't seen the movie) claims that the movie doesn't tell 'the truth' about his tenure in the White House. Berger was arrested (and convicted) of stealing classified documents relevant to the administration's efforts against bin-Laden that he was ostensibly gathering for the 9/11 Commission investigation.
The documents were never recovered. Berger claimed he 'lost' them. THAT's a guy I trust for telling the truth.
Bill Clinton (who hadn't seen the movie) dismissed it as 'indisputably wrong.' There's another guy I trust to tell me the truth about something, even if the truth would make him look bad.
The State of Arkansas disbarred him for lying under oath about Paula Jones. He was hauled before a Senate impeachment hearing for lying to a federal grand jury about Monica Lewinsky.
So if HE tells me that ABC is part of a pre-election Republican conspiracy to help defeat the Democrats, then I will pretend I believe that ABC is really part of a vast right wing conspiracy instead of the most liberal leaning media organization in America. I want to hear what Dan Rather has to say about it all. Then I really will know the truth!

Good stuff TT.

It's interesting to hear the libs on here take their usual posture. When they're caught red-handed, they always come out with something like ......"well both sides do bad stuff"..... it's all part of the Marxist defense theory. If you're caught in a lie, just scream that your opponent lies too!!!!

You know the definition of a true liberal >>>> someone who stands on his head and insists that the rest of the world is upside down >>>>>>>>>