Republicans kept Clinton from attacking terrorists?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Sep 26, 2006.

  1. Little-Acorn
    Offline

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    8,341
    Thanks Received:
    2,020
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Ratings:
    +5,835
    Bill Clinton made a number of amazing "statements" recently in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News. One of them was that Republicans had prevented him from carrying out the attacks he had wanted to do against Osama bin Laden and other terrorists who had attacked us.

    Caught with their hand in the cookie jar, our desperate liberal pundits consistently throw up the old canard of "The usual Repbulican crowd" kept accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog", and kept him from responding effectively to flagrant acts of terrorism by bin Laden and others.

    And they are consistently unable to name names, or identify any members of this large crowd who supposedly overruled Clinton's orders. A few elected officials did do that at first (Coates, Specter), but swung into line shortly afterward.

    And the vast bulk of elected officials and high-ranking Republican party members supported Clinton's actions, on the rare occasions they took place. Newt Gingrich announced that the US had done "exactly the right thing", and kept saying it for months. Jesse Helms said 'The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism.' Paul Coverdell said 'Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom. This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice.' Senate majority leader Trent Lott said 'Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.', and he proceeded to do exactly that. Even former VP Dan Quayle said 'I don’t have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps.' The only mild objection he presented, came when he added, "It’s probably long overdue.'

    Their main dispute was that Clinton wasn't doing enough, and should have directed more attacks against terrorist leaders and their sponsors, instead of waiting until domestic crises of his own making appeared to force him to attacks overseas as though he were trying to divert attention. But when he finally did act, most Republicans supported him wholeheartedly. On the whole, nobody but unelected, powerless pundits pushed the "wag the dog" scenario - groups that have existed in America since before the Declaration of Independence was signed.

    A very different situation from what we have today: the highest-ranking elected Senators and Congressmen from the opposition party telling flat lies on the floors of Congress, accusing the President of everything from stupidity to foreknowledge to megalomania to Naziism, screaming that his plans won't work, that we have lost, that Iraq is in a Civil War, that we've given up looking for the masterminds, and all the rest of their poppycock. Even as the Iraqi armed forces gain size and strength daily, Al Qaeda leaders fall like flies, Iraqi cities and infrastructure improve daily, schools open, hospitals open, women vote, Constitutions are written and approved, governments representing ALL parties are formed and approved, and more and more Iraqi territory is turned over to Iraqi control in preparation to the removal of our troops after the victory we have always planned for is completed.

    In a war featuring the usual advances and setbacks that all wars have, Democrat ELECTED OFFICIALS AND HIGH PARTY MEMBERS ignore every advance and improvement, while seizing upon every setback as an eagerly-desired weapon to use to undermine and destroy the government's efforts to win the war against terrorists. Never in our country's history have elected officials and high party members put the advantage of their political party above the needs of their own nation, as the Democrats are doing daily today with full knowledge of the degree of their own disingenuousness. The closest any highly-placed American ever came to this level of treachery, was an army general who was caught and exposed as a traitor, and who fled the country for his life, to live with the enemy for the rest of his days. And at least that general had a good record of combat bravery for the Americans before he became a turncoat, long before out Constitution was even written.

    Now we are seeing the usual pundits and powerless nabobs defending their elected officials' mendacious mouthings. There is nothing to do for it, but vote the turncoat officials out of office - a goal that is proceeding satisfactorily if slowly - and let them destroy themselves from within, a similar satisfactorily-progressing goal. Coupled with a good dose of slapping down every lie and malicious diversion spewed by Democrats, as many have in the last few days.

    It's too bad it's taking so long, but that's one of the prices we pay for freedom and self-government. And no sensible American would have it any other way.
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    :clap: :clap:
     
  3. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it was true just as much as I wouldn't be surprised if we reversed the political parties in the story.

    And before anyone goes off on me, I didn't say it wasn't true.
     

Share This Page