cheney's mouth moves again
Dick Cheney tells returning Marines that weak responses to seven terrorist attacks -- six under Clinton and one under Reagan -- lead to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The de facto vice president said, "The terrorists came to believe that they could strike America without paying any price. And so they continued to wage those attacks, making the world less safe and eventually striking the United States on 9/11."
Bullshit. First, terrorists don't strike the US because they can do so "without paying any price." Terrorists aren't joyriding teenagers who egg houses, paint bridges, and steal from their mothers' purse because they can do it "without paying any price." They attack US targets and kill Americans because they don't like our policies, don't like our military presence in holy Saudi Arabia, don't like our support of the decadant Saudi royal family, don't like our support for secular infidels like Mubarek in Egypt, etc. And now, adding to the above list, a whole group of Iraqis new to the terrorism game are killing our troops and what they see as Iraqi collaborators due to the invasion/occupation of Iraq. And besides, most of the cited attacks were SUICIDE BOMBINGS. How much more of a price can those terrorists have paid???
Cheney makes it sound so easy, so simplistic, implying that Clinton could have done anything he wanted against terrorists, without constraint. This simply isn't true. One example was the attack against the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000 -- would the GOP have preferred that Clinton declared war on somebody? They would have accused Clinton of using national security as a partisan campaign tool -- you know, the way the GOP did in elections in 2002 and 2004. Clinton/Gore decided to rise above partisanship (unfortunately) and didn't immediately jump to do something, in large part due to the impending election.
Many in the GOP consistently opposed any Clinton military action, even accusing the Clintons of "Wag the Dog" behaviour when he struck at Sudan after the Lewinsky revelations. Would anybody in the GOP have supported a Clinton invasion of Afghanistan after the Khobar attacks or the attacks on our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? I don't think so. Cheney is being his usual disingenuous self and is trying to deflect blame and justify Iraq. Remember, this is the de facto Administration that neglected terrorism for the first nine months of its term precisely because the outgoing Clinton gang told them terrorism would need to be their TOP priority, and was the same group that was out on a nice, peaceful vacation in August 2001 while the counterterror universe in Washington and elsewhere was screaming at the top of their bureaucratic lungs that SOMETHING BIG WAS COMING. If Bush/Cheney had been around in December 1999 the Millennium terrorist plot would probably not have been thwarted because they would have all been on vacation instead of leading an intensive, high-level effort to try to stop the attack.
Remember, when you see Dick Cheney's mouth moving, you know he's lying.
Bullshit. First, terrorists don't strike the US because they can do so "without paying any price." Terrorists aren't joyriding teenagers who egg houses, paint bridges, and steal from their mothers' purse because they can do it "without paying any price." They attack US targets and kill Americans because they don't like our policies, don't like our military presence in holy Saudi Arabia, don't like our support of the decadant Saudi royal family, don't like our support for secular infidels like Mubarek in Egypt, etc. And now, adding to the above list, a whole group of Iraqis new to the terrorism game are killing our troops and what they see as Iraqi collaborators due to the invasion/occupation of Iraq. And besides, most of the cited attacks were SUICIDE BOMBINGS. How much more of a price can those terrorists have paid???
Cheney makes it sound so easy, so simplistic, implying that Clinton could have done anything he wanted against terrorists, without constraint. This simply isn't true. One example was the attack against the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000 -- would the GOP have preferred that Clinton declared war on somebody? They would have accused Clinton of using national security as a partisan campaign tool -- you know, the way the GOP did in elections in 2002 and 2004. Clinton/Gore decided to rise above partisanship (unfortunately) and didn't immediately jump to do something, in large part due to the impending election.
Many in the GOP consistently opposed any Clinton military action, even accusing the Clintons of "Wag the Dog" behaviour when he struck at Sudan after the Lewinsky revelations. Would anybody in the GOP have supported a Clinton invasion of Afghanistan after the Khobar attacks or the attacks on our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? I don't think so. Cheney is being his usual disingenuous self and is trying to deflect blame and justify Iraq. Remember, this is the de facto Administration that neglected terrorism for the first nine months of its term precisely because the outgoing Clinton gang told them terrorism would need to be their TOP priority, and was the same group that was out on a nice, peaceful vacation in August 2001 while the counterterror universe in Washington and elsewhere was screaming at the top of their bureaucratic lungs that SOMETHING BIG WAS COMING. If Bush/Cheney had been around in December 1999 the Millennium terrorist plot would probably not have been thwarted because they would have all been on vacation instead of leading an intensive, high-level effort to try to stop the attack.
Remember, when you see Dick Cheney's mouth moving, you know he's lying.
posted by Don Q Blogger at 8:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home