For a long time, now, I’ve used as a part of my header, and my tagline, a saying:
Remember; those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing. What do YOU stand for?
Apparently a corollary of this is ‘Bipastisan stands for nothing.’
I’ve had the chance to read the 9/11 commission’s “Executive Summary” last night, and plan to tackle the larger volume of their report this weekend. There are a number of thoughts that come to mind as I read this thing… The first of which is bipartisanship gets us nowhere.
Look; If the truth is what you’re after, you can’t be taking the extreme ends of the opinion about a given subject, and then simply draw a line down the exact middle between those extremes and call it the truth. But this seemingly is what the commission has done. They’re so interested in being seen as non-partisan, that they apparently place that non-partisanship as a higher priority than actually answering the questions posed.
Well, are they being non-partisan, under that cloak of non-partisanship? There are several who have read the report who in my morning reading, don’t seem to think so. Boortz this morning is one of the louder examples, and says it better than most:
“So now we have this useless 575-page 9/11 Commission report. The partisan document essentially condemns the war in Iraq by saying a failed Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion could become “breeding grounds for attacks against Americans at home.” Apparently these idiots on this Commission believe we lost the war in Iraq. They also don’t realize that Iraq was already a breeding ground for several attacks against Americans at home. Saddam was harboring terrorists…this is a fact that cannot be denied.
The chairman of the Commission, Tom Kean, says we were unprepared. Why were we unprepared? Because Bill Clinton’s administration did nothing to fight terrorism, that’s why. There’s real blame to go around here and they aren’t assigning it where it belongs. The commission concluded that across the government there were “failures of imagination.”
‘Failures of imagination?’ More like failure of the terrorist-appeasing liberal Democrats that ran this country’s national security into the ground for eight years.
Boortz is correct of course.
E.D.Hill on FNC this morning makes the point that America, the voter, wasn’t thinking much of Terrorism, so some of the blame can be placed there, as well.. and she’s got a point.
But even there, think, people… How many of you heard about Usama BinLaden back in October of 1998 when Bill Clinton got that PDB laying out the threats against us?
Instead of spending the money on security, Clinton’s Democrats re-directed that money, that effort. Michelle Malkin this morning goes to some lengths on the shorthanded intel agencies. So why were they so short handed, and under-funded? Because of a Clinton administration making light of it’s security tasks.
Michelle confirms what we’ve known for years… the intel agencies were going wanting. How is this? Bill Clinton and the Democrats wanted that money…. the so-called “peace dividend’ spent on socialist programs designed to buy votes. Bill Clinton and the Democrats disregarded and heaped disdain on their task to keep us safe in the world.
To boot, of late we’re seeing evidence that the Clinton hacks have been trying to keep their actions or more correctly, their inactions, though this period, out of the limelight… they are in fact down right desperate to do so… ala Sandy Berger’s Document Storage system. To listen to everyone who knows anything about Berger tell it, this is not a normal action for him. Such a foundational change in his actions suggests a certain desperation to keep the stolen documents, and the actions of the Democrats, including Berger, out of the light of day.
How can the people be blamed, here? In many ways, the President and the Congress set the national agenda. Not only did the Clinton misadministration ignore the threat, we were simply not told about this threat back in 98. Which was Clinton’s JOB. Blaming the people in this case, reminds one of Jimmy Carter’s Malaise speech. What fabulous leadership!
And yes, I’ll agree…Mr. Bush shares some of that blame, but at least Mr. Bush was actually trying to address the threat, says the commission. Unlike Clinton, I would add. The commission, trying again to be bipartisan, has not addressed this very real and most key problem.
I’ll write more to this point this weekend, as I think on this some more.
But isn’t it time we placed the blame on the person who destroyed, in 8 years, this country’s ability to gather intel, and to defend itself, in pursuit of the great socialist wet dream?
In my reading so far, I’m not happy. I really must tell you, that the appearence is the members of the 9/11 panel stand more for bipartisanship, than they do for a secure America.
Tags: BitsBlog
