|
|
September 30, 2006NY Times and Time Magazine - just plain lying, now.It is either egregiously bad reportage, or out-and-out lying, but you must go over to Tom Maguire’s place and check out just how thoroughly, sleazily and easily they have twisted Clintonian words and meanings. No wonder the press loves the Clintons so much. They all speak the same language. And it’s a pretty disgraceful one. From the Wednesday Times, second paragraph: In unusually blunt terms, Senator Clinton questioned the current administration’s response to an intelligence briefing President Bush received about a month before the 9/11 attacks. It mentioned that Al Qaeda was intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes. “Intent on striking the United States using hijacked planes” sounds a lot like the intent was to literally strike a building or something. Of course, since most of have only seen one Presidential Daily Brief in our lives, we remember that the memo referred to a conventional hijacking for hostages scenario. Well, we don’t need to speculate about what Mr. Clinton might have done with his hands in the summer of 1998. The fact is, the 2001 memo said nothing about a plan to “run some jetliners into skyscrapers”. MORE: What did Hillary say, anyway, that froze the minds of the media? MORE GUFF FROM DUFFY: Michael Duffy really does not seem to be familiar with the material… You should read the whole thing. At Maguire’s, commenter Neo leaves this useful bit of info: background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush’s former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of ‘98 ’til December of 2000? CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably. ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues? CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate? One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions. ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was … CLARKE: No, that’s not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed — began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that’s really how it started. [emphasis mine - admin] QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had? CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that. CLARKE: You got it. That’s right. You might want to read the whole briefing. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/09/30/ny-times-and-time-magazine-just-plain-lying-now/trackback/ 5 Responses to “NY Times and Time Magazine - just plain lying, now.” |
September 30th, 2006 at 10:22 am
it is fascinating…
the promotion, protection, and embrace of Bill and Hillary has not served the liberal bias in the Media very well, nor has it worked for the Democrat Party…
the rise of alternative media sources, and a Republican Majority in both Houses in Congress are evidence of this reality.
even when Bill or Hillary try to help unify Democrats to save Joe Lieberman, they fail, proving a sincere impotence with the American public.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:55 am
Illustrated: Zawahiri v. Democratic talking points
The Egyptian-born al-Zawahiri is regarded as an ideological founder of al-Qaeda and carries a $25 million US bounty on his head. No word on bounties for other Democratic thought-leaders…
October 1st, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I watched Fox News Sunday this morning. Chris Wallace was still a little dizzy from the tongue lashing he got from President Clinton. He had on a group of panelists (Richard Clarke was also invited but declined) to discuss efforts to kill bin Laden during the Clinton administration.
Michael Scheuer basically called Clinton a liar–saying that there were several clear shots to kill or get bin Laden and Clinton hesitated every time. While Scheuer said the Bush administration was not any better in going after bin Laden prior to 9/11–there was never the same opportunities that Clinton had.
While Clinton could have done a better job prior to 9/11–the same is true for Bush. I don’t particularly care for Mr. Scheuer and I take what he says with a very big grain of salt. He is obviously (from Imperial Hubris) no fan of President Bush. But while he was polite about it, he was adamant that Clinton screwed this up.
The Democrats cannot hope for Clinton and the NYTs to save them–about the only thing the Democrats can really hope for is Republicans tripping themselves up (ala Foley, Allen, even President Bush through his handling of the Iraq War). The Democrats continue to offer us nothing.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pm
[...] UPDATE: Anchoress linked to a 2002 interview by Jim Angle of Fox News with Richard Clarke, which has this nugget – ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was … [...]
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
[...] THE NYT AND Time Magazine - just plain lying, now …. (anchoressonline) [...]