Saturday, September 23, 2006

Bill Clinton Tried?

Bill Clinton's anger (real or contrived) has been unleashed over criticisms he didn't do enough to take out Osama bin Laden before 9/11.

Oh, but he tried, doggone it all. He tried?

"But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to fully anticipate bin Laden's danger. "They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed."

"Mr.
Clinton‘s administration had far more chances to kill Osama bin Laden than Mr.
Bush has until this day… [W]e had at least eight to 10 chances to capture or
kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. And the government on all occasions
decided that the information was not good enough to act…"


Clinton launched a unilateral war in Serbia without Congressional approval, but couldn't kill bin Laden.

Not even in the one lame attempt to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

"The man let bin Ladin go. The man let bin Ladin plot and scheme and
recruit and ultimately murder 3000 innocent civilians. And he blames his
negligence and malfeasance on the Republicans?"

Amidst the Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment, national security took a back seat to Bill Clinton's political career and approval ratings.

"Fact: Clinton didn't take any action against bin Ladin -- and I include
that jackassed cruise missile strike, delayed to make sure all people were out
of the target at the time of detonation, so as to make sure no innocent lives
(or any lives, for that matter) where taken -- because he knew that such action
could cause unrest in the Middle East, which could drive up the price of oil,
which would dampen the US economy, which would, finally, lower his approval
rating, the only thing the selfish ______ ever gave a good g*dd*mn
about.

Read it all.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Vote Republican

Commentary by Ken Mehlman:

Last month's narrowly averted plot to blow up airliners bound for the U.S. from Great Britain is a stark reminder that we are engaged in an extraordinary and dangerous global war. In 46 days, the American people will make an important decision about how we prosecute that war: Do we stay on the offense and use every tool available to defeat the enemy, or do we elect leaders who would weaken America and surrender key tools we need to defeat the global jihad?

This war began long before September 11, 2001. For a generation, the terrorists have attacked free nations, from the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich to the 444 days that American hostages were held in Iran; from the 1983 Beirut attacks to the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995 and Khobar Towers in 1996; from the embassy attacks in 1998 to bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Too often, free nations responded weakly, or not at all, so the enemy grew emboldened. The result was 9/11.

Now we understand that we face a radical global movement of Islamic fascists, held together by a totalitarian ideology as deadly as the ones we faced in World War II or the Cold War. This movement ebbs and flows. Its adherents meet in cyberspace instead of buildings. They gather on blogs instead of barracks. A terrorist in Syria can recruit allies in the heart of Europe and a cell leader in Asia can activate an attack in the U.S., all without leaving their homes. That makes this enemy difficult to defeat. They constantly adapt -- so we must as well.

That is why the choice we face on Nov. 7 is so critical. Democratic leaders are saying Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror, that we should be more focused on defending the homeland. But again and again, the Democrats have proposed weakening our defenses.

We learned on 9/11 the need for coordination between federal, state and local governments; yet the majority of congressional Democrats voted against re-authorization of the Patriot Act. The foiled airplane plot re-emphasized the importance of following an enemy whose command and control is often obscure; yet Democrats opposed the NSA surveillance program and praised an activist judge's attempt to shut it down.

We need to aggressively and effectively interrogate captured terrorists in order to stop their plans before they come to fruition; yet Democrats want to handcuff those efforts. Terrorists cannot build IEDs or buy weapons without funding, but when the New York Times disclosed a secret program that was tracking their financing, more than 85% of House Democrats voted against a resolution supporting the program and condemning its media disclosure. We need to stop rogue regimes like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; yet Democrats want to take any use of force off the table.

Even more dangerous is that Democrats truly seem to believe that Iraq is completely separate from the greater war on terror. Al Qaeda's leaders are not confused about the importance of Iraq to their goal of global jihad. Osama bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has said his plan is to use Iraq as a base to launch further attacks, with the goal of creating a new caliphate in the Middle East. He wants to turn Iraq into another Taliban-era Afghanistan, except one strategically located between Syria and Iran, and sitting on one of the world's largest supplies of oil. Osama bin Laden himself said that the American withdrawal from Somalia emboldened his movement before 9/11. Imagine the victory celebrations among the terrorists if we were to retreat from Iraq. Yet this is exactly what Howard Dean and a majority of Democrats would have us do. In 46 days, we must ask ourselves, would surrendering Iraq to the enemy make us safer -- or less safe?

Here at home, we are also working to reform government. We live in a global economy, one in which it is just as easy to create jobs in India as it is in Indiana. Republicans understand this, which is why we are committed to lower taxes, less regulation and fewer lawsuits. Republicans have cut taxes every year since George W. Bush was elected president. We have streamlined regulations, reformed bankruptcy laws, offered choice to Medicare recipients, and limited class-action lawsuits. The Democrats opposed every single one of those reforms -- and they are pledging to stand in our way as we move forward.

Republicans want to eliminate the death tax once and for all. Democrats want to bring it back. Republicans want to explore new sources of energy to bring gas and heating prices down. Democrats want to block domestic exploration. Republicans want small businesses to be able to band together to provide health care to their employees at a reasonable price. Democrats don't believe entrepreneurs should have that freedom. Republicans want all parents to have the choice of where they send their kids to school. Democrats would limit that choice to the rich and powerful. The list goes on and on.

It would be foolish not to acknowledge the challenges Republicans face this election cycle. We are up against history. It has been close to a century since Republicans have held the White House and the House of Representatives for eight straight years. Winning four elections in a row doesn't happen that often.

Each election is unique, and the issues and candidates in the governor's race in Michigan are different from congressional races in California or the Senate contest in Tennessee. But there can be no doubt about the national and international import of the choice we all face as Americans. We face war and a changing global economy, and Republicans have very different strategies for victory than the Democrats. I believe the American people understand the choice of 2006, which is why I am confident that in 46 days Republicans will make history and maintain our majorities in Congress.

Mr. Mehlman is chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Friday, September 01, 2006

The Frog March

Once upon a time, Joe Wilson said he'd like to see Karl Rove "frog marched" out of the White House for leaking the name of Wilson's CIA wife (Valerie Plame) to journalists.

So far, the only person marching like a frog is Joe Wilson himself.

"one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue."

"it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson."

The whole thing from WaPo:

End of an Affair

It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not
out to punish her husband.

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie
Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in
Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former
ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who
have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising
disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's
cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of
state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the
invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House
and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of
twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that
Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed
it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as
gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. JeffreySmith, who
quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the
Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to
ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor
that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003
led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged
investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been
avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are
blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson
charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war,
Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in
recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated
reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly
disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he
said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and
his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's
account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was
classified.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end
of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an
explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked
reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to
senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those
officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador
would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his
wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming
that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's
unfortunate that so many people took him seriously
.