Laugh at Liberals

CYA: CLINTON & DEMOCRATS REVISE HISTORY

The big news this weekend was “60 Minutes” interview with Richard Clark, a Clinton advisor on terrorism who worked briefly in the Bush Whitehouse. In the interview and in a new book just published, Clark contends; that George Bush was obbessed with Iraq and ignored al-Qaida, that Condeleeza Rice had never heard of al-Qaida and did not take them as a series threat, that Bush appointees in defense and intelligence didn’t take the al-Qaida threat seriously and ignored his and the Clinton administrations efforts to communicate a plan to address the al-Qaida situation, and the list continues.

Summary? Bush bad! It’s all his fault. To hear Richard Clark tell it, the Clinton administration had an fabulous plan for go after al-Qaida, (they just didn’t) and if George Bush would have just listened to him to begin with, there never would have been a 9-11.

Folks, you are witnessing some major league C.Y.A. taking place. For years Clark, as a member of the Clinton administration, had an opportunity to go after al-Qaida in aggressive and effective ways. They failed. They were given several opportunities, by foreign governments, to apprehend Osama bin Laden. They declined. Now, with the real truth being investigated by the 9-11 commission, and evidence mounting that Bush’s pre-emptive approach is actually working, the revisionist have to get the spin machine up to maximum rpm to explain away their utter, abject failure in the war against terror.

But wait, the hypocracy continues.

As reported in the Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com) 60 Minutes, which is owned by Viacom, failed to notify viewers that Viacom has a financial interest in seeing Clark’s book do well. Can you say liberal attack machine.

Here are some curious points to ponder.

Why did Clark wait until now, on the eve of his book being published and with the 2004 presidential campaign in full swing, to attack the Bush administration,s strategy in the war on terror?

If the Bush approach was so misguided and Clark possesed a workable plant on how to handle al-Qaida, why not speak out when he left the White House? Why not speak out in the aftermath of 9-11? Why not speak out when Colin Powell was lobbying the U.N. for a resolution on Iraq? Does anyone doubt that an intelligence insider like Clark could have gotten a lot of press? The current media hubub is proof, is it not?

Clark and other liberals who are trying to defeat George Bush in this election are walking on dangerous ground. They are accusing the President of the United States of America of lying, murder and mismangement of the war on terror while at the same time offering no real alternative to what Bush is doing and has done up thus far, to fight terroism. What are they saying? Will they institute a policy of negotiating with terrorist? Will they use American tax dollars to buy off terrorists? If they have a different plan, why aren’t they working with the Bush administration to implement it now? It’s that important!

There are only two possible answers, either they can’t offer anything different, or what they have to offer would be so unacceptable to the you, the American public, that they dare not speak it.