this. I can't resist. It's right on target.
Pretty good for a junkie I might add :)
Transcript from yesterdays show:
They have been doing everything they can to erase the
Monica Lewinsky image from everybody's frontal lobe
when they think and hear the name Bill Clinton, and so
Clinton has been doing everything he can to rehab his
image. He has a very large coterie of loyal
supporters, one of whom is on the 9/11 commission, one
of whom should have been a witness, not a member --
one of them, Jamie Gorelick, whose memo erected the
wall that prevented intelligence from sharing
information it gathered with law enforcement, and now
we find out that Sandy Burglar, Clinton's #1 spook
outside of the CIA. I mean this is the national
security advisor guy! Look it, Sandy Berger was to
Bill Clinton as Condoleezza Rice is to George Bush,
and if this were Condoleezza Rice and George Bush she
would already be in an orange jumpsuit. If this
investigation had been going on since last October or
January, Condi Rice would be wearing an orange
jumpsuit and be setting in a cell next to Martha
Stewart. That would be what's going on. Now, with this
case, we get "sloppiness;" we get "inadvertently."
We get, "Oh, damn, we hate when this happens. Isn't it
a shame? I don't know what I could have done with
these documents that implicated my administration. Gee
it's just too bad." So you will pardon us if we have
some doubts and suspicions about this when it's the
critical assessments that are suspiciously missing.
The former national security advisor himself, Sandy
Burglar, had ordered his anti-terror czar Richard
Clarke in early 2000 to write the after-action report.
He has spoken publicly about how to review brought to
the forefront a realization that Al-Qaeda had reached
America's shores and required more attention. That's
what's missing. Berger testified that during the
millennium period, "We thwarted threats, and I do
believe it was important to bring the principals
together on a frequent basis to consider terror
threats more regularly."
"The missing documents involved two or three draft
versions of the report as it was evolving and being
refined by the Clinton administration, officials and
lawyers say. The archives are believed to have copies
of some of the missing documents. Samuel Burglar is
the second high level Clinton-era official to face
controversy over taking classified information home.
Former CIA director John Deutsch was pardoned by
Clinton just hours before Clinton left office in 2001
for taking home classified information and keeping it
on unsecured laptops in his home during his time at
the CIA and the Pentagon. Deutsche was about to enter
into a plea agreement for a misdemeanor charge of
mishandling government secrets when the pardon was
granted." So we're still, ladies and gentlemen, having
Clinton scandals during the Bush administration. We
still are. Another Clinton scandal here has erupted.
Now, let's go back, and ask: "What is this really all
about, folks?" because this, despite the obvious
humorous aspects, this is really serious stuff because
there is an ongoing effort to spare the Clinton
administration -- and Bill Clinton personally -- of
any responsibility whatsoever for anything that has
happened deleteriously to this country in the world of
terrorism. Now, F. Lee Levin, our legal advisor here
at the Limbaugh Institute, wrote a great piece for
National Review Online on April 15th, shortly after
John Ashcroft testified before the 9/11 commission,
and let me read to you excerpts of F. Lee's piece.
"In his public testimony before the 9/11 Commission
the other day, Attorney General John Ashcroft exposed
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick's role in undermining the
nation's security capabilities by issuing a directive
insisting that the FBI and federal prosecutors ignore
information gathered through intelligence
investigations. But Ashcroft pointed to another
document that also has potentially explosive
revelations about the Clinton administration's
security failures. In part, Ashcroft stated: "...
(T)he Commission should study carefully the National
Security Council plan (that's where Berger worked) to
disrupt the al Qaeda network in the U.S. that our
government failed to implement fully seventeen months
before September 11. The NSC's Millennium After Action
Review declares that the United States barely missed
major terrorist attacks in 1999 � with luck playing a
major role. Among the many vulnerabilities in homeland
defenses identified, the Justice Department's
surveillance and the FISA operations were specifically
criticized for their glaring weaknesses. It is clear
from the review that actions taken in the Millennium
Period should not be the operating model for the U.S.
government."
Again, these documents are the ones missing. "In March
2000, the review warns the prior Administration of a
substantial al Qaeda network and affiliated foreign
terrorist presence within the U.S., capable of
supporting additional terrorist attacks here. This is
what is reputed to be missing. Furthermore, fully
seventeen months before the September 11 attacks, the
review recommends disrupting the al Qaeda network and
terrorist presence here using immigration violations,
minor criminal infractions, and tougher visa and
border controls. These are the same aggressive, often
criticized law enforcement tactics we have unleashed
for 31 months to stop another al Qaeda attack. This is
Ashcroft still speaking. These are the same tough
tactics we deployed to catch Ali al-Marri, who was
sent here by al Qaeda on September 10, 2001, to
facilitate a second wave of terrorist attacks on
Americans. Despite the warnings and the clear
vulnerabilities identified by the NSC in 2000 - Sandy
Berger -no new disruption strategy to attack the al
Qaeda network within the United States was deployed.
It was ignored in the Department's five-year
counterterrorism strategy.
Ashcroft continues, "I did not see the
highly-classified review before September 11. It was
not among the 30 items upon which my predecessor
briefed me during the transition. It was not advocated
as a disruption strategy to me during the summer
threat period by the NSC staff which wrote the review
more than a year earlier. I certainly can't say why
the blueprint for security was not followed in 2000. I
do know from my personal experience that those who
take the kind of tough measures called for in the plan
will feel the heat. I've been there; I've done that.
So the sense of urgency simply may not have overcome
concern about the outcry and criticism which follows
such tactics.'" Now, what is he talking about? One of
the things that Ashcroft is saying, and if you go back
-- and I remember these hearings. Remember, many of
the Clinton people that came up, said, "There wasn't
the political will to be tough to catch terrorists,"
meaning they didn't think the public would go along
with Patriot Act-type measures, or tougher
immigration, tougher this, you know. "Go get these
guys? People wouldn't (stand for it)."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072004/content/truth_detector_2.guest.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
