Temper, Temper

Well, what can I say? I think this time words speak louder than actions. I'm speaking of course, about ex-president Bill Clinton's Sunday morning interview on FOX News with Chris Wallace.

What the hell was that? I've never seen such bold-face lies. Now, I assume President Bush probably hasn't been completely forthright about more than a few things (don't start going on about "Bush lied, kids died" and all that crap) but I believe Slick Willy was really at the top of his game with all his paranoia and what not. "Right-wing conspiracy?" "You've got that smirk on your face?" "You think you're so clever?" "No one knew al Qaida existed then?"

Now we know what happens when Democratic ex-presidents go on right-leaning interview programs (as opposed to left-leaning ones) and aren't handed softball questions, especially when those questions will expose your total incompetance. Once again people, Clinton had eight years in office to take care of not only Usama bin Laden but any and all terrorist or terrorist sponsors, Bush had eight months.

Now, of course the Bush administration could have and should have done more to get bin Laden, but as far as I know, he never declined to take him, on a silver platter, from any country that either had him in custody or was in a good position to make that happen. Bush would never let attacks like the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the car-bombing in Saudi Arabia, the truck-bomb at the Kobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole bombing and of course the first World Trade Center bombing happen with absolutely no response (save for Clinton's lobbing a few cruise missles into empty Taliban traing camps.) And hasn't.

That's exactly what Clinton did between 1993 and 2000. Absolutely nothing. He can point his finger and accuse people of being conservative, right-wing shills all he wants, he didn't do a thing and he was simply being asked why didn't he? Another takes a closer look at this.

In all the interviews and press conferences that President Bush has had to endure against the biased, left-leaning mainstream media, he did not once loom in on anyone and try to physically intimidate them or make them feel so; espeacially the media. And an ex-president at that.

Now that you've stopped laughing, think about that.
Sorry, now that you've stopped laughing for a second time, think about what Clinton was saying in the interview. He "had attack plans drawn up", that were never used, he "got closer to anyone to killing him than anyone else."
Except I believe he by-passed a golden opportunity when the Northern Alliance had bin Laden litterally in their crosshairs (not the special ops that ABCs "Path to 911" showed us; strangely enough, that is one of, if not the only thing I agree with Mrs. Clinton's husband on.)
And Bush in the very early days of the war in Tora Bora was estimated to have been litterally hundreds of yards from killing bin Laden while indiscrimanantly shelling caves.

And what could Clinton do even if he wanted to? Nothing. The wall that he put up between the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the Justice Dept, the NSA, Secret Service, U.S. Marshals and any other two or more arms of National Defence that would have tried but failed at keeping tabs on suspected al Qaida operatives, much less compare notes with each other.

If Wallace hadn't been side-tracked by a paranoid, rabid, revisionist, he could have asked what "attack plans" he had "drawn up". He also could have asked what or who can co-oberate this story, because history surely won't. You notice he lets Willy rant his lies upon history (oh, that's right he wasn't found guilty of pergery and impeached, what was I thinking) and tries to turn the interview towards Clinton's "Global Inititive", but Clinton would have none of it. He also quite clearly got combative when Wallace asked him about bin Laden's decree of "jihad" against America in 1996, demonstrating we were quite well aware, as was Clinton, that al Qaida existed.

But judge the evidence for yourself. But be warned, this is really trippy.
Anyways, I knew this was going to be good when I first heard about it. I wonder if Clinton would have tried to intimidate Brit Hume like that? This guy has a legacy of disgrace and he will do anything to re-write that. Trust me, his claims of going after bin Laden, as well as the rest of the B.S. he was trying to pass off as a "conspiracy", will be torn apart by the intellectual historians. And, I suppose, by anyone who was paying attention during the 90s.

P.S.
Just for fun, check out what's passing for truth acording to over-the-top lefty, Al Franken This guy's always good for a laugh. Unfortunately for him, not intentionally.

Others Remember

I just thought I'd add some limks to other blogs and columns about this sad, but oh so important day in history:

John Stossel,
Mark Steyn,
Hugh Hewitt,
Dean Barnett,
Suzanne Fields,
Chuck Colson,
My own from early this morning, (scroll down)
and of course, most importantly, sites for the victims themselves. CNN and Rememberence

There are more rememberances and columns. These are just a few.
Never forget.

Five Years On...

Well, it's Monday, September 11, 2006 ,12:08 am. It's been five years since that horrrible day when commercial airliners were used as weapons against us to murder innocent men, woman and children. They destroyed two landmarks that stood as America's symbols of prestige and power. They attacked the nation's symbol of military might and annialated the lives of all those who knew the victims, both military and civilian.

Since that day, I have been drawn to the sure awness of the event, the WTC especially. I can't tell you how many times I have visited the CNN 9/11 Memorial on its website as well as numerous other tribute sites. I have read comments left behind from friends, family and strangers who these victims lives have touched, without ever having met the well-doers. These are messages of good will, of the"get well soon" type are designed to help the families find solace, as well as final, heart-felt confessions and homage to the victims themselves.

I have watched multiple videos, from multilple angles on the towers. From the airplanes driving them selves inside and exploding, to images of people making the God-awful choice of either jumping to their deaths or burning alive, to the towers collapsing over and over. I have stared at photos of the victims for so long, to try to see into their eyes/lives. They do become more real and personal. That's how you "feel the pain" and believe the right thing to do is to regretfully annialate the enemy. It's how you indeed avenge children in those planes ranging in ages from 2-11 years old. Let yourself think about it, you will get angry.

I have opined in an earlier column about the absolute disgrace that is the Google video, "Loose Change", the clearly amateur film of 9/11 and the Bush administration's alleged complicity in it. The filmakers make no assertions, they downright accuse the president of mass murder, without real conclusive proof of any kind. It is abhorent.

I can't forget that day. I don't think anyone really should. But people are becoming complacent. While our boys are the world over defending our way of life, there are people that still doubt why, or worse yet have become bored with why we're there. To these people, it's like September 11, 2001 never happened. I'm not talking about bringing it up as a talking point, as some disengenuous liberals like to use an an argument, but rather as a desperate reminder to people that we are still at war. We still have people that want to kill us.

Contrary to anybody that doubts Bush's reasons for liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, we are ultimately there because of 9/11. It took a conservative, yes, a conservative leader finally step up after eight long years of liberal incompetancy and 22 years Muslim extremism, respectively. Are these people really that forgetful, thick or just cold-hearted? Have they not heard or read the transcripts of victims last calls to family and friends? Have they not heard the phone calls from the towers to 911 operators? Did they not hear the fear and confusion in the voices of victims Kevin Cosgrove and Melissa Doi, among others? Yes, there were real people in those towers, with real names and they had real families, as did all the 9/11 victims.

As I read the tributes and watch the videos (both to remember and to research information to debunk conspiracy theorosists) as well as movies based on the events of that day, including Flight 93 ( A&E produced the better version by the way) United 93 and the World Trade Center. I can't help but try to imagine what it would be like to be in those planes, or to be in the buildings and see the plane(s) coming. I will admit to tearing up on occaision while watching some of the aforementioned videos, as they are powerful and sad.

There is a reason why we still have memorials to certain events and lost souls. We have them to remember. To never forget how, when and why they died. When kids don't understand why we continue to remember Pearl Harbor, World War II and D-Day, tell them about the holocaust, tell them about the starvations and bombings, and tell them by who and why it stopped. Tell them why America had to go through the Cold War, Gulf War, Vietnam and Somalia.

By the way, while I'm thinking of it, why isn't there a memorial in Arglington National cemetary for the heroes of United Flight 93? I mean, didn't they die for their country? Were they not the first real soldiers against the War on Terror? I realize this burial sight is for our fallen heroes in actual combat in wartime, but isn't that exactly how they died?

I have no doubt that there are, right now, World Trade Center replicas taped up in boxes in basements and garages and crawlspaces all throughout the United States. We are certainly a long way from when both parties stood on the steps of the the Senate buildings and sung in unison. Gone are the days when everyone's head was pointed in the right direction (or so I thought) and told the world with one voice that you have once again awoken a sleeping giant.

Forget the Iraq War for now. Forget about WMDs, oil for food, George Tenent, Saddam Hussien, Usama bin Laden, George W. Bush and all the distractions of why we're really in Iraq. What you must remember is those victims on 9/11. Those people that were told to go back to their offices after the first plane hit the tower, those children that were on to way to Disneyland, or a school field trip. Young adults and college graduates heading off to start their new lives, or people simply going on their normal, daily routines.

Think about that. One night you're watching a movie and eating ice cream with your sweetie. You go to bed, perhaps making plans for the weekend or a trip you scheduled to take within the next couple of days or weeks. You get up the next day, kiss your sweetie and perhaps children goodbye, thinking you'll be toghether again within the next few hours. But within 2-3 hours, you're dead and your family's lives are destroyed, all in a brief second. That's what happened to these people on 9/11. Some of them mind you suffered greatly, others as mentioned, had to make an awful and horrific decision. As always, it seems, when it comes to disasters there are also stories of heroics, survival, luck and pure devine intervention.

It just seems that people are forgetting and that cannot happen. I don't mean people will block it from their minds but will not feel the meaning of it. We now know first-hand what seniors and soldiers of wars past mean when they decribe Pearl Harbor. Have you ever noticed how they haven't forgotten the details about the attack more 60 years later? Now you know.

So go on and watch all the tributes, movies and reports on the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001. There may be some things that are not entirely accurate, historically speaking; but as long as you know the story and the historical ramifications, especially the plight of the victims, that's the important thing.

Know the event, remember the day, NEVER FORGET.

God bless the victims and their families.

Wow. It's now 2:09

UPDATE*******
I just noticed after I posted that the date says Sunday, September 10, 2001. I assure you it was wriitten and posted in early morning of 09/11/06.

Hmm.

Get Ready America

Ok, so tommorrow, Tuesday, September 5, 2006 is KC Day. That's when Katie Couric, co-host of NBC's morning ratings leader, The Today Show is going to make her debut anchoring the CBS Evening News. She takes over from 44-year veteran (26 years as CBS anchor) and fellow left-wing liberal, Dan Rather. We all know how Rather made his exit, with the "fake but accurate" account of President Bush's National Guard service. Unfortunately, we also know how Couric is going to come in, as the same left-wing moonbat, biased liberal she has always been. CBS would have it no other way. They can't resist, it's just the way they are.

The good news is (well, some good news) is that Rush Limbaugh, at Couric's request, will be there to sort of, Christin her debut broadcast. On the other hand, so will Walter Cronkite and the race-baiting Bill Maher.

Should we expect the same out of Couric? Well, Walter Cronkite didn't like the Vietnam War, he told America so, and when the Pentagon got wind of it, it has been known to have been said,
"If we've lost Cronkite, we've lost America."
Thus, public opinion changed on the conflict in south-east Asia, funding was cut to the South Vietnamese, troops were pulled out, Saigon fell to the North and America "lost" the war. Dan Rather (although not demanding the impeachment of Bill Clinton, as he has done for Bush) opined about his "dissatisfaction" with the war in Somalia. America then-by proxy- didn't like the war. The result? Clinton got scared, America cut and run and today Muslim fascists have taken over the region killing not only Christians, but other Muslims as well.

And now, with Ms. Couric taking the reigns of the CBS desk, along with all that influence over the average American viewer, what do you suppose her agenda will be? Does she indeed weild that sort of power? Well, if you've seen her in action on Today, then you already know. At least she won't have regular guests to either insult or coddle, depending on who they are. If it was Jimmy Carter, you can bet the farm she would be drooling with adoration. To this day, I have no idea why. Do you really get a Nobel Peace Prize by turning on an ally and causing his former country to become a mortal enemy with the hopes of wiping the West off the face of the Earth.

*To all my fellow Canadian readers, THIS MEANS YOU TOO, because like it or not, we're all in this together.

At least we don't have to worry about anybody getting hurt in the studio when she is around, what with her lobbing all those softballs at her favourite guests and everything. Hell, even with guests, (I guess I'll have to start calling them "interviews", since she's a big girl now) if she tries real, real hard she might even be at the level of Barbra Walters one day. I wonder if she'll make anybody cry? Imagine, Katie Couric and lets see...President Hillary Clinton (sorry, I didn't mean to scare you there) sit down to an exclusive interview and Couric opens with the question that we all want to know..."Are you a saint?"

Seriously. That's exactly what Baba Wawa asked Mrs. Clinton at the time of the Bill and Monica Show.

Anyway, Couric has not shown me or anybody else with a thimble full of common sense that she is ready to change and be "fair and balanced".

As always, here is a list of biased-liberal questions and comments, this time courtesy of your new CBS Evening News anchor: (Some of these are just unprofessional, biased, high-school girl gushing)

Don't say I didn't warn you.

"...And finally, President Carter, you are now considered one of the world's formost statesmen (he is?) You've been called the best ex-President this country has ever had (by who?) Your reputation has been bolstered tremendously since you left office. (other than Habitat for the Homeless, how?) How does that make you feel?
Nov. 13, 1991

"Considered one of the world's most charasmatic leaders of the 20th century...[Fidel] Castro traveled the country cultivating his image and his revolution delivered. Campaigns stamped out iliteracy and even today, Cuba has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.
Feb. 13, 1992
-The adult mortality rate on the other hand...

"Do you think the American people are not ready for someone who is as accomplished and career-oriented as Hillary Clinton?
August 24, 1992
-Of course, talking TO Hillary Clinton.

"...How do you want them [people in the future] to think of you"?
Interviewing Anita Hill
Oct. 7, 1992
-How would you answer? Did I mention the "school of Baba"?

"Do you think the Republican Party has grown, or become too exclusionary, too intolerant and that this kind of rhetoric is divisive and counter-productive?"
Interviewing Dan Quale, Aug. 19, 1992
-Hi, Kettle, this is Pot. You're black!

"The Republicans relinquished too much time to what some term as the radical religious right. Did you feel comfortable with that convention?"
To President George H.W. Bush, Oct. 30, 1992
-Can you say OPINION, Katie?

"Why do you think that he doesn't get credit for the good news that's going on?"
To DNC advisor, Tony Coelho, about President Clinton, Aug. 18, 1994
-Even before Lewinsky, Whitewater and everything he did prior and later, I have to ask...What "good news"?

"The school lunch program has been incredibly successful...and obviously provides good nutrition for children, which is so crucial for development and education.
...Aren't you worried that we're going back to the days when Ronald Reagan suggested that ketchup and relish be designated as vegetables?"
To Rep. Duke Cunningham, Feb. 22, 1995
-For the record, President Reagan NEVER suggested that. More biased liberal media lies.
And, in 1995, the school lunch program wasn't in such a stable state that Ms.Couric would like us to believe.

"Some people are concerned about talk shows, radio talk shows in general, of course. Most of them around the country have a decidely conservative bent. The rap that some people give them (namely HER) is that they reflect the views of a very vocal minority, the extremists in this country, and don't really reflect the nature of true debate in the United States. And as a matter of fact, they tend to be quite divisive and sort of have a bad, a negative impact on the country."
To Oliver North, Mar. 13, 1995
-First off, the reason most of them "have a conservative bent" is that no one listens to liberal talk-radio any more. There's a reason why Air America is losing revenue.
Second, contrary to what she says, conservative radio, as of this writing, is the vocal majority
Third, is she suggesting anyone listening to conservative talk-radio is an extremist?
Golly, don't you just hate biased media outlets?

"...regulations for at-home day care vary so much from state to state in terms of the ratio of children to day care provider, do you think there should be some kind of overall federal regulations?'
To Hillary Clinton, Oct. 23, 1997
-That's right. More "Big Government" giving us more rules on how to raise our children, because after all, they know how to raise our kids better than we do, right?

In an interview with National NRA President, Charlton Heston:

COURIC: Getting back to the kids and guns, if you will indulge me for moment. You cannot think of any other position the NRA could take in terms of trying to decrease the number od school shootings? You feel like this is not your bailiwick, this is not your problem?"

HESTON: Not at all, as I told you, the NRA spends more money, more time...

COURIC: cutting him off: Other than education.

HESTON: Well, what would you suppose, what would you suggest?

COURIC: I don't know, perhaps greater restrictions."
June 8, 1998
-That's right. Even greater restrictions on the second amendment. Good call, Katie.
While we're on the subject, why don't we ever hear from the MSM about how guns have saved lives, stopped robberies and rape? Once again the left-wing media doesn't report it, so it obviously doesn't happen.

"So you don't think the right-wing should be so narrow-minded or rigid when it comes to abortion?"
To RNC Chairman, Haley Barbour, Feb. 1, 1993
-Ah, good old-fashioned opinionated journalism.

"...Wyoming has some activists in this country saying that there is a climate of anti-gay hate that has been fostered by a provocative advertising campaign by the political right in this country."
Oct. 13, 1998
-Although not possibly fostered by the American left-wing media.

"Good Morning. The Gipper was an airhead! That's one of the conclusions of a biography of Ronald Reagan that's drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today."
Sep. 27, 1999

-Opening of the Today Show, before an interview with Reagan biographer Edmund Morris, who actuallywrote that Reagan was "an apparent airhead" only to the left (such as Couric) Morris went on to say that Reagan was "a very bright man". She'll pick her spots though, won't she?

"Only four percent of the delegations in the convention hall are African-Americans.Do you feel at all troubled by this? And do you feel used by your party?"
To Colin Powell, Aug. 1, 2000
-Is Couric suggesting to Powell that he is/was a "token" for the Republicans? More race-baiting from the left-wing, liberal media.

"All this week, you have all have made much of Al Gore's exaggerations, but the same things were often said about Ronald Reagan who would pass off things he had seen in the movies. You know, Republicans that sort of thing off as part of Ronald Reagan's charm. But now you sight it as a major character flaw in Al Gore. Why was it charming then and not presidential now?"
To Bush campaign director, Karen Hughes, Oct. 11, 2000

-First off, Reagan didn't "pass things off" that he saw in movies as his own. As he did on many occaisions, Reagan would take lines from his favourite movies, such as "High Noon" and throw them into personal, off-the-record conversations in good fun. For the sake of humor.
Second, Reagan made jokes, Gore made outlandish claims.

Speaking on socialist France's handle on their society.
"The French, they've got it right, don't they?"
Aug. 1, 2001

-Oh yeah, Katie. Seen any good riots, lately?

"I can't think of anyone more qualified to write another book about Ronald Reagan. The question is, do we really need another book about Ronald Reagan?
To Reagan biographer and Washington Post reporter, Lou Cannon. Nov. 26, 2001

"I mean, it's so wonderful, so well deserved."
Couric's reaction upon Jimmy Carter recieved the Nobel Peace Prize.
Oct. 11, 2002
-Don't hide your bias, Katie. Tell us what you really think.
By the way, does she even realize that this "award" was also presented to Yasser Arafat? Yeah. Probably.
Just for the record, it was almost given to George W. Bush in 2002.

"What did he know, and when did he know it?"
On allegations that President Bush had prior knowledge of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.
May 16, 2002

-Don't even get me started.

"You go, girl."
Praising Nancy Pelosi as she was poised to become the first female Democratic Minority Leader.
Nov. 14, 2002

"...our heartfelt congradulations to President Jimmy Carter."
Upon hearing Carter recieved the Nobel Peace Prize, Dec. 10, 2002
-Does this woman doodle "I LOVE JIMMY" or "KATIE CARTER"on her notes, or what?
One last time. GIVE IT UP KATIE. HE WAS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!!!

Let's skip ahead a bit.

"Do you think that somehoe, this, your rescue was, was manipulated by the government in order to, sort of, gin up support for this war?"
To Pvt. Jessica Lynch, Nov. 12, 2003
-Incredible.

"You're considered, Governor Dean, more left-leaning and Al Gore is considered, sort of, a hardcore centrist, if you will...
To Howard Dean, Dec. 10, 2003
-Al Gore? a hardcore centrist? PUH-LEASE!
Well, he is hardcore. No argument there.

Some more softies by the hardline "journalist".
COURIC: I know you'll be celebrating your 27th wedding anniversary, and I understand you go through a romantic ritual every year to commemorate that date. Share it with us, will you?

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS: Wendy's. We go to Wendy's for our anniversary.

COURIC: That is so weird. I'm sorry...what do you say, "One Frosty, two straws?"
July 15, 2004

In the same interview, to Elizabeth Edwards:
COURIC: Let me ask you, when your husband was voted "Sexiest Politician" by People magazine, were you like, 'blech? or were you like, 'Hey, that's my man?
-Once again proving that she graduated at the top of her class from "The Barbra Walters School of Journalism.

"As President Bush travels to Rome this morning [for Pope John Paul's funeral] along with the First Lady, Condoleeza Rice and former Presidents, Bush and Clinton, the question some people are asking is where's President Carter in all this? Are the Bushes and the Carters the modern-day version of the Hatfields and the McCoys?"
Apr. 6, 2005
-Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Jimmy's not there!
Stiring the pot again.

"Were you surprised, Archbishop Foley, that President Carter was not a part of the delegation, given the fact that the Pope visited President Carter at the White House?"
Apr. 7, 2005
-For the love of almighty God, give it up already.

To liberal priest, Father Andrew Greeley:
"Carl Ratzinger's past includes a brief membership in the Hitler Youth movement, service in the German army in World War II, which was mandetory. But given his past associations, do you thimk that will create a rift between Christians and Jews and what can he do to fix that?"
Apr. 20, 2005
-You may notice Couric didn't mention that the Hitler Youth service was mandatory, like the Army service was. and no, it wasn't mentioned in the same breath or veign. Essentially, she was asking if people should be worried that the new Pope may turn out to be a Nazi. Would she dare ask that of let's say, a Muslim Imam, or a rabbi, or Tom Cruise? Don't bet on it.

Asking First Lady, Laura Bush about the indiscretions of a few Marines indicted on war crimes:
COURIC: In your view, is the administration holding these people who are doing these things and perhaps they are in the minority as you say, but do you think they are being held appropiately accountable?"

MRS. BUSH: Yes I do. I mean there's investigations going on. The people are being held accountable and it's not 'perhaps in the minority'. We know it's very, very few people. A handful of people. We know that overall our troops are serving with distinction.
May 23, 2005
-Way to go First Lady! You notice how she stopped Couric's spin on the "Perhaps they are in the minority" crap? Also, if it was some liberal that was indicted, like say, oh I don't know, Slick Willy, do you think that just maybe she would have used the term "allegedly"? As in "the people allegedly doing these things?" Typical liberal. Let's convict them before they've had a trial and before all the facts are in.

To U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan:
"Does John Bolton have your support?...Do you wish it was someone else who had been nominated?...what do you hope your legacy will be?...You litteraly have the weight of the world on your shoulders. Are you angry that the United States has not been more supportive of the U.N.?
June 7, 2005
-More softballs and coddling. These liberal media types never cease to amaze me when they never ask the hard questions to their fellow libs. Especially to someone as (allegedly) corrupt as Annan.

"President Clinton, as you well know, President Bush has been under fire recently because Karl Rove allegedly released the name of a CIA agent to reporters. President Bush has said it's a fireable offense now if a crime was commited, but in your view is the ethical violation enough to warrant dismissal?"
July 21, 1995 (taped interview airdate)
-Of all the people she asks, she picks Bill Clinton on the question of ethics?

Opening the Today Show:
MATT LAURER: Pain at the pump. Gas prices are going sky high. I paid $2.94 a gallon over the weekend to fill up the car.

COURIC: It's ridiculous. I had to take out a loan to fill up my minivan. It's crazy.
Aug. 15, 2005
-Couric makes about $15,000,000 annually.

That's about all I have for now. I'm sure there have been even more outragous quotes by the new CBS anchor, but I digress.