The Clinton administration had bankrupted the intelligence community and refused to let the CIA
prioritize anti-terrorism over other major priorities in the late
1990s, leaving the agency stretched too thin in the days ahead of the
2001 terrorist attacks, former Director George J. Tenet said in a 2005 document declassified Friday . . . .
Editor's notes: words from a Tea Party publication? Or, maybe the words of one of the GOP candidates for president? Maybe a publication of the NRA or something from the Conservative blogging world?
Answer: None of the above.
The Words come from the Washington Times, here, and are a review of the Inspector General for the CIA, back in the Clinton Administration and beyond.
Understand that Bush was president just 7 months before "9/11." When he took office, the plans had already been made and two years of work, by al Qaeda, were already history.
Jamie Gorelick, not mentioned in the Times report, was Clinton's security chief. She separated the intel community, and prevented the free exchange of information. What was know by one agency, was not allowed to viewed by other agencies. And why? Because Clinton/Gorelick feared an over-response to prospective terror news. Understandable, but a very bad idea. (Obama has resurrected many of those same barriers, btw, since becoming whatever he thinks he is).
It is a fact that Bush believed in WMD's because Bill Clinton and George Tenet (CIA Director under Clinton) told Bush that Saddam had these weapons. Far from Bush "making up this WMD story," it ALL came from the Clinton Administration . . . . . and I do not believe Clinton or Tenet were lying about these weapons.
I am not childish enough to play the blame game, here, on this blog, as to 9/11. But Clinton knew of bin Laden and did nothing for two years, while the plot to destroy the Twin Towers was developing and being financed.
And now, years later, we have confirmation of this fact(s) from none other than the Clinton era Inspector General over the CIA.
Now you know. Will the Left stop lying about it? Of course not, but it is a lie to place all the blame on GW Bush . . . . . . . and, besides, he won the war.
No comments:
Post a Comment