2001’s Most Unlikely Discoveries
December 30, 2001
by Gary Aldrich - Volume 2, Issue 1
This article appeared on WorldNetDaily.com on Thursday, December 27, 2001.
It was only a matter of time before a liberal publication would attempt to defend Bill Clinton’s abysmal record on fighting terrorism. Since Sept. 11, the evidence of incompetence and lost opportunities has been stacked high. Early attempts to lay the blame at the feet of the FBI and CIA have failed, as a furious population surmised that behind all activities of highly funded intelligence agencies is that indispensable element most call "leadership."
So I was not surprised to see back-to-back front-page articles in The Washington Post recently, which could only have been conceived and executed after significant arm-twisting by remnants of the disgraced Clinton administration. What was especially galling was the label the Post chose to describe eight years of impotent "activity" masquerading as response to real terrorist threats against our nation. The Post called Clinton’s fiddling, "Clinton’s War on Terrorism."
When I first read the headline containing this outrage, I laughed. After that, I just got angry. There was no "Clinton War on Terrorism!" But, there were many "wars" waged by our former commander in chief. There was the war on decency. There was the war on our military, when Clinton and his cronies and croni-ettes attempted to feminize our armed forces, and coerce our warriors into accepting both women and men with conflicting gender preferences.
Then, there were the wars on drug companies, and doctors, and "Big Tobacco" and "Microsoft." And, who will ever forget the enormous resources brought to bear against the "Radical Right," in the wake of the Republican take-over of Congress in 1994? Crazy Timothy McVeigh gave Clinton and the Democratic Party a perfect excuse to investigate the heck out of a "Vast Right Wing" which Clinton described as the biggest danger to American national security ever.
Years later, what does the U.S. government have to show for the tremendous investment of resources used to identify, catalogue and maintain FBI files on thousands of law-abiding, decent Americans who simply loved their Constitution and Bill of Rights? Exactly nothing! Clinton perceived a "right-wing threat" for exactly what it was a true national movement to oust a disgusting, failed and reckless leader from national office.
The "right" was a political threat of the highest order, and Bill Clinton understood the gravity of that threat. Meanwhile, he banished the CIA director from the White House, and made it clear he had no real interest in foreign affairs. The joke going around the White House at the time when a nut crashed a plane onto the South Lawn, was that the pilot was CIA Director Woolsey, trying to get an appointment with the president.
And while hundreds, maybe thousands of FBI agents were used to probe the activities of "home-grown terrorists" from the "right," how many real terrorists sent by Osama bin Laden were able to set up deadly cells for future attacks?
Informed citizens know all of this, and more, and will not be fooled by the attempts made by the Washington Post, or any other of Clinton’s liberal media friends to airbrush history.
Richard Cohen, a particularly obnoxious lefty who writes on a regular basis for the Post, recently claimed the reason Clinton could not wage an effective war against Osama bin Laden was because he was too busy waging war with his wife, with Kenneth Starr, Bob Barr, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Cathleen Wiley, the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy," and ... well, you get the picture.
The reason, according to Cohen, that we were attacked on Sept. 11, is because decent Americans complained loudly about Bill Clinton’s disgusting conduct performed on our White House Oval Office rug with a young woman a government employee barely capable of making good decisions about activities most Americans would find shameful and beneath contempt. Clinton’s attempts to hide this conduct caused one of the most damaging insults to the minds of our nation’s youth, as they were forced to watch and listen to a president attempt to explain what sex isn’t, and what it "is."
Our nation was also humiliated to learn that a president would lie under oath to save his own political skin. Even the hated Nixon never did that.
And Cohen contends that all of this is "our" fault, not Clinton’s.
In the spirit of the holiday season, I’ve prepared a list of the "Ten Most Unlikely Discoveries" of the past year. I would invite readers of this column to prepare their own examples, then forward them to the Internet address provided below. After a thorough review by a qualified panel of well, me the readers’ "Best Ten" unlikely discoveries will be posted in a future column. Maybe by then, the Washington Post will give up attempts to rewrite history, but I doubt that very much.
Gary Aldrich’s list of "The Most Unlikely Discoveries of 2001," in no particular order: