"The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth."
-'Publius' The Federalist No. 1
"I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early." These statements seemed out of place and surely did not fit the normal rhetoric concerning the current events of the day. However, these statements coupled with the traction gaining momentum surrounding 'Able Danger' illustrate why President Clinton uttered them in the first place. 'Able Danger' was a special intelligence group that discovered some of the terrorist cells that inevitably carried out the 9/11 attacks. Jamie Gerelick's now infamous 'wall' between domestic crime fighting agencies and foreign intelligence services prevented the army from passing along this information; thus, conceivably leading to events unfolding on 9/11. Though, in all fairness, the blame cannot and should not be beholden upon one individual. It was the culmination of many mantras and attitudes pervasive throughout this country before our eyes were opened.
Should not conspiracy theorists leap at this instance, though? Here, we have definitive proof that the 9/11 commission specifically chose to ignore this information, or at least the staff members of the respective members. Furthermore, specifically a former Clinton Administration official's own edict denounces a crucial link to apprehend the 9/11 terrorists before they could carry out the atrocities. Days ago it was asked here: 'What if this were President Bush?' Would the same reaction be garnered if the respective party designations were rearranged?
This piece, by no stretch of the imagination, is meant to turn this issue into a partisan tirade where the Clinton Administration's legacy is debated. Really, this is meant to open a dialogue and to ascertain why such vehement hatred is promulgated to destroy any effort made on behalf of the Bush Administration to counter our national security threat. Dare it be stated that this is no less than basic human hypocrisy by those on the left?
Stories such as the following deserved to be reconciled. If 'Bush took us to war for oil' then why do you not legitimately embrace 'Clinton was too busy with Monica?' Why are there two different standards by the 'mainstream' media and the liberal fringe when it comes to the War on Terror? Is foreign policy and national security issues where politics should be fair game? This forum is here, why are there two very different standards? In light of this information just now making its way to the surface, the discourse should be open without finger pointing. America needs to learn what is the best way to prevent 9/11 from happening again. We are not playing games but it seems that we are when it is convenient for some.