From Hannity, last night:
It's not an easy call. After all Morris, now a champion of the conservative cause, got Clinton re-elected as Arkansas governor and later as president, so his loyalties appear suspect. He's had a run-in with a prostitute. His prognostications are never a sure thing. But does any of that make him always wrong, especially about recounting a first person event?
Just a thought bubble--let's assume the event occurred close to his description. What was the secret she kept about Waco? Was it really that Clinton himself called for the raid resulting in all those dead children that had been pinned on Reno? As the Cap'n says, he had already been elected. Or was it something else?
Checking history, the siege began on February 28th, 1993. Only two days prior to that, the World Trade Center was attacked by Ramzi Yousef, who carried an Iraqi passport into America, and by Abdul Yasin, an Iraqi national who fled to Baghdad only days after the attack (and after talking with the FBI). The FBI botched that case, losing their inside mole only weeks before the attack.
Had there not been a massive distraction over a religious zealot responsible for killing four federal agents with his dozens of concubines running around while claiming to speak for god (and all the dangerous right wing connotations produced thereby) wouldn't there have been a rising national plea for retribution as soon as the public realized that our most symbolic building was possibly attacked by terrorists with ties to Iraq?
After fifty days the siege ended tragically on April 19th. A little over two months later Clinton put a bunch of cruise missiles down the snoot of Saddam's intelligence service under the guise of retaliating for the attempted assassination of Bush 41 in Kuwait, which occurred only a few days before Waco ended. But the only official retaliation for the symbolic bombing of our most symbolic skyscraper was to capture the Brooklyn cell (except for Yasin) and try them in court, a process that stretched out until 1998.
By no means does this prove whether the secret Morris claims Reno was keeping was about other terrorism--who knows? The 64,000 question is whether this allegation will ever see the light of day again.
MORE 4/20/10
Could this be the secret? Maybe, or perhaps related, but the report had been in the papers in 1995 before Reno supposedly made her demand. So it's likely something worse.
QUESTION ANSWERED 4/20/10
No, we cannot believe Morris...
Hard to believe I'd agree with Media Matters, but when they are right they are right--Morris completely misrepresented that conversation.
One could argue that his conjecture might have occurred, that is, Clinton's reappointment of Reno after wanting to fire her was strange in that he either did it for pity or to protect himself. That is, IF we can believe Morris about the cabinet picks story. There's a far distance between making up quotes and conjecture--Fox should fire Morris, now.
5 comments:
Someone said this over at my blog the other day:
"That's why they called him "Slick"."
;)
Seriously, it's not surprising. But it has a weird feel to it-- to hear what you always had a feeling happened, but could not prove. I guess "Wag The Dog" was not as fictional as some would have us believe.
Politicians and lawyers-- we keep complaining about them as if they'll ever change.
It is revealing that we are able to watch a somewhat entertaining film (Wag the Dog) and then, during actual events, wink at one another and nod our heads. The fact is that Clinton seemed to generate all kinds of newsworthy items during the post-Lewinski brouhaha. So we continue to wink and nod, and at some point, you’d think politicians would develop a new stratagem —this one has been around for so long now. “When the people are grumbling, start a war…” is classic Machiavelli.
There is nothing surprising to me about political behavior. I suspect there is no such thing as “too low.” So I am prepared to admit that almost any supposition has merit, particularly when it involves our august politicians. What does anger me is the existing double standard in this country. There are rules for politicians, and rules for everyone else. Christopher Warren and Madeline Albrecht’s criminal negligence contributed to 9/11, and yet charges never materialized for what can only be ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. If our officials are always exempt from criminal prosecution, then we should not expect true accountability in our government. I submit that if we held these people accountable, including negligence (the reasonable man standard), then Jamie Gorelick would not have been rehired to work in the Obama administration after making a cool $20 million as the CEO of Freddie Mac or Sallie Mae (I can never remember which of those she scammed). I know there is a federal prison cell somewhere; I know Gorelick ought to be in it.
That excerpt from the book "The Ashes of Waco" is very interesting. I remember watching all this on the news, I had not heard, or did not remember, that the adults had gas masks.
I wondered about Dick Morris statement. No way to know for sure I guess, but I wouldn't put anything past Clinton.
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
It's bogus, as posted. He's a slimy SOB just the politicians he consults for, and Fox needs to can him now.
Post a Comment