Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

The Blame Clinton First Crowd and Forget Freedom of Speech!

Reported by Janie - August 11, 2005

Yesterday (8/10) on Dayside, guest-host Juliet Huddy conudcted a short segment on the recent developments of the 9/11 investigation, specifically the development that the United States may have identified 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, one year before the tragedy. Huddy turned the segment over to correspondent Katherine Herridge:

"Curt Weldon says the military intelligence unit, Able Danger, identified Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and tried to share this information, 3 times, with the FBI, the information also included some mug shots. But each time, they were denied by the Clinton Administration, because they were uncomfortable, the men were here on visas, and there was some sensitivity with the FBI's work after Waco."

Comments: While this investigation has yet to bring all the facts to the forefront (what is known about the investigation can be read here), if the above explanation is true, then certainly former President Clinton would hold a portion of the responsibility. However, there is a shared responsibility here that has not been mentioned. Supposedly, Atta was identified in the summer of 2000, while Clinton was still in office, and it was the Clinton administration that did not wish for the intelligence units to share the information. What is not mentioned however, is that only a few months later, George Bush became President-elect, and immediately after, he began receiving intelligence briefings. For the next 9 months until 9/11 occurred, it was President Bush that was receiving the same intelligence briefings that President Clinton had received, and Bush chose not to take action on the matter as well. If the above facts that Fox gives are true, then it is not only Clinton that bears responsibility, but also Bush because he did not move on the matter either once he was in office.

Juliet ended the segment there, and moved onto to the next topic: the new Rolling Stone's song "Sweet Neo-con". She introduced the segment, before going to break by giving this explanation: "Rolling Stone's Mick Jagger couldn't get no satisfaction staying out of U.S. Politics. He's got a new song, and some say, now some say the song bashes the President, others say 'no, no, no, it's not about the President, it's not about Condalezza Rice'. Should he keep his nose out of politics of the United States, or does he have a right to say whatever he wants to say? We'll see."

Comment: I almost didn't dignify this comment by putting it in the article, but it certainly made my temper flair. What Huddy and Fox are advocating here is the total obliteration of dissent. Does Jagger have the right to make these comments? No, Juliet, we will NOT see! This is America and we still have something entitled the Bill or Rights that guarantees free speech, even if they say something that critiques the President. It is absolutely ridiculous, frightening and un-American for this question to even be asked.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.