But That Was Different
Sep 4th, 2006 at 12:57 pm by Susie
AMERICABlog points out the Republicans were fairly indifferent to terrorism when it was Bill Clinton in the White House:
CNN, July 30, 1996
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, “These are very controversial provisions that the [Clinton] White House wants. Some they’re not going to get.” ….[Hatch] also said he had some problems with the president’s proposals to expand wiretapping.
So Bill Clinton, rather than just breaking the law as Bush did (then again, perhaps this is why Bush broke the law - he knew from history that the Republicans controlling the congress would oppose his efforts to expand wiretapping), decided to go to the Republican congress in 1996 and ask them for increased authority to do more eavesdropping in order to stop the terrorists - stop September 11. Senior Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the GOP’s top picks for the Supreme Court and a GOP committee chair, objected.
The Republicans stopped President Clinton from getting all the tools he needed to stop the next September 11 - well, no, actually they opposed giving President Clinton all the tools he needed to stop the actual September 11. Could September 11 have been stopped if the GOP had given President Clinton the tools he requested to stop Osama and Mohammad Atta from killing 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington?
Maybe we need to ask the Republicans up for re-election why they wanted to appease the terrorists?
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.
“We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
There’s even an audio clip of President Clinton practically begging the Republicans to give him the tools he needed to stop Osama and the terrorists. Trent Lott said no. Orrin Hatch said no. Do these men really deserve to run the Congress during a time of war?
Oh, yeah, well, but that was back when we coulda done something to avoid an 9/11 type attack. There wasn’t any political mileage to be gained by taking it seriously.
Lock the barn door BEFORE the horses run out?
Naaah, way too visionary.
Of course if you remember what the most immediate terrorist threat to the U.S. was (and still is) in ‘96, you’ll remember why the Rethugs were so opposed to granting the Clenis terrorist-fighting authority — the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil at the time was courtesy of Timothy McVeigh, representative of the right-wing base.
Funny that the recent arrest in TX of that right-wing wacko with the shed full of homemade bombs — the only actual, effective anti-terrorist action I’ve seen in the last 5 years — didn’t garner any more attention than a page-9 story.
Is this like when “they” declared Richard Nixon a great president? Or was it Ronald Reagan?
I wish I knew how to get this out. So many things have been forgotten.
Wow, should I be shocked. V
Actually, do these men belong in congress under *any* circumstances?
Congress is now — on the whole — more corrupt than Organized Crime.
Orrin Hatch is not a true Republican. He is more Democrat than Republican. What are the provisions of that bill? Does anyone know the number of it?
[...] Source Link [...]