Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
C-SPAN, The New York Times, Judicial Watch, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Miniter, Carl Limbacher, L. King | 8.19.05 | Mia T

Posted on 08/19/2005 2:28:12 AM PDT by Mia T

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

by Mia T, 8.18.05


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio






hy did bill clinton ignore terrorism? Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

To understand why clinton failed so utterly to protect America from bin Laden, we begin by examining what clinton, himself, has said on the matter:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

We note first that this is classic clinton snake-oil, exploiting liberal credulousness and the gestalt concepts of structural economy and closure (the tendency to perceive incomplete forms as complete), sleight of hand that enabled clinton to tell the story of his utter failure to fight terrorism, his failure to take bin Laden from Sudan, his repeated failures to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda, without explicitly admitting it.

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again; [so] they released him [to America]."

Note that the linkage between the above two sentences and the indirect object of the second sentence are each implied, giving clinton plausible deniability.

"[H]e had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This position is surprising because:

  1. clinton has never been one to let the rule of law get in his way.

  2. We now know the State Department warned clinton in July 1996 that bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven, that bin Laden sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," that bin Laden in Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to US interests... almost worldwide."

  3. Bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America, committed acts of war against America.

Clearly, the impeached ex-president treated terrorism not as war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

He appears not to understand that when terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Critical to the understanding of the clintons' (and the left's) inability to protect America from terrorism is the analysis of clinton's final phrase, "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

"I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This phrase is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

  • a terrorist war requires only one consenting player

  • defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender

  • preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

 

ASIDE: It is beyond farce, therefore, for Richard Clarke to exalt clinton, even as he attempts to take down Bush, who, unlike clinton, does have the vision, courage and tenacity to fight terrorism, even in the face of seditious undermining by Clarke, the power-hungry clintons and the rest of the leftist lackey accomplices.

 

 

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato."

Finally, this last paragraph documents the clinton propensity for passing the tough problems (and the buck) to others (while arrogating their solutions as his own). It would have been a simple matter for him to take bin Laden. Why did he turn the offer down?

The answer to this question is the answer to the overarching question.


Why did clinton ignore terrorism?

Richard Miniter's account of clinton's utter failure to combat terrorism provides a clue. (C-SPAN interview and LOSING BIN LADEN: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror)

The answer was inadvertently if somewhat obliquely provided by Madeleine Albright at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

According to Albright, a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the accord and the Peace Prize good-bye.

WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.

Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated
Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby

 

 

 

There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.

AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL

 

 

 

At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.

Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

 


Pathologic self-interest (Nobel Gas)

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off the global danger.

The clintons made their decision not to go after the terrorists for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that the inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger

ASIDE: There was an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the clintons' mass proliferation of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology.
For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.

William J. Broad
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes,
The New York Times, May 30, 1999

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.

But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.

The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

Mia T, 2.11.04
BUSH, THE CLINTONS + WMD PROLIFERATION:
The
REAL "Imminent Threat"


HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman

 

 

"PAPER TIGER"

Feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving.

It is the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.

And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance. (This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him.

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live


 

INTERVIEW Osama bin Laden

(may 1998)

 

In the first part of this interview which occurred in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions.

 

Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.

 

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....

 

The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?

I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....
 
BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005



Reverse Gorelick

by Mia T, 4.15.04
QUINN IN THE MORNING (ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(
MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.

 

 


 

e would have it backwards and miss the point entirely if we were to attribute The Gorelick Wall and the attendant metastasis of al Qaeda during the clintons' watch, (which, incidentally, was then in its incipient stage and stoppable), to the '60s liberal mindset.

Rampant '60s liberalism was not the underlying rationale for The Gorelick Wall.

Rather, The Gorelick Wall was the underlying rationale for--The Gorelick Wall was (insofar as '60s liberalism was the Wall's apparent impetus) a cynical cover for --the willful, methodical malpractice and malfeasance that was the product of the virulent clinton strain of rampant '60s liberalism.

While it is true that The Gorelick Wall was the convenient device of a cowardly self-serving president, The Wall's aiding and abetting of al Qaeda was largely incidental, (the pervasiveness of the clintons' Nobel-Peace-Prize calculus notwithstanding).

The Wall was engineered primarily to protect a corrupt self-serving president. The metastasis of al Qaeda and 9/11 were simply the cost of doing business, clinton-style.

Further confirmation that the Wall was cover for clinton corruption:

  • Gorelick's failure to disclose the fact that she authored the memo that was the efficient cause of 911

  • Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?)

Conversely, that it never occurred to anyone on the commission that Gorelick's flagrant conflict of interest renders her presence on the commission beyond farce calls into question the commission's judgment if not its integrity. Washington's mutual protection racket writ large, I suspect....

The Gorelick Wall is consistent with, and an international extension of, two essential acts committed in tandem, Filegate, the simultaneous empowering of the clintons and disemboweling of clinton adversaries, and the clinton Putsch, the firing and replacement of every U.S. attorney extant.

Filegate and the clinton Putsch,
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.

The Common Man
Mia T
February, 1998


Allegations of international clinton crimes swirling around the White House in 1995 and beyond support the thesis that the Wall was cover for international clinton crimes.

Once the clintons' own U.S. attorneys were in place, once the opposition was disemboweled by the knowledge that their raw FBI files had been in the possession of the clintons, once domestic law enforcement was effectively blinded to foreign data by Gorelick's Wall, the clintons were free to methodically and seditiously and with impunity auction off America's security, sovereignty and economy to the highest foreign bidder.


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)


ALSO:




NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton

by Mia T, 7.31.05


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
MAD hillary series #4
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN
FOR AMERICA
FOR THE WORLD




Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a [pre-9/11] Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
Mia T, November 1999







ur leaders are inexorably shrinking.  According to current mathematical models, they are shrinking at a rate of 6.7 per linear dimension per election cycle per terrorist attack.  At this rate, most leaders will be nanoleaders by the 2020s.

The leader-shrinkage function is discontinuous for
1992 =< t <= 2000 and continuous for all other t.

The 1990s saw in America a sudden, discontinuous drop in leader size, a drop that retrospectively, post-9/11, has been theorized to be its greatest lower bound.
(Can anything be lower than a clinton?)

"Two for the price of one," the clinton pitch in '92 -- (Did the clintons understand at the time that one was not enough?) -- only made matters worse. Missus clinton in the West Wing actually added to this discontinuous decrease in leader size.

History will record, therefore, that the clintons--the twofer, (1992-2000), were America's first nano-president.

The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do.

The twofer construct, transposed to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, is now poised to retake power. A self-replicating, Constitution-specific pathogen, the clinton nano-presidency, post-9/11, is a danger that we cannot -- we must not -- abide.

 


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 911commission; abledanger; atta; bandwidthhog; binladen; clintoncorruption; clintonfailure; clintonscandals; clintontreason; clintonutterfailure; corruption; fifthanniversary; gorelickwall; gwot; hillaryfailure; hillaryscandals; islam; jamiegorelick; jihad; longtimetoload; losingbinladen; mohamedatta; pathto911; terror; terrorism; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-280 next last

1 posted on 08/19/2005 2:28:13 AM PDT by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jla

ping and thanx :)


2 posted on 08/19/2005 2:31:20 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolverine

ping + thanx :)


3 posted on 08/19/2005 2:31:57 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jla; WorkingClassFilth; Gail Wynand; Brian Allen; Wolverine; Lonesome in Massachussets; IVote2; ...

ping


4 posted on 08/19/2005 2:32:26 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
..... was it Rush yesterday who was playing a tape which included a quote of Clinton explaining his "obsession with Bin Laden"? It was hilarious!

Clinton was obsessed alright ........ with his bent part.

5 posted on 08/19/2005 2:40:22 AM PDT by beyond the sea ("If you think it's hard to meet new people, try picking up the wrong golf ball." - Jack Lemmon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: beyond the sea

Play the movie.

That LKL audio -- clinton's "virtual obsession" with bin Laden -- provides the perfect counterpoint to the psychopath's admission of refusing bin Laden when offered by Sudan.


6 posted on 08/19/2005 2:44:27 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Awesome, Mia T!

Like I have said for many years, "We have not seen the end of all the evil that the treasonous, impeached, sodomite, X president has perpetrated on this country.


7 posted on 08/19/2005 2:50:29 AM PDT by rambo316 (God so loved the earth that he gave his only begotten son)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

thanx. :)

Sadly, you are right.


8 posted on 08/19/2005 2:55:39 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I'm very impressed at very early in the morning!

Great work!!


9 posted on 08/19/2005 2:59:36 AM PDT by Loud Mime (War is Mankind's way of ridding the world of the tyranny caused by liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

I think it's because all of his functioning brain matter, functioned from his pants for one thing. The other thing is, democrats are incapable of protecting this country. They think you can shove flowers down insurgents gun barrels, flash a piece sign at them and they will suddenly love us. If that doesn't work then they ignore what's happening and hope it goes away.


10 posted on 08/19/2005 3:01:15 AM PDT by MagnoliaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
"Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era."

Much noise is made of folks who can't let go of the Clintons.
All I ask is...If someone raped you would you still keep going after them even years after others forgot about it?

For those who can let go of him then I ask of you if the saying "you can't rape the willing" is true.

11 posted on 08/19/2005 3:01:20 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

thank you. :)


12 posted on 08/19/2005 3:16:11 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I know I'll get flamed on this, but I am not buying into this line of attack on Clinton.

It wreaks way to much of the same way that the Libs tried to say that Bush knew. I think this one is going to backfire and besides why in the heck are we giving Bill Clinton so much opportunity to be front and center in the press?

I know it is summer and news is slow but this is playing into the hands of Hitlery. Because average Americans aren't going to buy it either. The elected Clinton twice and he still can charm and lie his way into people's hearts.

I think we fool ourselves when we believe that people don't find the rabid hatred of Clinton by the far right a turn-off. They do and it makes the not-quite-so-far right look equally hateful and rabid.

When I see stuff like this it actually seems defensive because it follows a line of attack the Libs have already tried on Bush and it seems like some people secretly have a desire to see a Clinton back in the White House. Just stop saying their names. Focus on winning the war and moving America Forward. Geez.

Okay, I've got my flame retardent pants on, but not too much time.


13 posted on 08/19/2005 3:22:19 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (If you want to know the truth, I am lying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rambo316
"We have not seen the end of all the evil that the treasonous, impeached, sodomite, X president has perpetrated on this country.

While we're at it, a more disasterous president was Carter. Iran and the Islamofacists are a result of the "do nothing - except give away the Panama Canal" President Carter. He allowed our embassy personnel to remain hostages for 444 days, at the hands of STUDENTS. He was responsible for the fall of the Shah of Iran and the return of the Ayatollah Komenini from France.

Iran is the most responsible for Suicide Bombings and the instability of the middle east today. It's CARTER that was responsible for starting the mess.... and Clinton's do nothing presidency that magnified the situation. They have no testicles.

14 posted on 08/19/2005 3:25:30 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Would you agree, there are a lot of actual facts to back up Clinton being weak on terrorism versus the "Bush Knew" stuff?


15 posted on 08/19/2005 3:26:01 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gracey

Gracey, you are absolutely right on that on but I'll go back even farther. FDR all but ruined this Republic with
leftist, big government handouts. That is one subject that not a one wants to touch. He admin. was totally penetrated with leftist idealogues direct from Moscow.


16 posted on 08/19/2005 3:31:16 AM PDT by rambo316 (God so loved the earth that he gave his only begotten son)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: John W

I never said that I didn't think that:
a. Clinton should have done more
b. Clinton is a scumbag
C. Clinton is a criminal
d. Had he not been b and c, and really been paying attention to America, he might have prevented 9/11.

But I do not believe you will convince Americans that Clinton intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen. The current line of attack sounds like that(even if it is not verbatem) when coming from the mouths of those who hate Clinton very very much.

It will have the opposite effect and only make the Clintons stronger. So lets focus on tomorrow and not yesterday and stop talking about the Clintons.


17 posted on 08/19/2005 3:32:11 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (If you want to know the truth, I am lying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Great post Mia, but I don't understand the second part of your headline that reads "or was it something even more threatening to our national security?" I don't see the answer to this question anywhere in your post. Are you trying to be sarcastic with that question? If so, the sarcasm wasn't evident to me and you may want to have the mods edit that part of your headline. Otherwise excellent.


18 posted on 08/19/2005 3:32:34 AM PDT by defenderSD (At half past midnight, the ghost of Vince Foster wanders through the West Wing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

We'll have to agree to disagree.We should be doing everything we can to show the populace they made fatal errors in the voting booth in 1992 and 1996, otherwise it will happen again.


19 posted on 08/19/2005 3:37:34 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Apparently Madeleine Albright disagrees with you. (See my discussion, above.)

An argument can be impolitic AND be true. You are discussing political tactics, not facts.


20 posted on 08/19/2005 3:42:27 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gracey
He (Carter) allowed our embassy personnel to remain hostages for 444 days, at the hands of STUDENTS.

Ahh... How the swill of the "legacy media" lives on, and on. Why is it that you still believe that those who invaded the US Embassy in Teheran in 1979 (which was an armed invasion of sovereign US territory and an internationally recognized casis belli, literally a cause to go to war) were students? Since when, could AK series assault rifles, and RPG series rocket propelled grenade launchers, be considered school supplies?

the infowarrior

21 posted on 08/19/2005 3:45:49 AM PDT by infowarrior (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD

thx.

The 'something even more threatening to our national security' than the liberal mindset is clinton pathologic self-interest.

I write above: 'If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off the global danger.'


22 posted on 08/19/2005 3:47:54 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

"I think we fool ourselves when we believe that people don't find the rabid hatred of Clinton by the far right a turn-off. They do and it makes the not-quite-so-far right look equally hateful and rabid. "

Reads as a pretty sound analysis from this side of the pond! Those who sit in the 'centre' be it centre left, centre right, or dead centre are the swing voters whose minds need to be won. This line of attack is a turn off. People like the political agenda focussed on the 'here and now', not harping back to the 'there and then'. Going back to the 'there and then' looks like you want to distract from the 'here and now' and Bush has no reason to do that. He can focus on his message of the 'here and now' and win with reason. This kind of article is interesting from a historical debate perspective, but is destructive when presented as part of the current political agenda. In my opinion. Which as people will no doubt point out don't count for much as I have no vote over there!


23 posted on 08/19/2005 3:50:03 AM PDT by Brit_Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
They elected Clinton twice and he still can charm and lie his way into people's hearts.

Actually, Ross Perot got Clinton elected the first time. The second time it was the OKC bombing that got him elected.

24 posted on 08/19/2005 3:53:03 AM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rambo316

FDR at least took us to war to save the Republic. I doubt Carter or Clinton would do as much. However, domestically he was a disaster.....and probably started the slippery slope.


25 posted on 08/19/2005 3:53:53 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
mia alert.

thanks for you excellent -- beyond excellent -- work.

26 posted on 08/19/2005 3:55:02 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (see my FR page for a link to the tribute to Terri Schaivo, a short video presentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Yeah and the Supreme Court got Bush elected. He won the freaking election. Plurality, tragedy, whatever. He won. You sound like the Rats in 2000.


27 posted on 08/19/2005 3:56:57 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (If you want to know the truth, I am lying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

thanx. :)


28 posted on 08/19/2005 3:59:12 AM PDT by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior

No need to write a dissertation - they were students, and yes, they had lots of help. One of those students is President (?) of Iran today.

The analogy is not much different from today... Cindy Sheehan is a mom who lost her son in this war....BUT who is pumping her up??? We all know it's the big money Soros and Michael Moore types. Well, she's still Cindy Sheehan, a mom.

But then, that's how life is on the LEFT. It's all distorted by props.


29 posted on 08/19/2005 4:00:41 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
OK, I just started my second cup of coffee and I think I understand your headline: you're saying that he had a reason for ignorning terrorism that was more threatening to national security than his liberal mindset. That would be his pathological self-interest.

At first I read that as Clinton having a reason that is more threatening to national security than terrorism. It's not immediately clearly what the phrase "more threatening to" is referring to. If you read it as more threatening than terrorism then it doesn't make much sense, because nothing is more threatening than nuclear terrorism except a full-scale nuclear war. Anyway, it's a GREAT post but you may want to rewrite that part of the headline at your convenience some time.

30 posted on 08/19/2005 4:02:53 AM PDT by defenderSD (At half past midnight, the ghost of Vince Foster wanders through the West Wing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

I'll second the THANKS, Mia.

You do fabulous work. You're one of the most creative, thought provoking posters on FR. You're much appreciated.

Hey, you have the BEST cartoons. :-)


31 posted on 08/19/2005 4:03:26 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: defenderSD

Geez, you're picky. Too much coffee, maybe??? Get off those meds.


32 posted on 08/19/2005 4:04:51 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Bill Clinton wanted the Nobel Peace Prize.... That's all.


33 posted on 08/19/2005 4:05:24 AM PDT by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Why?

1. He is a spoiled member of the "Gimme-Gimme" baby bommer generation.

2. He has no morals.

3. He has no intestinal fortitude.

4. He is a narcisstic bastard.

5. He is part of the party that produced such stalwarts like McGovern, Ferraro, KARTER, Hanoi John sKerry, Chappaquiddick Teddy, and Hitlery.

6. He plainly JUST DON'T CARE because HE HAS HIS!


34 posted on 08/19/2005 4:05:35 AM PDT by deadeyedawg (Crush our enemies, listen to their lamentations, and drive them before us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Mia...even more intriguing, in juxtaposition to all this, is Bubba's pre-ocupation, beginning with Waco, with fringe elements domestically. Almost as though he was fueling something.....


35 posted on 08/19/2005 4:06:09 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: deadeyedawg

And..... he's chicken... he has NO testicles. Democrats have NO testicles.


36 posted on 08/19/2005 4:06:48 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

*


37 posted on 08/19/2005 4:07:34 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
It will have the opposite effect and only make the Clintons stronger. So lets focus on tomorrow and not yesterday and stop talking about the Clintons.

You should feel gratified over all the wonderful accomplishments of the stellar 911 Commission, which stubbornly 'focused on tomorrow'. The Bush Admin, knowing the Able Danger story within weeks of 911, allowed Gorelick and BenVeniste to sit on the panel and spike any info that might be traced back to the previous Admin. What nice guys the Bush people are!!

Meanwhile, very little of substance has been done, and Hitlery is actually still a contender for 2008, when she should be discredited and driven from any serious consideration.

But I guess that those of us who know the full depth of their negligence aren't politically savvy enough to know when to shut up.

So here's what we have: 3000 lives that were lost so that the Clintons could sell our nuclear secrets to China without legal ramifications. Wide open borders to this day. More hassle and inconvenience in the name of airport security, with a PC attitude toward profiling. A Patriot Act which, in the hands of a control freak AG, could seriously abridge the freedom of citizens, when we should have suspended habeas corpus according to Article 1 Sec 9. Several blown opportunities, because of lawyers, to kill or apprehend BinLaden, going back to 1999(?) when he left Sudan, and no reform of the lawyers' treasonous influence. I COULD GO ON.

Lives are at stake. It could be you or me in the next mass murder. But no, we have politics to worry about.

Sorry for the flame, but some realities are more important than others.

38 posted on 08/19/2005 4:08:51 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Logic test: Pearl Harbor is to 911 as Harry Truman is to .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mo

IMO, Waco was Hitlary's baby..... Janet Reno. Hitlary was over the State & Justice Dept. They are disastrous today mostly because of Hitlary stuffing them with her clones, as civil servants. She's the real EVIL in the family. Just visualize Hitlary as President.

Is it scary?


39 posted on 08/19/2005 4:10:23 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
*

** he he

40 posted on 08/19/2005 4:12:01 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?

For Leftists in America, especially those still mired in the sixties, it must be like living in a part of town they're ashamed of, in a home they weren't allowed to decorate. Until this home is "right" for them, they will refuse to buy it, they will continue to rent.

Mammals never defend territory they don't consider to be their own.

As to the Clinton administration in particular, their hatred of the right trumped all other concerns, including security.

41 posted on 08/19/2005 4:12:40 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gracey

With the Patriot Act, even scarier. She should never see that day.


42 posted on 08/19/2005 4:12:57 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (Logic test: Pearl Harbor is to 911 as Harry Truman is to .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gracey

there are interesting psycho-dynamics at play with both Hillary and Bill....IMHO their domestic terrorism perceptions fit with their loathing of America and americans in general.


43 posted on 08/19/2005 4:13:24 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wayoverontheright
it must be like living in a part of town they're ashamed of, >/i>

oooohh

44 posted on 08/19/2005 4:14:26 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
With the Patriot Act, even scarier.

Correct. But then only Republicans need laws. With or without the Patriot Act, Hitlary would still do whatever she wanted, and the MSM would say nothing. Rules only apply to Republicans.... did I repeat myself??

45 posted on 08/19/2005 4:16:59 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
I don't believe Clinton ignored it; more like he was afraid to deal with it.....you do know he did have a legacy of "peace and prosperity" to think about.....

Clinton figured that OBL and company would never consider undertaking a large scale attack on US soil; he thought wrong and 3000 people paid for it.....
46 posted on 08/19/2005 4:17:23 AM PDT by PigRigger (Send donations to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deadeyedawg

NIce list....right on every account.....


47 posted on 08/19/2005 4:18:24 AM PDT by PigRigger (Send donations to http://www.AdoptAPlatoon.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

That wasn't a flame, just some resptable arguments.

Although I need to call you on your claim that Hitlery could be discredited. She wasn't the President. Bill was. She didn't receive CIA briefings and I can honestly believe she likely focused most of her attention on turning America into a socialst paradise. Not on the security issues.

That line of argument doesn't fit.

Also, did you see the article that the Pentagon is denying that Able knew of Atta?

The whole story doesn't carry enough water to pass the vast-right-wing conspiracy threshold. In other words right or wrong it is a political blind alley.

So Mia is right. I am looking at this from a political point of view.


48 posted on 08/19/2005 4:18:33 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (If you want to know the truth, I am lying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gracey

Well headlines are important. You want the reader to understand what you're writing about right at the start and then stick to your topic and make your case. What can I say...I'm a detail oriented guy. Quality is crucial in my business.


49 posted on 08/19/2005 4:18:35 AM PDT by defenderSD (At half past midnight, the ghost of Vince Foster wanders through the West Wing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: mo

So why do they want to be in control of a country they loathe????? Geez, is there a shrink capable of decipering these weirdo's?


50 posted on 08/19/2005 4:18:39 AM PDT by Gracey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-280 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson