Posted on 09/12/2001 5:13:03 AM PDT by truther
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/9/12/224713
This issue about "human rights" is an absolute complete joke. We have people in our government who would give their loyalty to an enemy of this country than to stand by and defend our country. I think that anybody serving in our government offices who feels that it is against "human rights" to go and retaliate against a country responsible for this unforgotten tragedy should be removed from their position. The following countries should be of our concern pertaining to this attack on American soil: Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Afganistan, Russia and China.
The fact that a majority of our members of Congress think that "human rights" should prevail over defending our country from enemies abroad is outrageous. It is the Congress that has the power to declare war! WHERE'S THEIR LOYALTY !! Well, I think we are about to find out where these members of Congress stand. I have only heard one Congressman, Bob Barr, speak out to say that a declaration of war is needed. I personally feel that the enemies are in our government and that they are helping those enemies abroad to attack us! And then after aiding and abetting the enemy these "human rights" protestors will go hide like cowards in underground fallout shelters while millions of innocent Americans out in this nation perish! This makes me sick!!!
America will never be the same after this attack and as for those so-called bleeding-heart Democrats like Diane Feinstein who don't think it is in the best of our interest to improve our missle defense against China because she does not think China is a threat and that we should compromise our missle defense for the sake of good tidings with them......I got news for her. Just kick her butte out of this country for good. She believes in disarming the people and I believe in deporting her from this country for good! Go live over in communist China and kiss as much red butte as possible, Feinstein. If she ever dared to speak in their podium like she did to us regarding the halting of our missle defense, she'd be escorted outside, forced to her knees by the Chinese army and eighty-sixed from the back! The Chinese take the building up of their military defense very seriously. And so should we of ours!
That is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
God Help us, if New Yorkers paid with their lives to propel world events into a more favorable position for the next President of the United States.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. And Hillary's hatred of America is equal to the size of the fireball that took down the Twin Towers.
Why does Hillary hate her homeland?
Woman of priviledge, wealthy, educated, able to claim power and status... yet, on the day of mourning in the Senate, her only words of comfort to America are forced memorized condolences...hallow as her soul.
"We will rebuild.. I can hardly wait...to see scaffolding in the sky..."
I wonder if any of the Terrorists Hillary arranged pardons for a year ago or so, helped out in this effort? a.u ie
President Bush announces that he will visit NYC on Friday and Bubba has to one-up President Bush by appearing the day before. How'd he get back from Australia anyhow? Thru Cuba? All the airports were shut down.
I sure hope this story gets spread across the nation!
We've come far, pilgrim.
|
|||||
Is that slime puddled around your feet? I thought I smelled a DU/SC/Saloon RAT. PU!!
Yes, he came here, of his own free will to get an education. Admirable. Yes, we liked him when he was fighting communists in Afghanistan. Amirable. If he has problems with the way his country is being ruled why didn't he take up his cause there ? If indeed he truely had the support of his people he would have been successful, right?
In final Clinton days, chance to attack bin Laden rejected
By JOHN SOLOMON
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- During President Clinton's final days in office, senior officials weighed a military strike against Osama bin Laden after receiving intelligence on his whereabouts. The plan was rejected over concerns the information was stale and could result in a miss or civilian casualties.
The information spurred high-level discussion inside the White House in December 2000. Now, nine months later, officials are returning to the episode as bin Laden's name increasingly is being connected with Tuesday's attacks in New York and Washington.
"There were a couple of points, including in December, where there was intelligence indicative of bin Laden's whereabouts," former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said. "But I can categorically tell you that at no point was it ripe enough to act."
Some in Congress have expressed anger that the United States has not been able to get to bin Laden in Afghanistan with military strikes after years of intelligence linking him to global acts of terrorism against Americans. "We should have put bin Laden on the defensive so he would be thinking about how we are going to get him rather than him plotting massive terrorist plots," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said.
But Berger said military, intelligence and White House officials agreed that they should not proceed based on the December intelligence.
"Everyone agreed this was not actionable," he said.
Officials said the December discussion was the most pointed in a series of talks over several months. Officials familiar with the debate said top military and national security officials convened in the White House to discuss the options.
One individual familiar with the discussions, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting was prompted by "eyes-on intelligence" about bin Laden's whereabouts -- a term indicating he was spotted by a person or satellite. But there were questions about the quality and currency of the data.
According to officials:
• Military officials presented a possible military strike option, and the pros and cons were debated.
• Concerns were voiced that the intelligence might be already stale given bin Laden's tendency to move quickly and go into hiding. There also was discussion of the possibility such an attack might kill innocent civilians.
• Concerns were also stated that if the intelligence had already grown stale, the United States could strike and miss bin Laden -- only further emboldening terrorists and embarrassing the country.
Ultimately, the president and aides decided not to strike. Berger and one other official said military officials never made a recommendation to proceed with the attack.
Military strikes were aimed at bin Laden once before. After U.S. embassies were bombed in Africa three years ago, Washington retaliated with a missile attack in August 1998, sending more than 70 Tomahawk cruise missiles into eastern Afghanistan targeting training camps operated by bin Laden.
Thank you for the bump ALOHA RONNIE.
...Thanks to ~HILLARY~ & ~BILL~..
...the War has indeed Come Home.
Signed:..Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.lzxray.com
 |
Saturday, 17 March, 2001, 11:40 GMT Focus on US approach to NI
President Bush met politicians at the White House
Gerry Adams (centre), Ireland's Bin Laden in the company of George Bush and Bertie Ahern. |
Sadly, Bush appeared to have taken over where Clinton left off. Maybe he has a different view now.
Sinator clintoon kissing Arafat's wife should be posted on the biggest billboard at Times Square!
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.
