Posted on 10/24/2001 10:24:31 AM PDT by CT
Clinton is a criminal who sold his willful negligence towards national security and criminal activity in exchange for money, sex, and willful negligence on his own criminal activities. Where was he willfully negligent?
Let's count the ways:
Pardons: FALN terrorists, major drug trafficers and several others that go well beyond the description of being dubious cases or reformed criminals. Not to forget: Marc Rich, the biggest tax cheat in history who sold oil to Iran during the hostage crises -- I thought the dims didn't want to give tax breaks to the rich.
Nuclear secrets: Multi-warhead w/multi-targeting capabilities. Missle technology including 3-stage boosting and advanced targeting. Proliferation of these techs to and from China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan and possibly Iraq.
Bin-Laden: Should have been FAR more aggressive going after 1st WTC, Africa, Saudia Arabia, OKC ( Bin-Liden's involvment was covered up ), USS Cole and Sudan. All of these events should have triggered a very aggressive man hunt for BL's head. But he willfully neglected to do so. Instead, he lauched a $1M missle to stike a $10 tent to hit a camel's butt. He also spent a lot more time and money going after MS than going after BL.
There is much much more -- browsing Alamo-Girl's links will overwhelm the reader. In a nutshell, clinton's willful negligence amounts to treason. History is just starting to prove without a doubt that this is the case. There will be nothing revisionist bozos can do about it. The die is already cast. It is only a matter of time that it will cool down enough for the mold to be broken. Then clinton will be forever casted in history for his willful criminal negligence that amounted to treason.
Sure. They can be made useful if "they" have access to enriched uranium, access to renewable supplies of weapons grade plutonium, etc. If "they" want the device to be more powerful than a conventional FAE bomb, then they'll also need access to tritium on a regular basis.
They'll also need to know how to repair and replace the electronic circuits that get zapped over time by radioactivity and rust.
But more realisticly, terrorists will detonate a conventional explosive that is surrounded by nuclear waste so as to scatter the poison far and wide while simultaneously relying on the duplicitious press and unknowing internet posters to declare that it was really an "atomic bomb" in a few thousand on-line posts each day.
The purpose of terrorists is to spread fear, after all, and many in the media and online will aid that goal either willingly or through thier lack of education.
Star wars, even if fully deployed, would have done nothing to prevent what happened on 9/11.
President Bush also engaged a wholesale review of our national defense forces, something that was entirely neglected by Clinton. In GWB's few short months in office, he accomplished FAR MORE in regard to defending America than Clinton managed in 8 years.
None of which would have boosted our anti-terroism efforts.
Consider the amount of neglect over the past 8 years and take into account GWB's short time in office. I'd say that much blame could be placed on Clinton for our state of affairs, and much praise should be heaped upon GWB for corecting as much as possible as soon as possible.
Actually GWB did almost nothing in the area of counter-terrorism prior to 9/11. Remember neither Clinton or Bush considered anti-terrorism as high a priority as it was after 9/11. The GOP continually thwarted some of Clinton's anti-terrorism legislation. Likewise Democrats might very well have frustrated some Bush's efforts prior to 9/11.
Also note that GWB favors drilling in the ANWR as a first step toward reducing our dependancy on foreign, especially Middle-Eastern, oil. That factors in to reducing terrorism at some level, too.
Hate to burst your bubble but a bunch of oil wells in Alaska would not have prevented the events of 9/11.
No kidding. SDI would only prevent one form of terroristic attack. Your argument above is as ridiculous as claiming that a sealtbelt won't help you during a car fire. Of course it wouldn't, it isn't designed for that. You wear your seat belt because it protects you from other threats.
Likewise, National Missile Defense is designed to protect us from the forms of nuclear or biological blackmail that rogue terrorists or terroristic states may one day be able to deliver via ballistic missile.
You might prefer that the U.S. remain unprotected from a surprise North Korean or Iranian/Iraqi nuclear missile, but I don't share your desire for our self-destruction.
Rubbish. GWB pushed and touted ramping up our defenses against rogue nuclear attacks. He backed our National Missile Defense, whereas Clinton could hardly be counted as an advocate of that system.
Moreover, President Bush's comprehensive review of our military (which had been neglected for 8 years under Clinton) stated in large bold print that the most pressing future threat to the U.S. would be from ASYMMETRIC ATTACKS (AKA, terrorism).
Pay attention. Just because you don't like the man doesn't mean that he is wrong. Had you bothered to read the review, you might have seen that your above statements were flawed before you actually posted them.
In short, Clinton didn't predict asymmetric attacks, but Bush did. Clinton wasn't a proponent of thwarting the most deadly form of nuclear terrorism, but President Bush is (and was) such a proponent.
Amen, brother! See here:
-DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON --
Read it & weep, people!
That is true based on published reports at the time.To get this alleged fact into proper perspective, one must look toward the governmental administration at the time.eg Janet Reno, A.G. and Mr. Clinton, the President who was a wantabe.
Love it! Sadly true.
That is true based on published reports at the time.To get this alleged fact into proper perspective, one must look toward the governmental administration at the time.eg Janet Reno, A.G. and Mr. Clinton, the President who was a wantabe.
Clinton was in office barely A MONTH when the WTC was bombed in 1993. The terrorists were preparing for the attack in November 1992.
WHO was president then? You can take your time with the answer if you like.
OK. I've taken enough time. Why would the terrorists wait until 1993? What proof have you that the terrorists were planning the attacks in 1992? While we are discussing terrorism, why did Mrs. Clinton receive campaign contributions from the Hammas and her husband pardon FALN terrorists prior to departing the White House in their U-Haul?
Extract from: John V. Parachini, “The World Trade Center Bombers (1993)” Chapter 11 in Jonathan B. Tucker, (ed.) Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. (2000), pp.185-206:
" The perpetrators of the WTC bombing turned out to be a group of New Jersey men who had been suspected of terrorism for more than two years.[2] Yousef attended a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, where he honed his skills as an explosives expert. He then traveled around the world working as a professional terrorist in the name of Islamic Jihad, although expressions of religious faith or motivation were notably absent from his statements.... "
In November 1992, the conspirators started to prepare for an attack on the WTC. It took them more than two months to acquire the chemicals, assemble the sophisticated urea-nitrate bomb, and transport it to the designated target... "
The second part of your question is merely a diversionary tactic from your inability to deal with the first.
Sorry - blood splatters was all we had left!!!
If the impeached *Duo get booed in their home state, yep, I'd say so.
Daniel Ruth witnessed a real *skunk for eight years - and all he can come up with is "dubious"? The writer gets a grade of "D minus". This submission is sent back as incomplete. Further research and writing experience is required. Seems to have been written to and for sheeple. Do over...
China, N. Korea, (and Iraq before them) aren't working on suicide sea captains. They are building and improving Inter Continental Ballistic Missles.
"I understand and would support the NMD if I thought it would work."
Then you would have been against funding the cruise missle, because no one thought it work back then. Then you would have been against funding the space program. Who really thought we'd put a man on the moon when JFK said we would?
"The first 5 minutes are the most important, miss them then, you lose."
That's ignorance. ICBM's are shot into the upper atmosphere, where they stabilize and begin their descent. You have three chances to shoot it down. Post launch, descent, and apogee (pinnacle). That's why it was called Star Wars- You needed a space based system to have a chance of shooting it down at the top of the missle's trajectory. You could take your post launch and descent shots from a land based system.
If you think that the nuclear matierals will explode when the missle is shot down, you've been watching too many movies. It just doesn't work that way.
As far as the "diversionary tactic" goes, it was not meant to be.Why divert from the truth?
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.