People have started to wake-up -- I mean the career people -- the pensionaires. To wake up to the fact that there is some real duty. But Clinton's cronies are still in, and still pushing those wonderfully high-fat artery-hardening peacetime goals -- even at this time of war and clear danger -- of diversity, of tolerance, of worship of all the PC-idols -- as opposed to the real duties that were and that now obviously cry to be addressed.
I don't think there is a statute of limitations on treason.
Does anyone really believe that Bush Junior would have done anything significantly different than Clinton in 1998?
Without a doubt.
...and in the wake of a massive attack on American soil, Clinton would be just as gung-ho as Bush is.
As for the most proximate possible cause of the tragedy, one that doesn't need in-depth research/delusional detective work, look no further than the laxity of airport security, reforms for which several large corporations opposed, supported by their Republican lackeys.
Talk about delusional. You're saying that intelligence information that operatives were here and had a plan to use airliners as bombs was meaningless and trivial and couldn't have been used to alter the events of 9/11.
And if you need reasons to be fearful for the future, there's always Bush's walk out on the biological weapons treaty negotiations, which might have limited the spread of these weapons.
Oh yeah, that's right. Saddam was chomping at the bit to sign on to those treaties. You're a complete ignoramus.
So when you take a long hard look at the multiple actors involved in allowing this to happen, it takes a very particular breed of brutal opportunist to use the tragedy to whip Clinton yet again.
He should be tried for treason, convicted, given the appropriate sentence and the sentence carried out. Same for his co-conspirators. His sympathizers should be ostracized and scorned for eternity and any trace of his existence wiped out.
You people will never let up, will you, until Clinton is dead and buried, and probably not even then.
True. He is evil incarnate.
Whatever about his deeds or misdeeds, the whole of US foreign policy for at least the past generation has, tragically, been leading to this, from Reagan and Bush Senior's arming of the terrorists, to the latter's willingness to let Saddam off the hook, a case of better the devil you know...
Whatever the details of the above scandal/paranoid fantasy, they've all been complicit in one way or another. As to the particular details of Clinton's response to terrorism, search deep, friends, think hard. Does anyone really believe that Bush Junior would have done anything significantly different than Clinton in 1998?
Conjecture either way, but we can disagree on it. Bush just may have focused on real terrorists, rather than, say, churches in Waco, Elian Gonzales, etc.
It took an invasion of a sovereign nation to mobilise the US on a large scale in 1991,
And that almost didn't come about, because most of you Dims voted to pass on any action.
As for the most proximate possible cause of the tragedy, one that doesn't need in-depth research/delusional detective work, look no further than the laxity of airport security,
Plain old bullshit. Airport security worked perfectly. Four planeloads of passengers were left defenseless, with the only option being to crash in a Pennsylvania field.
Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era.
I'll bet that Mr. Bedard is a member of "one of those groups" so "obsessed" with voting in and having access to the clintons that they--ooops-- failed to notice the obvious danger of the lovely couple.
Thanx for 9/11, Paul...
Hear clinton stupidity, smallness, banality, fecklessness, ineptitude, prevarication, corruption, perfidy and utter failure directly from the rapist, himself. clinton provides the perfect foil for Bush, who makes a cameo appearance or two.
Pay special attention to Dan Rather's little story about terrorism hitting the U.S. "bigtime" during the clintons' tenure.
In particular, connect the following dots: the '93 WTC bombing. a certain bin Laden protégé and clinton's admission that he passed up bin Laden. Note clinton's spurious argument for this monumental failure.
To this day, clinton seems not to understand that bin Laden is -- and was in 1996 -- an enemy of the state, not a simple criminal.
clinton still seems not to get it -- the same terrorist --the terrorist he refused to take--hit the same building in '93.
Notwithstanding this, to hear clinton tell it, his disastrous decision not to take bin Laden when offered on a silver platter by Sudan, (arguably the worst decision ever made by a president), derived from his scrupulous avoidance of abusing power and trashing laws...
A Fish Rots from the Head
Investor's Business Daily
Ijaz, an admitted Clinton supporter who helped negotiate these opportunities to nab bin Laden, said, "The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."
Ijaz says that three months before bin Laden's men blew up the USS Cole in Yemen, he "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings (in Tanzania and Kenya)... But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer."
Clinton's apparent boredom with vital information extended beyond Sudanese intelligence officers to his own intelligence officers. His first CIA director, James Woolsey, couldn't get a meeting with Clinton in the two years he served. Woolsey left the Clinton administration disgusted with its slovenly approach to national security. ...
To hear Clinton now say "We must do more to reduce the pool of potential terrorists" is thus beyond farce. He had numerous opportunities to reduce that pool, and he blew it.
The pool, in fact, grew larger on Clinton's watch, as he spent his final days giving pardons to drug dealers, Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich, a fugitive who topped America's most-wanted list.
In this light, Clinton's order to the CIA that it not use "unsavory characters" to collect information pushes irony to its outer limits.
Had George Will written Sleaze, the sequel (the "sequel" is, of course, hillary) after 9-11-01, I suspect that he would have had to forgo the above conceit, as the doubt expressed in the setup phrase was, from that day forward, no longer operational.
Indeed, assessing the clinton presidency an abject failure is not inconsistent with commentary coming from the left, most recently the LA Times: "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize."
When the clintons left office, I predicted that the country would eventually learn--sadly, the hard way--that this depraved, self-absorbed and inept pair had placed America (and the world) in mortal danger. But I was thinking years, not months.
It is very significant that hillary clinton didn't deny clinton culpability for the terrorism. (Meet the Press, 12-09-01), notwithstanding tired tactics (if you can't pass the buck, spread the blame) and chronic "KnowNothing Victim Clinton" self-exclusion.
If leftist pandering keeps the disenfranchized down in perpetuity, clinton pandering,("it's the economy, stupid"), kept the middle and upper classes wilfully ignorant for eight years.
And ironically, both results (leftist social policy and the clinton economy) are equally illusory, fraudulent. It is becoming increasingly clear that clinton covertly cooked the books even as he assiduously avoided essential actions that would have negatively impacted the economy--the ultimate source of his continued power--actions like, say, going after the terrorists.
It is critically important that hillary clinton fail in her grasp for power; read Peggy Noonan's little book, 'The Case Against Hillary Clinton' and Barbara Olson's two books; it is critical that the West de-clintonize, but that will be automatic once it is understood that the clintons risked civilization itself in order to gain and retain power.
It shouldn't take books, however, to see that a leader is a dangerous, self-absorbed sicko. People should be able to figure that out for themselves. The electorate must be taught to think, to reason. It must be able to spot spin, especially in this age of the electronic demagogue.
I am not hopeful. As Bertrand Russell noted, "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. "
*George Will continues: There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism