Help me.

February 17, 2003 | Hildy

[ncpastor]

Bad-da-boom!

[davetex]

Ken Lay was also a frequent traveler on Dept. of commerce
missions all over the globe during cliton's days. Hell he
was for all practical purposes a cabnet member.

[Leo Carpathian]

Time to jump from the losing horse?

[MinuteGal]

I have no liberal friends. Only liberal acquaintences.

Leni

[bonfire]

This is so timely. My brother called me today in the same dilemma. He works for an EMOTIONAL liberal and had to leave work a half hour early cuz he couldn't take his crazy rantings anymore.

[El Cid]

Hi Hildy,

I, like the first few posters on this thread, can't offer you any 'answers' that will sway your friend because the questions he asks suggest that he and I live in a parallel (non-intersecting) universe. But anyways, here's a few quick comments:

1) I really don't blame Clinton, because 'we', as a country elected him. Our leaders are a reflection of our country, and we got a self-absorbed, narcissistic, poser - who was all image and no substance. His speeches looked and sounded good, but when you read the transcripts you realized they were gibberish. And yes, your friend is correct that we had CEOs in this time period that weren't a heckuva lot better.

2) We had a President who 'loathed' the military. He used them as nation building play things - simultaneously reducing their fire-power, while at the same time spreading them out on nation building assignments from Haiti to Bosnia.

3) We had the Twin-Towers bombing of 1993, Mogidishu, the Riyaddeh (sp?) barracks attack, the Cole bombing, and possibly TWA800 (and possibly OKC). What was our response? Nothing. What message did this give to our enemies - the USA was weak and unwilling to fight back when attack.

Add (2) and (3) together and of course the current President (elected by a mere ~500 votes .... at this point we can both shudder and fall to our knees and thank God) inherited a country with a bullseye painted on it. President Bush will do the right thing, and become a 'terror to evil' - but what happened on September 11th, 2001 was cast in the dark 8 years between 1992 and 2000.

[Steven W.]

Clinton was not attacked for his economic policies but for his moral and deceitful ways.

Clinton was totally challenged for his foolish economic policies, defeated for many (such as his attempts to put the American medical industry under government control and the tax packages which passed only by the vote of Algore, which even he admitted, later, taxed the American people too much), assisted in those he did right (like TIPs), and, ultimately, you're actually right, because in most cases, once the Republicans took control of the Congress, Clinton joined in and ultimately supported and passed the majority of items in the Contract with America, predominantly welfare reform, the balanced budget initiative and other positive and hugely successful economic programs, first proposed by the Republicans in 1994 and then "triangulated" by Clinton following the advice of his trusted advisor Dick Morris.

[telebob]

Just a few thoughts Hildy..

1. We are not in despair. I know a lot of people but I don't know any who are in despair, at least not geopolitically. Most people I know can't wait for real action against the Islamofascists. Most people I know still thirst for revenge against these dogs. The enemies of the jews are the enemies of the Americans. Even a child can understand that.

2. If your friend wants to blame right wing republicans for scandal in the business world, he should remember that demos recieve just about as much political money from Big Business as do repubs. BB's interest is in furthering their interests and not necessarily promoting one party over the other. Greed and avarice are two of the world's oldest vices. No political affiliation is necessary.

3. The Islamists waited until Bush Jr. was in office to attack the US? Check the action on Clinton's watch: First WTC bombing by the Blind Shiek and Co. Somalia. African Embassy bombings. The attack on the Cole. Does there appear a familiar pattern here? You can go back the last 25 years and find increasing bravado on the part of the Islamists in attacking America and her interests and allies. What was Clinton's response? Wasn't interested.

[DensaMensa]

Time to jump from the losing horse?

Long overdue.

[Southack]

Your friend is trying to make some good points, but he/she's a little bit uneducated about the subjects in question.

True, very few people were criticizing Clinton's economic policies (other than his tax increase), but that isn't because his economic policies were "good", no, it was because Clinton had no policies to criticize.

What "policy" did Clinton ever have for our economy? Ask your friend that question.

clinton had no economic policies, and he was lucky enough to be in office during a boom (so no one had any real motivation to examine Clinton's policies or lack thereof).

But as for 9/11, your friend is a bit off base. Democrat Gary Hart and Republican Christopher Cox both were warning about that very thing, as was fiction writer Tom Clancy (who nailed the method and one of the two cities). But times were good, so who was really taking such warnings seriously?

Moreover, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Murrah bombing in 1995, the USS Cole bombing in 2000, and the U.S. embassy bombings in 1998 were NOT taken seriously, either.

So clearly the terrorists were emboldened over the lack of U.S. action taken against them during those (Clinton) years.

What has happened is that the world's policeman was busy enjoying an 8 year orgy (economic and sexual) during Clinton's reign, and now the nation is waking up to discover that the world's criminals have grown in power, reach, and boldness while we weren't looking.

[Nick Danger]

Why did 9-11 not happen until Clinton was out of office?

It did happen when he was in office. They tried to take down the World Trade Center in 1993. That was one heck of a truck bomb they had there. It left a huge crater. It did not cause the building to fall over, but that isn't because they weren't trying. The 1993 attack was meant to make the building fall over; they just didn't have their engineering done right. They attacked us numerous other times during Clinton's term... embassy bombings, the Cole attack, etc.

It is also clear that Mohammad Atta was planning the 9/11 attack for several years. Who was in the White House had nothing to do with it. Atta would have done the same thing if Gore had been elected.

This idea that we are doing bad stuff to Muslims to cause these attacks is spurious. What they hate about us is that our very existence makes it impossible for them to live in the 13th century, which they perceive to be the One, True, and Correct way to live. The fundamentalists interpret their religious texts as commanding them to kill Christians and Jews; we don't have to actually do anything to earn this killing, they'll kill us for who we are.

[Optimist]

although Bush gets the blaim for Enron, CEO Ken Lay was a guest at the White House

...and the ax is still falling on Clinton supporter Martha Stewart who managed to get rich during the decade of the 90's. Somehow it was Reagan's fault when the rich got richer during the 80's (which Clinton referred to as the "decade of greed"). But now it is NOT Clinton's fault during the 90's? Fact is, in the 90's, just as in the 80's, EVERYBODY got richer -including the federal government.

It was only when "a new sheriff came to town" that the corporate scandals were revealed for what they were.

[shadowman99]

Do youself a favor. Stop discussing politics with your friend. One of my very best friend is a FAR lefty, and I just avoid politics when I talk to him. He'll go on a rant sometimes and I usually can quiet the urge to engage a debate by thinking "it's just too damn bad us republicans run everything". There are many things to base a friendship on that have nothing to do with politics. Find one.

I'm not an activist, and the world doesn't need to see everything my way. The liberals are fond of b*tching about how the "right wing" crams their views down everyone's throats, but in truth I see them push ideology more often.

I did use my friend's liberal politics to my advantage last election. He had a Nader sticker on his car and was telling everyone to vote Green. I told him I thought it was a great idea. :)

[Klein-Bottle]

We all were naive enough not to dream of 9-11 and for not taking the "evil of axis" seriously.

Not true. We had many warnings, the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, the two American embassies in Africa, and others. Clinton chose to ignore them, treating the terrorists as criminals and not as members of a terrorist army. In other words, he was looking for specific individuals who performed the crimes, rather than attacking the organization. This is equivalent to America declaring war only on the Japanese Navy, not the Army because they did not participate in Pearl Harbor.

Most important, Clinton gave respectability to the PLO and created the PA. When their school system taught hatred and suicide bombing, he did nothing, but once again ignored the inconvenient truth. Arming the PA probably did not help either.

Good luck with your friend.

[quidnunc]

Michael Medved, himself an observant Jew, has stated that many U.S. Jews have abandoned the traditional Jewish religion in favor of the worship of secular liberalism.

In other words your friend's husband is quite possibly impervious to reason because there is no reasoning when it comes to matters of faith.

See Jackie Mason's take on reflexive Jewish liberalism here.

[Cultural Jihad]

I have heard that the Arab world upset about 41 wanted to take out there hatred on 43.

World Trade Center, February 26, 1993

Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, June 26, 1996

U.S. Embassy, Kenya, August 7, 1998

The U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000

[steplock]

Jewish votes for Dems Anti-Semitic?

There was an innocent time when Democrats and Republicans vied for Jewish votes. The Democrats always won the contest, and the more mean-spirited among Republicans used to be vexed - as was, reputedly, James Baker, in the era of Bush I, who was reported as wondering why his administration should do anything for Israel when "they won't vote for us anyway."

That time is long past. Nowadays, we have a President who does the right thing as he sees it - and he has a clearer and more disinterested vision of the rights and wrongs in the Middle East than any President since Truman.

On the other hand, the Democrats take the Jewish vote for granted -- while to the standard of the Democratic Party flock a new generation of people who are not only indifferent to the Jewish support for their party -- but they are, nearly openly, anti-Semitic in their posture towards Israel.

In this situation, Jews who vote for Democratic candidates are merely speeding the process whereby the Democratic Party becomes the natural home for anti-Semitic sentiment.

Jewish votes for Dems Anti-Semitic?

[Navy Patriot]

I said, "Then why is he President of the United States and you sell shoes?

You've got to be kidding, right? This guy is the liberal "Al Bundy"? ROTFL Don't waste your time on him, instead, spend the time here on FR laughing with us at these liberal clowns.

[optimistically_conservative]

Ask your friend if he remembers criticism of Clinton/Albright for a 1994 Agreed Framework that he did not enforce when North Korea denied IAEA requests to trace missing Uranium. Ask your friend if he remembers DoE secrets being given to the Chinese in return for campaign contributions. Ask your friend if he remembers Clinton let Bin Laden go when Sudan offered him, and the criticism of using a $2 million dollar missile during Monicagate to blow up a $10 dollar empty tent. Ask him if he remembers criticism of Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo and whether that embolden Islamic terrorists. Ask him whether he thinks the terrrorists required more than a year to train their pilots and plan the 9/11 attack, under Clinton's watch. But, then, ask him if he would rather have Al Gore as President now?

"During the prime of corruption, Clinton was in bed with Enron. According the Washington Times, the Clinton administration provided more than $1 billion in subsidized loans to Enron Corp. Clinton officials financed 19 of 20 Enron projects, some of which were worth $3 billion, throughout the '90s, which supposedly built "power plants, natural-gas pipelines and other big-ticket energy facilities around the world." In addition, Enron contributed nearly $2 million to Democratic causes!"

The Times story continues, revealing that Bill Clinton granted $200 million worth of insurance against political risks for Enron. All this happened under the Clinton administration. In addition, CEO Ken Lay was one of many to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, and he also accompanied Clinton on trade trips to India.

Clinton's Enron corruption: Clinton Administration Aware of Enron Corruption

Networks Emulate Clinton's Memory Loss

Powell Blasts Gore on Bin Ladengate Scandal

NewsMax.com 06/30/02 Carl Limbacher

Responding to former Vice President Al Gore's criticism on Saturday of the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, Secretary of State Colin Powell blasted the Clinton-Gore administration for not accepting a deal for Osama bin Laden's extradition from Sudan negotiated by Pakistani-American businessman Mansour Ijaz in the late 1990's.

"Perhaps that's what Vice President Gore should have been talking about - what happened on their watch as opposed to the progress we've made on our watch," Powell told "Fox News Sunday," after being asked about Ijaz's claims.

In a Sunday Washington Post op-ed piece, Ijaz and former U.S. ambassador to Sudan Tim Carney detailed the Clinton administration's mishandling of both Sudan's bin Laden offer and overall U.S. relations with the country. In another reference to the Ijaz-Carney piece, Powell said the Bush administration had made progress, "not only in Afghanistan but, I would also submit, in Sudan."

"We've recently sent a presidential emissary to Sudan," Powell told "Fox News Sunday." "Sen. Jack Danforth, he's had very successful trips there. We now have a policy with respect to Sudan that will start to move them in the direction of cooperating with us in the campaign against terrorism."

Powell cited the Clinton-Gore bin Ladengate scandal after the former vice president slammed the Bush administration for failing to capture the 9-11 terrorist mastermind.

On Saturday Gore told a crowd of Democratic Party faithful, "They haven't gotten Osama bin Laden or the al Qaeda operation and they have refused to allow enough troops from the international community to be put into Afghanistan to keep it from sliding back under control of the warlords."

Before making reference Mr. Ijaz's allegations, Powell called Gore's remarks "patent nonsense" adding, "I notice the previous administration didn't even make a serious try (to get bin Laden)."

With his comments on Sunday, the Secretary of State becomes the highest ranking Bush administration official to endorse Mr. Ijaz's claims, which have been all but ignored by the mainstream news media except for the occasional op-ed column authored by the Pakistani-American businessman himself.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ijaz has come under fierce attack from the Clinton administration and their supporters in the press.

In a May radio interview, for instance, Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri called Ijaz "a liar" and "a crackpot."

Clinton friendly media reporters like the New York Times' Judith Miller and NBC newswoman Andrea Mitchell have explained their own decisions not to cover Ijaz's claims by saying he lacks credibility. Miller said she established Ijaz's lack of credibility by contacting former Clinton administration sources.

In May, Ijaz told radio host Sean Hannity that he, Mr. Carney and the chief of Sudanese intelligence would be willing to give sworn testimony on bin Ladengate but had not yet been called by Congress.

Earlier this month, Ijaz told radio host Don Imus that former Clinton administration officials had mounted a campaign to block his testimony.

But with Powell's tacit endorsement, the bin Ladengate accuser's story it may be more difficult for congressional investigators and the press to ignore.

In their Sunday Washington Post op-ed piece, Ijaz and Carney added new details to their account of the Clinton administration's bin Ladengate intelligence failure:

"After offering to hand bin Laden over to U.S. authorities, Sudan expelled him..... Sudan gave U.S. authorities permission to photograph two terror camps. Washington failed to follow up. In August, (Sudan) sent an 'olive branch' letter to President Clinton through Ijaz. There was no reply.

"By election day 1996, top Clinton aides, including (National Security Advisor Sandy) Berger, knew what information was available from Khartoum and of its potential value to identify, monitor and ultimately dismantle terrorist cells around the world. Yet they did nothing about it."

[Alamo-Girl]

There is no way your friend would be willing to receive the information that we have here on Free Republic. But maybe you can mention that the Pakistan and Indian nuclear tests were a surprise, as was the launch of a three stage rocket by North Korea.

These are a few indications of how badly crippled our intelligence became during the Clinton years (note the dates published):

The Electronic Telegraph UK 9/24/98 "In an interview with The Telegraph , Mr Woolsey [former CIA director] gave a caustic assessment of the President he served until his abrupt resignation in January 1995 . Dismissing Bill Clinton as a "tactician" , he said the foreign policy of the administration was driven by opinion polls , short -term PR calculations and the spin-cycle rythmn of an election campaign... During his two years as Director of Central Intelligence , Mr Woolsey managed to secure only two conversations with Mr Clinton. "It wasn't that I had a bad relationship with him . I just didn't have any relationship ," said Mr Woolsey. He believes the damage to the American national interest has been substantial , though largely hidden from view. Mr Woolsey compared the global scene to the late 1920's when inchoate foreign threats were ignored , played down, and ultimately allowed to escalate.."

Center for Security Policy 11/23/98 Decision Brief "…At CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., the message seemed clear: The vice president did not want to hear allegations that Chernomyrdin was corrupt and was not interested in further intelligence reports on the matter. As a result, CIA analysts say they are now censoring themselves.".....History will record that the world became a much more dangerous place on Bill Clinton's watch. Worse yet, it will probably show that -- thanks to his unwillingness to see, let alone to take appropriate measures in response to, emerging dangers -- the Nation was woefully ill-prepared to deal with them. ."

Electronic Telegraph 3/8/99 Hugh Davies Julian Nundy “…THE CIA mounted a coup operation against Saddam Hussein in 1995, even setting March 4 as the date. But the plan was ditched at the last minute when the White House withdrew support. Details published in Le Journal du Dimanche in Paris follow disclosures that the CIA infiltrated teams of United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, among them nine officials, who were part of an attack being mounted from Jordan in June, 1996. This went awry after Saddam infiltrated a group of Kurdish dissidents on whom the agency was relying. Dozens were executed.

London Telegraph 10/26/97 Ivo Dawnay “…THE mysterious resignation of a top CIA official has provoked charges that the United States Government is hushing up politically embarrassing disclosures of nuclear skullduggery by China and Russia. By the time China's President Jiang Zemin arrives in Honolulu today for an eight-day state visit, Gordon Oehler will have cleared his desk at the Non-Proliferation Centre at the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Yet just a week ago, Mr Oehler, who was responsible for co-ordinating all American intelligence gathering on nuclear arms sales, was assuring Congressman Curt Weldon, the chairman of the House National Security Committee, that he had no intention of quitting. Less than 24 hours later, he had gone, claiming that he had been driven to resignation by plans to cut the budget and responsibilities of his department and by endless interdepartmental battles over what information should be passed on to the public and Congress. The departure of Mr Oehler, a 25-year career CIA officer, may have little to do with President Jiang's visit directly. But it will certainly be welcomed by military chiefs in Beijing and by China's burgeoning arms export industry….”

AP 10/14/98 John Diamond ".The Energy Department and Pentagon discovered sensitive nuclear weapons information in boxes of Cold War-era materials that were about to be publicly released at President Clinton's orders. The discoveries sparked a hasty scramble by Congress to block the release of information that energy officials warned would advance the capabilities of emerging nuclear states such as Pakistan and India.. White House officials were alerted to the problem this summer in a letter from Kenneth Baker, a senior official in the Energy Department's Office of Nonproliferation and National Security.

Wall Street Journal 3/19/97 Editorial “…Just in the last week, we learned that FBI officials tipped off two NSC underlings last June about Chinese government intentions to influence U.S. politics. Mr. Lake says he was never told because the FBI advised the pair to keep it to themselves. The FBI replies that its agents told the NSC no such thing -- and why would they tell the NSC if not to have the information influence official policy? Stranger still, one of those FBI agents assigned as liaison to the NSC, Edward Appel, is now quitting the White House for undisclosed reasons.

With regard to 911 happening after Clinton left office, it should be noted that Clinton had good cause on various occasions to stop terror and tyranny but either withdrew support, or responded so mildly that it only encouraged it:

93 WTC Bombing
Somalia
Iraq assassination attempt on X41
Kurdish coup to topple Iraq
Usama in Sudan, offer to arrest declined
Rwanda massacre, 800,000 dead - UN withdrew peacekeepers, US urging
Embassy Bombings
Iraq kicking out weapons inspectors
U.S.S. Cole