Skip to comments.WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Posted on 08/19/2005 2:28:12 AM PDT by Mia T
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
by Mia T, 8.18.05
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:
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.
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.
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 THE WORLD
ping and thanx :)
ping + thanx :)
Clinton was obsessed alright ........ with his bent part.
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.
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.
Sadly, you are right.
I'm very impressed at very early in the morning!
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.
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.
thank you. :)
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.
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.
Would you agree, there are a lot of actual facts to back up Clinton being weak on terrorism versus the "Bush Knew" stuff?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.