WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?

C-SPAN, The New York Times, Judicial Watch, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Miniter, Carl Limbacher, L. King | 8.19.05 | Mia T

[Mia T]

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?

by Mia T, 8.18.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio

hy 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?

To understand why clinton failed so utterly to protect America from bin Laden, we begin by examining what clinton, himself, has said on the matter:

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.

We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].

At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

bill clinton
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

We note first that this is classic clinton snake-oil, exploiting liberal credulousness and the gestalt concepts of structural economy and closure (the tendency to perceive incomplete forms as complete), sleight of hand that enabled clinton to tell the story of his utter failure to fight terrorism, his failure to take bin Laden from Sudan, his repeated failures to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda, without explicitly admitting it.

"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again; [so] they released him [to America]."

Note that the linkage between the above two sentences and the indirect object of the second sentence are each implied, giving clinton plausible deniability.

"[H]e had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This position is surprising because:

1. clinton has never been one to let the rule of law get in his way.
   

2. We now know the State Department warned clinton in July 1996 that bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven, that bin Laden sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," that bin Laden in Afghanistan "could prove more dangerous to US interests... almost worldwide."
   

3. Bin Laden had repeatedly declared war on America, committed acts of war against America.

Clearly, the impeached ex-president treated terrorism not as war but as a law enforcement problem, which, by definition is defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late.

He appears not to understand that when terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight the terrorists… or do you surrender?

Critical to the understanding of the clintons' (and the left's) inability to protect America from terrorism is the analysis of clinton's final phrase, "though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

"I did not bring him [Osama bin Laden] here... though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

This phrase is clinton's explicit rejection of both bin Laden's repeated declarations/acts of war and the (Bush) doctrine of preemption to fight terror.

This phrase underscores clinton's failure to understand that:

• a terrorist war requires only one consenting player
  

• defining bin Laden's acts of war as "crimes'' is a dangerous, anachronistic, postmodern conceit (It doesn't depend on what the meaning of the word "war" is) and amounts to surrender
  

• preemption serves a necessary, critically protective, as well as offensive function in any war on terror.
  

The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda.

 

ASIDE: It is beyond farce, therefore, for Richard Clarke to exalt clinton, even as he attempts to take down Bush, who, unlike clinton, does have the vision, courage and tenacity to fight terrorism, even in the face of seditious undermining by Clarke, the power-hungry clintons and the rest of the leftist lackey accomplices.

 

 

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato."

Finally, this last paragraph documents the clinton propensity for passing the tough problems (and the buck) to others (while arrogating their solutions as his own). It would have been a simple matter for him to take bin Laden. Why did he turn the offer down?

The answer to this question is the answer to the overarching question.

Why did clinton ignore terrorism?

Richard Miniter's account of clinton's utter failure to combat terrorism provides a clue. (C-SPAN interview and LOSING BIN LADEN: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror)

The answer was inadvertently if somewhat obliquely provided by Madeleine Albright at the cabinet meeting that would decide the disposition of the USS Cole bombing by al Qaeda [that is to say, that would decide to do what it had always done when a "bimbo" was not spilling the beans on the clintons: Nothing]. Only Clarke wanted to retaliate militarily for this unambiguous act of war.

According to Albright, a [sham] Mideast accord would yield [if not peace for the principals, surely] a Nobel Peace Prize for clinton. Kill or capture bin Laden and clinton could kiss the accord and the Peace Prize good-bye.

WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.

Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated
Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby

 

 

 

There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.

AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL

 

 

 

At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.

Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

 

Pathologic self-interest (Nobel Gas)

If clinton liberalism, smallness, cowardice, corruption, perfidy--and, to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, clinton cluelessness--played a part, it was, in the end, the Nobel Peace Prize that produced the puerile pertinacity that enabled the clintons to shrug off the global danger.

The clintons made their decision not to go after the terrorists for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that the inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger

ASIDE: There was an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the clintons' mass proliferation of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology.

For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.

William J. Broad
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes,
The New York Times, May 30, 1999

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.

But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.

The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

Mia T, 2.11.04
BUSH, THE CLINTONS + WMD PROLIFERATION:
The REAL "Imminent Threat"

HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman

 

 

"PAPER TIGER"

Feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving.

It is the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.

And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance. (This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)

"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'

I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him.

bill clinton
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live

INTERVIEW Osama bin Laden (may 1998)   In the first part of this interview which occurred in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions.   Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.   After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....   The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people? I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....

BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

Reverse Gorelick

by Mia T, 4.15.04
QUINN IN THE MORNING (ESSAY DISCUSSED)
(MP3, REAL, WINDOWS MEDIA, WINAMP)

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.

 

 

 

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:

• Gorelick's failure to disclose the fact that she authored the memo that was the efficient cause of 911
  

• Gorelick's surreal presence on the 911 commission investigating Gorelick's Justice Department, a maneuver that effectively removes from the universe of witnesses a central witness, Gorelick, even as it uniquely positions a central player, Gorelick, to directly shape the commission's conclusions. (Is there any question which two people are responsible for Gorelick's insertion on the commission?)

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.

Filegate and the clinton Putsch,
committed in tandem,
the product of a careful criminal calculus,
at once empowered clinton
and disemboweled his opponents.
clinton was now free to betray with abandon
not only our trust,
but the Constitution as well.

The Common Man
Mia T
February, 1998

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.

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)

ALSO:

• Is the 9/11 commission calling bill clinton's statement '"unreliable," or did it choose willful ignorance this time, too?
  
  

• Listen to this and ask yourself if America Ever Had the Remotest Chance Under a clinton to Avoid 9/11
  (To paraphrase Einstein: "The unleashed power of terrorism has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes.")
  
  

• "While the Republicans are (place some nasty verb here), a clinton is working hard for the people"
  

  "Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era."

  Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
  U.S. News & World Report (Washington Whispers) |
  March 11, 2003 | Paul Bedard
  

   

  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...

   

  

  Mia T
  "ONE OF THOSE GROUPS OBSESSED WITH THE CLINTONS"
  

• HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
  the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall
  
  

• The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick
  
  

• CLINTON TREASON + THE GORELICK WALL
  
  

• Reverse Gorelick
  
  

• The Mary Jo White Memo:
  Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance
  
  

  

• THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES
  
  • THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₄
    
    

  • THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₃
    
    

  • THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₂
    
    

  • THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₁
    
    

  • dox in sox (on lummox in box on fox)?
    

NANO-PRESIDENT
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 AMERICA
FOR THE WORLD

Ian Hunter recently observed that our leaders are shrinking. "From a Churchill (or, for that matter, a Margaret Thatcher) to a [pre-9/11] Tony Blair; from Eisenhower to Clinton; from Diefenbaker to Joe Clark; from Trudeau to Chretien -- we seem destined to be governed by pygmies."

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
Mia T, November 1999

ur leaders are inexorably shrinking.  According to current mathematical models, they are shrinking at a rate of 6.7 per linear dimension per election cycle per terrorist attack.  At this rate, most leaders will be nanoleaders by the 2020s.

The leader-shrinkage function is discontinuous for
1992 =< t <= 2000 and continuous for all other t.

The 1990s saw in America a sudden, discontinuous drop in leader size, a drop that retrospectively, post-9/11, has been theorized to be its greatest lower bound.
(Can anything be lower than a clinton?)

"Two for the price of one," the clinton pitch in '92 -- (Did the clintons understand at the time that one was not enough?) -- only made matters worse. Missus clinton in the West Wing actually added to this discontinuous decrease in leader size.

History will record, therefore, that the clintons--the twofer, (1992-2000), were America's first nano-president.

The clintons continue to imperil virtually every sector of society, indeed, continue to imperil America and the world, with their exponentially increasing facility in manipulating electoral/policy matter and energy at ever smaller scales. Their "school uniforms" of the '90s became "nanotech uniforms" today; both are proxies for "fight terrorism," which the clintons have neither the stomach nor the know-how to do.

The twofer construct, transposed to circumvent the 22nd Amendment, is now poised to retake power. A self-replicating, Constitution-specific pathogen, the clinton nano-presidency, post-9/11, is a danger that we cannot -- we must not -- abide.

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

[Mia T]

it was a VIRTUAL obsession. Apt.

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

Mia T, 01.11.99
THE OTHER NIXON

[presently no screen name]

No, not yet, Gracey, any suggestions?

[presently no screen name]

Mia, your talents amaze me!

[HarleyLady27]

As I sit here and read, and think and see what other people have to say, it comes to me that before the clinton, clinton, gore regime, democrats where democrats, republicans were republicans and the two could talk about this and that, they had their beliefs, but the two could talk to each other, I don't think I ever remember the hate that is being shown now, and when clinton,clinton, gore took over America, something happened, morals when down in the gutter, if the Pres could lie, why can't I sydrome, if I don't get caught doing something wrong, then I'll keep on doing it, "Only because I can"...

Then the pc crowd took over. There is hardly anything you can say anymore that doesn't hurt people feelings, the democrats started showing the hatred for the republicans and the same with the republicans, they would do things to show how stupid the rats are, etc.

And now we are faced with another clinton, clinton and gawd knows who and I have to ask myself, do we really want another clinton in office, and I'm sorry folks, but NO I DON"T...

We have no morals, to speak of, prayer has been taken out of our schools, we can't talk about Bush without the rats going ape crap all over the place, and you really can't have a decent conversation with anyone about anything hardly anymore for fear your going to 'offend' someone....

And now you see history being rewritten in our schools. Do our children know what the constitution is and what it means? Do they know about Gettysburg and the 13 states? Just what do they know about our history?

I just think its time we support who ever is going to run against clinton and get them out of office, any office, forever....and that means sire clinton doesn't get to head the U.N. They ruined America, don't let them ruin the world...Vote NO on clinton forever!!!

[presently no screen name]

Excellent post!

grow your own DOPE, plant a lib! lol! bumper sticker material.

[Mia T]

ditto, bump

 

The book begins with a puzzle: How did the flower children fall for such a self-evident thug and opportunist? And it offers a possible hypothetical answer, which is that ''the Night Creature'' -- Nixon -- and his heirs and assigns could not ever possibly be allowed to be right about anything.

When Eszterhas writes about Nixon, and his admirers like Lucianne Goldberg, he hits an overdrive button and summons the bat cave of purest evil. He hasn't read as much recent history as he thinks he has, or he would know that his forebears were mesmerized in precisely the same way to believe that Alger Hiss was framed.

Thus does Nixon inherit an undeserved and posthumous victory. If by chance we ever elect a bent and unscrupulous Republican president, he or she will have a whole new thesaurus of excuses, public and ''private,'' with which to fend off impeachment. These ''bipartisan'' excuses will have been partly furnished by the ''nonjudgmental'' love generation. If Eszterhas had had the guts to face this fact, he could have written a book more like ''F.I.S.T.'' instead of ''Sliver.''

Meanwhile, and almost but not quite unbelievably, we await the president's comment on Juanita Broaddrick's allegation.

Christopher Hitchens
Basic Instinct
Hitchens on "American Rhapsody"
The New York Times, July 30, 2000
HITCHENS ON THE CLINTONS

How did the flower children fall for the clintons, 2 such self-evident thugs and opportunists?
(FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!)
Mia T et al., 7.11.05

[justa-hairyape]

Bingo. You make may case for me. Who won the last election while the left was bashing Bush? Why stoop to a loosing strategy. Nobody like whingers. So lets quit whinging.

In case you forgot, it was our whining about Clinton that brought about one of the greatest 'sea changes' in US political history. That change occurred in the US House of Representatives. I can distinctly remember even Rush Limbaugh himself stating in the very early 90's that Republicans will never control the US House. Then 1994 occurred, of course followed by another sea changer, the OKC bombing. Personally I prefer to whine rather then to bomb to win a political debate. Less people get physically hurt that way.

[Casloy]

He ignored it because he is a coward. He wanted a nice touchy feely presidency where everyone would be happy and love him. Taking care of the dirty jobs was not in his makeup. Easier to ignore a problem than to deal with it. Thank God we have a president who doesn't give two cents about the polls and will do what has to be done, regardless of the consequences to his popularity or presidency.

[carton253]

He ignored terrorism for many reasons, but I think the fundamental reason was it was (for him) far more politically expedient to change the rules of terror... up until the 93 WTC bombing, the US classified terror as being state sponsored. We fully understood that terror did not happen in a vacuum. It needed to be supported, funded, aided, and abetted by states. After WTC, because he was afraid to confront those states, he chose to make it a crime. Now, we were reduced to finding perperatrators and filing lawsuits. This allowed Clinton to appear to be interested in stopping the terror while making it possible not to confront the regimes responsible.

Instead, our foreign policy bent over backwards to prove to the Muslim world that they had our support. Some would say that Clinton did it to keep oil prices down and the economy rolling... but, personally, he was a coward.

He did not have the backbone or the stomach to do his duty...because duty meant very little to him. It still doesn't.

[carton253]

You really need to stop getting your information from Michael Moore... it's corrodes the ability to critically think.

[Mia T]

 

I agree.

Cowardice... corruption... a rube arrogance rooted in stupidity... (ironically), his noxious legacy (ironically because clinton's failure to tackle terrorism has secured his place in history's dustbin)... as well as a psychopathic disregard for anything not HIM, account for clinton glomming onto the postmodern ("It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" ) stuff.

Listen to this and ask yourself if America ever had the remotest chance under a clinton to avoid 9/11.
(To paraphrase Einstein: "The unleashed power of terrorism has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes.")

Also check out links 4 and 5, below.

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

 

 

Before the '90s, transnational terrorism was primarily motivated by nationalism, separatism, Marxist ideology, and nihilism. Those terrorists had an interest in LIMITING casualties because maintaining a constituency was central.

By the 90s, however, transnational terrorism had mutated and was motivated by religious-based fundamentalist groups that viewed violence against all nonbelievers including women and children as a sacramental duty.

(ASIDE: So why, pray (sorry) tell, do we give the captured al Qaeda terrorists their working manual... not to mention Mecca's coordinates? I mean, we really must get rid of all this leftist pc crap post haste and start fighting the war for real.)

These terrorists have an interest in MAXIMIZING casualties.The '93 WTC bombing provided clinton with the paradigm, but he failed to see it. He even failed to see the site of the bombing. Talk about denial.

If clinton's failure to viewing tower's gaping hole allowed him to ignore the act, clinton's facile deconstruction of the word allowed him to ignore the act's significance.

clinton failed to understand that when terrorists declare war on you…and then proceed to kill you… you are, perforce, at war. At that point, you really have only one decision to make: Do you fight… or do you surrender? By treating terrorism not as war but as a law enforcement problem, by definition defensive, after-the-fact and fatally-too-late, clinton surrendered.

 

 

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

[Mia T]

TYPO--should read:
If clinton's failure to view tower's gaping hole allowed him to ignore the act, clinton's facile deconstruction of the word allowed him to ignore the act's significance.

[jla]

T...I've a friend, 'D.A.', and D.A. asks, "if all this about Bill Clinton is true then how come people like the Rev. Billy Graham, George and Barbara Bush don't appear to be concerned with it? Mrs. Bush has even supposedly referred to Clinton as "son". And wouldn't an ex-CIA chief and former President know if Clinton was really this bad of a person?

[amosmoses]

I dont care for Michael Moore. But those things have never been denied. Thye point is- neither president did everything he could. Do you deny that Bush Sr. was soft on Saudi Arabia while they were harvesting those monsters?

[JustDoItAlways]

Does anyone have the list of names of people who's FBI files Hillary got a hold of?

Second question, how did she get these files?

[Just mythoughts]

"Why were his relatives allowed to flee the country before being interrogated?"


Didn't Richard Clarke of y2k infamy make their reservations???

[amosmoses]

all good questions

[Mia T]

I see you're playing devil's advocate (D.A.) again, jla. ;)

You raise a very troubling question:
Why DID Bush 41 forget what he said in '92?

 

THE CLINTONS--AMERICA'S BIGGEST BLUNDER
Hear Bush 41 Warn Us--October 19, 1992*

 

 

 

 

*Thanx to Cloud William for text and audio

 

 

LEHRER: President Bush, your closing statement, sir.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Three weeks from now--two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls and you're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country ...

On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world...And if a crisis comes up, ask who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision?

And, lastly, the other night on character Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the president but the character of the presidency. I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said the only thing that endures is character. And I think it was Justice Black who talked about great nations, like great men, must keep their word.

And so the question is, who will safeguard this nation, who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support, I ask for your support. And may God bless the United States of America.

(Applause)

 

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!

 

hillary talks:ON TERROR

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

   

 

 

[Mia T]

HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall

[libsl]

I think this discussion about Clinton's ineffectual actions against terrorism will be going on for the rest of our lives--in the same way Hoover's actions are still analyzed in regards to the depression.

In the long run I think the bigger story will be the cover up. I don't think Clinton and his flunkies did anything at the time they thought would endanger the country, but I think now they are more interested in covering their own rear ends than in finding problems in our security and in our reaction to terrorism. Whatever Sandy Berger crammed down his pants and socks and then destroyed could have been a key element in figuring out what we can do better in the future, but their main goal is to hide their own mismanagement rather than correcting national security problems.