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]

should be 'its'
its EFEECT on the legitimacy of the clintons.

[Mia T]

its EFFECT on the legitimacy of the clintons ;)

[KenmcG414]

Bill couldn't care less about Osama, he was more concerned about what to do with his cigars while getting bj's in the oval office.

[jla]

Surely the Bush family understands the effect of what it is doing here.... and THAT is very troubling.

Without appearing to pontificate, I'd give you the Christian example of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Did His befriending of her legitimize prostitution?

Don't worry so much about the Bush/Clinton buddyship. I'd worry more about the GOP '08 nominee not being a true conservative. If so, they might as well give Missus C. the keys to the White House right now.

[Mia T]

The democrats already are ineffective.
They have to be made scarce,
which they are well on their way of accomplishing
all by themselves. ;)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 5.15.04

eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.

They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."

(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)

The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

also:

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

[T]oday's endless ovation for World War II vets doesn't change the fact that this nation has behaved boorishly, with colossal disrespect. If we cared about that war, the men who won it and the ideas it suggests, we would teach our children (at least) four topics:

• The major battles of the war....

• The bestiality of the Japanese. The Japanese army saw captive soldiers as cowards, lower than lice. If we forget this we dishonor the thousands who were tortured and murdered, and put ourselves in danger of believing the soul-corroding lie that all cultures are equally bad or good. Some Americans nowadays seem to think America's behavior during the war was worse than Japan's--we did intern many loyal Americans of Japanese descent. That was unforgivable--and unspeakably trivial compared to Japan's unique achievement, mass murder one atrocity at a time.

In "The Other Nuremberg," Arnold Brackman cites (for instance) "the case of Lucas Doctolero, crucified, nails driven through hands, feet and skull"; "the case of a blind woman who was dragged from her home November 17, 1943, stripped naked, and hanged"; "five Filipinos thrown into a latrine and buried alive." In the Japanese-occupied Philippines alone, at least 131,028 civilians and Allied prisoners of war were murdered. The Japanese committed crimes against Allied POWs and Asians that would be hard still, today, for a respectable newspaper even to describe. Mr. Brackman's 1987 book must be read by everyone who cares about World War II and its veterans, or the human race.

• The attitude of American intellectuals. Before Pearl Harbor but long after the character of Hitlerism was clear--after the Nuremberg laws, the Kristallnacht pogrom, the establishment of Dachau and the Gestapo--American intellectuals tended to be dead set? against the U.S. joining Britain's war on Hitler.

Today's students learn (sometimes) about right-wing isolationists like Charles Lindbergh and the America Firsters. They are less likely to read documents like this, which appeared in Partisan Review (the U.S. intelligentsia's No. 1 favorite mag) in fall 1939, signed by John Dewey, William Carlos Williams, Meyer Schapiro and many more of the era's leading lights. "The last war showed only too clearly that we can have no faith in imperialist crusades to bring freedom to any people. Our entry into the war, under the slogan of 'Stop Hitler!' would actually result in the immediate introduction of totalitarianism over here. . . . The American masses can best help [the German people] by fighting at home to keep their own liberties." The intelligentsia acted on its convictions. "By one means or another," Diana Trilling later wrote of this period, "most of the intellectuals of our acquaintance evaded the draft."

Why rake up these Profiles in Disgrace? Because in the Iraq War era they have a painfully familiar ring.

DAVID GELERNTER
Too Much, Too Late
Baby boomers heap insincere praise on the "greatest generation."
The Wall Street Journal
Friday, June 4, 2004 12:01 a.m.

The time has come to address the real root cause of suicide bombing: incitement by certain religious and political leaders.

In Love With Death
(Dershowitz Explicitly Nails Islamofascism As "A Culture of Death")
The Guardian (UK)| 6/4/04 | Alan Dershowitz

The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
Mia T, 5.15.04

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)?

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

[Mia T]

 

Without appearing to pontificate, I'd give you the Christian example of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Did His befriending of her legitimize prostitution?

The question isn't whether the friendship legitimized prostitution. It's whether the friendship legitimized Mary Magdalene.

Don't worry so much about the Bush/Clinton buddyship. I'd worry more about the GOP '08 nominee not being a true conservative. If so, they might as well give Missus C. the keys to the White House right now.

I have confidence that conservatives, in general, and the Christian Right, in particular, will do the right thing and not de facto vote for missus clinton.

The Christian Right--all of us--must focus our energies on winning the war on terror so that all of our children, the born and the unborn alike, will live....

In order to do that, we must, for reasons this thread documents and more, roundly defeat hillary clinton... or any other dangerously inept Democrat that moribund party decides to put forth.

for discussion, see:
ROE, MEDICAL SCIENCE, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, ROSS PEROT + HILLARY CLINTON

[jla]

I have confidence that conservatives, in general, and the Christian Right, in particular, will do the right thing and not de facto vote for missus clinton

Well Mia, I'm sorry to say that I don't share your confidence. Although a win-win solution is more than possible if the GOP nominee in '08 is a true conservative. If not, then the GOP can thank nobody but themselves for pulling out the chair behind the oval office desk for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[nightdriver]

"WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?"

Knowing his mindset after hearing him bloviate for the last 15 years, I have the theory that he had neither the intellectual nor the organizational capability to deal with it.

[NY Attitude]

Prior to the arrival of the Ayatollah Khomeini, those weapons were just about handed out on street corners of Iran to anyone that wanted them.

[Mia T]

Did you ever see the 1994 Edith Efron piece on clinton's cognitive problems?

 

 

With all the media genuflecting before the press-conference podium of bill clinton, it bears remarking yet again that the clinton intellect (an oxymoron even more jarring than AlGoreRhythm and meant to encompass the cognitive ability of both clintons) is remarkable only for its utter ordinariness, its lack of creative spark, its lack of analytic precision, its lack of depth.

The clintons' fundamental error: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.

Politicos and reporters are not rocket scientists . . .

Professions tend to be self-selected, intellectually homogeneous subgroups of Homo sapiens. Great intellects (especially these days) do not generally gravitate towards careers in the media or politics. Mediocre, power-obsessed types with poor self-images do.

Thus, clinton mediocrity goes undetected primarily because of media mediocrity. ("Mediocrity" and "media" don't come from the same Latin root (medius) for no reason.) Insofar as the clintons are concerned, the media confuse form with substance, smoothness with coherence, data-spewing with ratiocination, pre-programmed recitation with real-time analysis, an idiosyncratic degeneracy with creativity....

Listen carefully to the clintons. You will hear a shallow parody of the class president. Not only do they say nothing; they say nothing with superfluous ineloquence. Their speeches are sophomoric, shopworn, shallow, specious. Platitudinous pandering piled atop p.c. cliché

In seven years, they have, collectively, uttered not one memorable word save, "It was a vast right-wing conspiracy," "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,"and, "It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Even the clintons' attempts at alliteration fall flat. Compare Agnew's (Safire's) "nattering nabobs of negativism" with clinton's "preachers of pessimism," an impotent, one-dimensional, plagiaristic echo (its apt self-descriptiveness notwithstanding).

Before they destroy their backs along with their reputations, media gentry genuflecting at the altar of the clinton brain should consider Edith Efron's, Can the President Think?

A wasted brain is a terrible thing.

Mindless rhinestone-studded-and-tented kleptocracy
HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue
Mia T

 

 

[Mia T]

bump

[jla]

bump

[Mia T]

bump

[NCC-1701]

Why did Blowjob clinochio ignore the terrorist threat?

Simple. He just didn't give a s*&t. All he was interested in was the power of the office of the POTUS. That and getting bjs by Monica. Beyond that, he simply didn't care.

[Mia T]

thx. bump

[Mia T]

Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden

Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001

Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president's own top aides charges.

Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas," Ijaz writes in today's edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger failed to act.

"I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities," Ijaz writes.

"The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'

"As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster," says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ijaz's revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.

Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton's negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.

And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe --and even Clinton himself.

The Buck Stops Nowhere

Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan's Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them."

"In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere."

That's when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks."

If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.

In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials."

This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.

"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best."

'Purposeful Obfuscation'

Appearing on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" on Wednesday night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist networks" was in Sudan.

Newsman Bill O'Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They didn't respond at all."

The Clintonoids won't get away with denials, he said. "I've got the documentation," including a memorandum to Berger.

"This was purposeful obfuscation," he asserted.

O'Reilly wondered why the White House didn't want information about the terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of crushing him.

Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history."

 

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

[jla]

bump

[Mia T]

sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)

[jla]

bump

[jla]

bump