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

[PigRigger]

"WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?"

Don't think his administration ignored it....believe they were frozen with indecision/fear on how to deal with it....

Basically, the Clinton Administration did not like making hard decisions....they just wanted to baby-sit the country...IMHO

[OldEagle]

That is really great.
We probably agree that bc never did anything that didn't help him. Was he paid to ignore Bin Laden or was he leaving it as a GWB issue so HRC could get elected? Or was it something else altogether?

[malia]

"Bill Clinton claimed to be obsessed with UBL.--"

Below is what Bill Cohen says about that.......

Senate Coverage -- (September'06)
Thomas ^ | 9/5/06

Posted on 09/05/2006 9:49:31 AM PDT by Mo1

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1695809/posts?page=385#385

I had to turn off Levin or I would have broken my TV and computer..

BUT, I have a SCOOP...I turned off Levin and turned on the Bill O'Reilly radio talk show.

His guest was William Cohen, Clinton's Sec. of Def....and they were discussing the war on terror, blah blah.

Bill asked him about the various times the Clinton had the opportunity to catch or kill OBL...and Cohen said this, "well, you have to understand that at the time that OBL was blowing up embassies, WE WERE TOO DISTRACTED BY SADDAM HUSSEIN..and what he was doing in Iraq, with possible WMD'S"!!!


IOW..like Bill said, SADDAM WAS a part of the war on TERROR even in 1990s ..Cohen said in 1998, they were focusing totally on Saddam and the weapons inspectors...

There is NO WAY a dem can say that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 in that way...because if the USA hadn't been so concerned about SADDAM, there would have been more attention paid to OBL...and he MIGHT have been caught.



385 posted on 09/08/2006 9:46:11 AM PDT by Txsleuth

[malia]

typo in #243 meant to say Mia

[Mia T]

interesting.
turning the clintonistas' spin on its 'clueless' head bump.

[Mia T]

IMO it was the intersection of cowardice, the polls and the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Mia T]

fyi

[Mia T]

the primary reason... Hillary is defeated

'hillary is defeated in the primary' would be my preference. ;)

[OldEagle]

Thank you for your reply. You are probably correct.

[Gail Wynand]

Prior to 9/11 any idiot presumably could have gone to a large public place, a subway, a mall, a convention center, and with some sort of homemade device, killed a few thousand people. Indeed, an idiot, Mr. McVay appears to have done close to that in Oklahoma in 1998 (although there are inadequately investigated indications a middle eastern involvment may have existed). One of the things that makes 9/11 significant is the manner in which the assault was undertaken and the damage done to the non-human targets. The symbolism of America's engineering and financial greatness turned to wreakage in minutes by the perverse science fiction like simultaneous takeover of multiple passenger aircraft, was an assault not only on Americans but also on the American psyche.

It is reported that airline company employees were uncomfortable with middle easterners, paying cash for one way tickets and carrying no baggage on the morning of 9/11. In a normal world, in a Norman Rockwell or Samuel Clemons America that would have been enough to prevent the full catastrophe. Even Barney Fife would have held the suspicious characters for questioning long enough to defeat the plot. But by 2001 America was already living in a world created by the likes of Jamie Gorelick and Hillary Clinton. Quintissential 1960's leftists that the reformed David Horowitz for one has been warning us about for years.

Through their persistent strategy of a "thousand cuts" including by institutionalized "political correctness" backed by lawsuit awards for "discrimination" the 60's leftists had paralized the American spirit more successfully than the most lethal snake toxins. From the Pilot School owner who called the FBI, from the investigators who tried to warn the FBI and Justice Departments, down to the last minute of the last day, as helpless airline employees sensing something was wrong (not to mention the actor who reported strange passenger behavior days before during their dry run)were compelled to stand by and do nothing because of a thousand Gorelick walls these same leftists, in a confused and delusional faith, combined with disdain for humanity, not unlike that of the terrorists themselves, had finally constructed a free passageway for wide scale pathological antisocial acts to go unrestrained resulting in a scale of massive disaster most Americans could never envision being possible.

We should not forget where these policies began. They began when the United Nations was formed and the implicit principal that US policy should be influenced by "world opinion". They began when the US courts decided that police power must be restrained by ambiguous and senseless judicial conceptions of reasonableness. They began when courts refused to deal with criminals who could find procedural errors in police or prosecutorial methods. They began when organized lawlessness and mayhem in American cities were not responded to by public authority and were excused by American intellectuals. They began when student lawlessness was similiarly unopposed and allowed to redefine the requirements of scholarship. They exploded when the left gained the critical mass to enable political defeat in Vietnam and stage a political coup (driving from power a president elected by a massive majority) over trivialities magnified by political power vested in a congressional opposition. (Ms. Clinton of course was an eager and direct participant in the charade).

In a direct line from the Boland Amendment and the Church committee, clear products of the ugly smear of an historically great presidency by those who were envious of his achievements, the Gorelick wall and the thousand impositions on the normal life of Americans, distorting judgment and restraining rational self preservation driven actions, the morning of 9/11 (including the disarming of airline pilots which had been accomplished counter to the accepted practice of post WWII flyers who entered the profession out of combat) presented no obstacles to the sick minded terrorists, until the passengers on flight 93 learned enough to grasp what horror was unfolding around them.

The point is simply that on September 11, 2001, the 1960's leftist politicians, intellectuals, professors, lawyers, judges, and newspeople had succeeded in remaking America into their vision of utopia, sufficient at least to render America defenseless, not because the terrorists were smart, but because the leftists made it easy for them through institutionalized nitpicking over perverse abstractions and demented notions of equality including a deliberately skewed and seriously flawed immigration policies.

The Clintons, poster children of the Left, acceded to power in 1992 through the complicity of a corrupt media and through the historical anomoly of Ross Perot's candidacy. The were never elected by majority of Americans. History will ultimately conclude that in the critical post cold war period (New World Order) this fluke of political fortune cast Americas future into the hands of an incompetent, self absorbed, mentally disturbed, perversely wicked, corrupt (I learned how to trade cattle futures by reading the wall street journal)couple. It is entirely appropriate that these two disdain Marriage. For their partnership is surely not a marriage in any normal sense. Their sadistic bond inexorably linked in their psyches with their views of governance (Gorelick Wall) and their instinctive willingness to employ flagrant vindictiveness to suppress or punish their "enemies", threatens again to distort normal political processes by interferring with a 40 MM dollar production set to be broadcast by one of their long time allies. Clearly, truth is a massive embarrassment to the Clintons and their ongoing ambitions.

One hopes only, that after all we have been through, and with this additional specticle of committed leftists threatening with every lever of power they can command or bluff, to chill free political expression (the lefts sacred McCarthysm) that a majority of Americans will wake up from the stupor of Clinton toxic venoms and recapture the essentially American virtues of self defense, self preservation, and disdain for those who preach inaction in the face of evil, or consensus when every American breath can feel and smell the need for Victory.

President Bushes only significant error in fighting the war against the forces that killed Americans and toppled our national symbols on 9/11 has been his timerity in following his instincts and his tolerance for delays and mitigation of efforts and goals in deference to his political opponents and half hearted allies. Just as the jihadists knew there was more to be done than merely kill Americans, ie they knew they had to target symbols of our greatness to damage America, so too America, must bring down symbols of the power of the jihadists with massive and spectacular defeats of the sources of their power. By way of example I am quite in favor of every mosque and congregation of every wahabist or similiar leaning Imam being obliterated in a simultaneous attack during services throughout any area, territory or country that has evoked militant hostility to the U.S. or its citizens, unless such Imams have specifically and publically condemed terrorist violence. Alternatively, I think the time has come to consider a simultaneous tactical nuclear strike on every suspected Iraninan nuclear site along with a similar attack on their parliment when in session.

The world may well feign hatred if the US takes these kinds of actions. On the other hand Europe will be relieved and the price of oil will tumble. If my suggested methods are too crude, then I invite our government to polish and refine any plan that results in a devastating blow to the jihadists. Nothing wrong with bringing democracy to Iraq and the broader middle east for example, however, it is a mistake to leave the end in doubt, even for a minute.

The American people will never, by a majority, elect a Clinton who opposed Bush, if Bush will bring us Victory. If he cant bring Victory, anyone eventually will be able to be his successor.

[Mia T]

Must-read. Brilliantly incisive.

Two points:

1-Wiping out the enemy isn't optional... and the longer we wait, the greater the risk of defeat, the greater the 'collateral damage.'

2-This is a long war. I think Americans understand it won't be finished by 2008. Bush need not win before the next presidential election. But he does need to fight to win. Limited war makes no sense in asymmetric warfare. Limited war makes no sense when one of the actors is not constrained by MAD.

[Fiddlstix]

Thanks for the Ping

[Mia T]

thanx. :)

Ping again to post 250

[FlyVet]

Unfortunately, Mia, the 'Merican Pipples, traditionally slow to anger, will not Get This, in sufficient numbers, until we take some very severe Hard Hits, that I fear will make 9/11 look like a backyard slap fight. Then,
"Worship the god of Politial Correctness" will turn into "Why Aren't You Pounding Their Guts Out, and Why Have You Waited This Long?!?"

[Wolverine]

bump

[M Kehoe]

Good evening. Such a wonderful night in my little piece of paradise.

Methinks clinton stood up hard, and firm regarding terrorism when Monica Lewinsky was in the room (or under his desk).

5.56mm

[4woodenboats]

bookmark for later reading

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Casio]

Much as dislike democrats (in reality: socialists), I can't particularly blame Clinton for THIS issue. Until 9/11/2001, despite any warnings, despite any dangers, it was difficult to put up a proper "pre-defense". Furthermore, even if bin Laden was captured, killed, otherwise properly treated, I seriously doubt that the current "muslim revival" process would have stopped. The problem, in my opinon, is much greater than any single person's activity. My favorite line regarding this:"if Hitler was run over by a car at age 6 (or a horse, or died of an infectious disease), WW II may have been slightly different, but only slightly."

Same with the muslims. We are witnessing something much bigger than a single person. It is a muslim "revival", sort of, similar to what happened with Christianity in the middle ages. More and more muslims believe that Allah gave them world, and they have the right to take what is "theirs", based on their religion. Bin Laden merely accelerated this process, but if he died at age 6, someone else would be there now, fulfilling a similar role, since he didn't invent the problem. It is not like the muslims (arabs) were America-loving people with all the good intentions until bin Laden appeared on the scene.

We have to take some much firmer steps, than simply capture bin Laden, to counter-act this muslim "revival". Although even I symbolize the muslim problem with bin Laden (:-), see picture below I made a while back.



Gabor

[Ready4Freddy]

Hell, why did Reagan ignore terrorism?

WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?