Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mia T
This is a wonderful thread Mia.

Quoting you:

Albright explained that 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.

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 terrorism's global danger

Ya know, knowing the first part of this quote was advice from Albright ( Ms. Allwrong!) was geared to making Herr Klinton look like the great peacemaker (at any price, of course, including the demise of our national security which opened the door for 9-11)...well...it just goes to show ya that CHARACTER IS EVERYTHING! This pastey rapist demonstrated clearly his lack of character from the git to as president via the assignment of his cabinet and staff.

Klinton could NOT AFFORD to assign a cabinet that was on top of their game, he could NOT AFFORD to have intellects of great experience and wisdom advising him because they would have been confrontational and served to monitor and truly advise him...something an arrogant, ego driven fella like billy has no tolerance for, ever.

He and his 'me first-er wife in name only', brought in the cohens, the allbrights, etc who were total yesmen, easily manipulated (say, easy to trot out before the cameras to state how impossible it would be for klinton to pork a volunteer girl in our oval office). Folks just like the klintons, willing to do whatever it takes to get the win.

Without good character....one cannot afford to associate with those who are acquainted with good character.

klinton chose the easiest personal route every single time...risk taking was not in his sight...popularity polls and orgasmic delights left no room for genuine leadership.

Any man who frets about his legacy, openly, has major psychological problems.

No major travesty would have caused this girlish metro-sexual to meet greatness; his tremendous lack of character, caused by a deep and abiding self-centeredness which caused him to make every decision upon how each would impact his 'likeableness' or grant him personal gain can be seen not only in his speech patterns but in his actions....

Every rapist is a power abuser.

And every rapist holds others in total and complete contempt.

43 posted on 12/29/2005 7:03:39 AM PST by Republic (I have AMAZING confidence in and TRUST in our PRESIDENT! I LOVE HIM and his ENTIRE TEAM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Republic
Thanx, Republic. Excellent points. The clintons pick only weak, naive and/or corrupt people. Cohen, I seem to recall, had some questionable dealings with Red China.

Lopez: What exactly was U.S. reaction to the attack on the USS Cole?

 

Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and World War I when our ships were attacked.

Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had ordered his staff to review existing intelligence in relation to the bombing of the USS Cole. After that review, he and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, were convinced it was the work of Osama bin Laden. The Pentagon had on-the-shelf, regularly updated and detailed strike plans for bin Laden's training camps and strongholds in Afghanistan.

At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni security services.

If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny day.

Clinton's Loss?
How the previous administration fumbled on bin Laden.
A Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez
NRO
September 11, 2003, 11:45 a.m.


47 posted on 12/30/2005 5:56:33 AM PST by Mia T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson