Posted on 04/19/2006 10:18:53 AM PDT by Mia T
Looking for the bill clinton 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' audio or video
It 10 was uttered on April 12, 2006.
BTW, this AP photo of him rivals the Reuters fire-and-brimstone photo of her....
Well, almost. ;)
Is the news-service sector trying to tell us something?
He also reflected on his own decisions when, as commander in chief, he was urged to launch a military strike.6
"I always thought of Senator Fulbright and the terrible quagmire in Vietnam and how many times we sent more soldiers and found ourselves in a hole and kept digging because we didn't want to look like we were weak,'' he said.
"So anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'"
"If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak,1 and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way,'' he said.
bill clinton Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."
The trouble was tomorrow never came - from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.
Make no mistake: The undermining of Bush and America is the number one clinton imperative.2
DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN
The clintons typically prop themselves up by revising others down.3 Direct, upward revision of their own legacy is virtually impossible to pull off,4 given their wide-reaching unsavory renown.F
But the clintons' inflated sense of self causes them from time to time to dispense with rational thought and attempt to do just this; and so we get the clinton mañanas.
PURPOSEFUL FAILURE
First clinton claimed he got impeached on purpose. To save the Constitution, he said. Now he claims he failed to confront terrorism on purpose. Because we can kill 'em tomorrow, he says.
Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?
Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.
(AND WHAT ARE THOSE NEWS SERVICE PHOTOS OF BILL + HILLARY ABOUT, ANYWAY?)
The impeached ex-president was accepting an award named after his mentor, the late Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas.
IS REUTERS SENDING A MESSAGE ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF HILLARY?
('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')
FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!
"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war,'' [clinton] said.
BY MARK STEYN
The New York Sun
April 17, 2006
or the clintons to succeed, Bush must fail, which means America must lose THE WAR. NOTE: The clintons did fail to confront terrorism on purpose, but not for the reason stated.5 (Indeed, contrary to clinton's absurd argument, the clintons' feckless inaction (and feckless action, for that matter,) were precisely the sign of weakness that emboldened bin Laden and al Qaeda.1 Bin Laden told us so himself.
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.
ping
ping
ping
Oh, boy, am I gonna get flamed for this:
>> Can we [wait to] kill them tomorrow? <<
I think it is a correct question to ask. Military engagement SHOULD always be a last resort. I think anyone who would not put off an attack until all other options had run out is not fit to be a commander-in-chief. The problem is apparently the answer was "yes," when it should have been, "maybe not."
There are plenty of good answers to that question:
"No, sir. We have a window of opportunity that may close."
"No, sir. We believe that they may launch a terrorist strike before then."
"No, sir. Delay may gravely jeopardize the efficacy of our mission, and therefore unnecessarily place our fighting men at greater risk."
... "Well, yes sir, but in the meanwhile, can we use Paris to test our weaponry?" :^D
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Mia T. bump
It's very difficult to believe that that "lovely' picture of Hillary is not photoshopped. It's very hard to believe that picture ever made it to the media. It's also very difficult to believe that whoever got it in the media is still alive.
;-)
Can we [wait to] kill them tomorrow?--clinton
I think it is a correct question to ask. Military engagement SHOULD always be a last resort.
I think anyone who would not put off an attack until all other options had run out is not fit to be a commander-in-chief.
The problem is apparently the answer was "yes," when it should have been, "maybe not."--dangus
My comments to usmcobra from the original thread apply:
(NOTE-The original post contains the complete list of footnotes.)
Great comments!
If he was referring to our ability to destroy any enemy--axiomatic under any circumstances--then his little 'test' is, obviously, tautological and empty. NOTE: Another possibility exists, that he was referring to whether we have the luxury of time to wait to take out our enemy; but that possibility is negated by the circumstances, i.e.,
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? In spite of himself, clinton was a wartime president. The problem is, he surrendered. Preemptively. You might say the clinton approach to The War on Terror was the perverse obverse of The Bush Doctrine. The sorry endpoint of this massive, 8-year clinton blunder (' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?') was, of course, 9/11 and the exponential growth of al Qaeda. What an abject failure. What a repulsive, self-serving danger to America. How could the Left is even toy with the idea of a clinton sequel?7 I would say He was recognizing that he didn't have the courage to do so without overwhelming public support to give him enough spine to order our troops into battle, and that he decided that a future president would have to do the job later for the nation when the nation called for action. A brilliant turn of phrase. ;) The cowardice of bill clinton as a factor is a given. But there was an equally significant force driving clinton's feckless inaction (and feckless action)--THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. (Only this past week, clinton once again confirmed its importance. We are talking about a very sick, dysfunctional couple here.) Madeleine Albright captured the essence of this dysfunctional presidency best when she explained why clinton couldn't go after bin Laden. According to Richard Miniter, the Albright revelation occurred 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. 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. (For more info, see discussion of clinton's curious explanation of the missile strike at Kandahur6 that took out a phalanxlike formation of... empty tents... and allowed bin Laden (and the Mideast Muslim ego) to escape unscathed.)
Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous. Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation. "Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the its porcine manifestation. SOROS TSURIS Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:
Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world]. But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.
What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country. It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.
|
fyi
;)
Look carefully at his photo. See the similarities? They say spouses look more alike over time. Wouldn't have thought it applied to this infrequently coupled pair, tho. ;)
thanx :)
;-)
Should be: Can we [wait to] kill them tomorrow?--dangus
David Suskind possessed, perhaps.... ;)
Hiya
Opened this post and that picture of clinton, well there is no other way to say it -- clinton looks like Ted Kennedy about 20 years ago.
to read after a meeting bump------
;)
clinton's character (as it were) is even more similar.
I'm not sure which one should be more insulted. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.