Ignoring a declaration of war leads to bad results.
When someone tells you they want to kill you, it's best to pay attention.
Ignoring a declaration of war leads to bad results.
When someone tells you they want to kill you, it's best to pay attention.--griswold3
Indeed. 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? 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 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. Note that the linkage between the above two sentences and the indirect object of the second sentence are each implied, giving clinton plausible deniability. This position is surprising because: 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: 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?
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer"The Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again; [so] they released him [to America]."
"[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."
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato."
