Clinton's Treasonus Message To Osama Bin Laden - Don't Shoot, I'm On Your Side!!!

Rush hinted at this yesterday and others expanded on it last evening: Clinton's speech at Georgetown this week was a not-so cryptic message to Osama Bin Laden: “Don't attack me, Bill Clinton, I'm on your side!!!”

Clinton's shameless approval of the WTC attacks, placing blame for 5000 dead Americans on President Bush because the US killed Native Americans 200 years ago, is a new low for a man who is defined by the word shameless. We know Clinton thwarted attempts to stop Bin Laden three years ago. Now we know Clinton is worried that, as a former President, he might a target for terrorism.

Clinton need not pump his ego to that degree. Few productive citizens would mourn Clinton's passing and Bin Laden probably has more important uses for his explosives.

The only defense against an assumption that this was Clinton's hidden message is your possible belief that "Clinton wouldn't stoop so low."

Please, just stop and think for a moment. Search your memories and try to unearth one thing, anything, Clinton would not do to preserve, protect, promote and pimp for his own hide. Name one thing Clinton would not do!

Even worse, try to think of one thing he probably hasn’t already done to this end. After all, for a man who accepted $88,000,000.00 from the Chinese to buy votes for his reelection, what is a little treason with few Islamic fundamentalists.

We knew he was a coward from his draft-dodging days, but until this week, we didn't know he would give Bin Laden permission to kill another 5,000 Americans just to save his own hide!

My Good Man,
To claim, as his long time friends, excusers and paramours now do, that Ole Bill just sort of got his words confused this week ... is beyond belief.

I claimed no such thing. I claimed that he never said what the Washington Times said he said. Various others, like the Wall Street Journal and Andrew Sullivan piled on without reading the speech and then retracted their comments, basically arguing that if Clinton had editted his speech more carefully, they would not have gotten confused., But, of course, that excuse is a little lame given that they didn't even read it.

Naturally, this idiotically irresponsible behavior will not lead anyone here to have the slightest skepticism the next time they read something in the Washington Times or Andrew Sullivan, especially if it says something bad about Democrats.

Basically, the Clinton haters on this forum border on insanity. They know he's evil, and then look for justification. It doesn't matter that the complaint is wrong, a lie, and has nothing to do with reality.

I would remind you that this is the man who tried the verbal ju-jitsu of convincing America that he did not have sex with that woman, while the "Bimbo de Jour" with whom he was playing "Hide the salami" was having sex! This is man who debated the meaning of the word "is". This is the man who, with the skillful use of "tounge fu," had his aides explain that he was the country's most moral president.

Yes, he lied about having sex. In fact, he was the first one in history to ever have an affair and lie about it. Except maybe there were some other scumbag Democrats who did it. But no Republicans would ever do that. And, if they did, it was a youthful indescretion and they're real Christians, not a fake one like Clinton, so they can ask for forgiveness of their sins and it will all be ok. And no Republicans or other heros of the right have ever perjured themselves, but if they did, they generally weren't prosecuted.

This is a man who knows what he says, and even worse, be believes it!

And what he said in that speech was pretty reasonable and a lot more thoughtful than anything I've heard out of the Bush administration.

And you still haven't read the speech. If it's just too long and hard to read, here is a point-by-point analysis.

There are a lot of brainwashed culties who are so afraid of having their beliefs threatened that they seek out information, however dubious that supports them, while rejecting all other information, however reputable or demonstrably true, as "propaganda".

The mere thought that America is sowing what we reaped 100+ years ago; gives vindication to the terrorist activities.

Hrm...I was just going to dismiss your point, but I'm not certain what you meant, so I'll cut you some slack. Are you saying that Clinton was claiming that the terrorist attacks were justified because America has done bad things in the past? I've read the speech (not a pleasant task), and that wasn't it. It was not a good speech, by any stretch of the imagination, but he was not even hinting that the attacks were justified. Now, if you're suggesting that America has never engaged in institutional Bad Behavior, and suggesting that we have vindicates the terrorists, that's another matter. In that case, Clinton is guilty (he did say that America has done shameful things in the past), but we have done shameful things the past, and that in no way vindicates any terrorist activity.

Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery and slaves were, quite frequently, killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when significant numbers of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human and we are still paying the price today.

I'll grant you that he did "state" that the attacks of Sept. 11th were due to the issues of 100 years ago. But I will say this...the Pilgrams that came over here to America did not find this nation on slavery. And if he's going to mention slavery then he needs to mention that Cherokees had slaves. That blacks sold blacks into slavery at times in Africa.

Again, your point is well taken. Thank you for your clarification.

If not to blame US and justify attacks on WTC, why did Slick bring it up at all....

FYI, a visit to the old slavery forts in Ghana will show you things that will amaze many,

#1, US was smnall, short lived part of slave trade.

#2, All slave capturing, initial selling, etc. was done by black Africans.

#3, Today, when American Blacks return to sub-Saharan Africa, they expect to be received as returning brothers. In actuality, they are received with distain. Today's Africans see themselves as sons of victorious warriors. They see American Blacks as sons of wartime losers and slaves.

#4. Finally, I forget the name of the movie named after the slave ship that grounded in Connecticut, where slaves were defended by John Quincy Adams, freed and allowed to return to Africa. In Africa they show you old pictures of the black leader of that shipboard rebelion. He returned to Africa and died a rich man. He made his money as a slave trader!

Wait a minute -- Bill Clinton (so he says) was only an "hour late" in getting Bin Laden??

3:00PM, one unassuming afternoon, 1998, the White House): The Commander-In-Chief responds to U.S. Intelligence as to the exact whereabout of Bin Laden and permission to act immediately), "Aaaaw man, NOW?? -- Just gimme a few minutes and I'll give ya an answer after I finish with this 'cigar'..."

4:00PM, same afternoon: "Okay man, I'm done, er, I mean go ahead and shoot that Lin Baden guy..."

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.