Blame Clinton For 9-11

[Craig Read]

A new book by Miniter called "Losing Bin Laden" lays the blame for where it belongs - at the feet of Bill 'on your knees woman' Clinton. Too busy practicing fellacio with assorted fat girls, Billy Boy let Bin Laden blow up the US Cole killing 17 sailors and then refused to follow the advice of his own Counter Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke to blow up Al Qaeda assets and buildings in Kandahar and Kabul.

Billy and his little friends invoked the usual litany of nonsense. A pre-emptive strike would break international law. Bombing Muslims would cause multi-cultural tension. Blowing up the Cole was a bad thing but not that bad to start a war. The Euro-ninnies might cry. King Kofi and the UNO might pout. And so on.

Let's face it - Clinton is a coward. That goes for most Dumbocruds.

If they spent half as much time solving problems as running away from them, they might actually have something intelligent to say.

That a boy Billy - running away from a mad Mullah who lived in a Cave.

That's Post modern courage for you. I am sure most Canadians and the CBC sagely agree with Billy Boy, while nodding heads earnestly and saying "complicated, yes, hmmm, nuanced, hmmm but why do they hate us.....hmmm?"

[Hugo]

Too right, Craig. Furthermore, did you know that the Clinton administration spent more US tax dollars chasing after Bill Gates than Osama Bin Laden? Shows the Liberal mindset alright - it's a crime to make money, but to kill innocent people means you are just misunderstood.

[SirRiff]

you guys are funny.

well its good that on his first day in office General W tracked osama down right?

his first week in office?

his first month?

year?

oh wait...nobody on bushs team gavea rats ass about osama...hmmm...go figure.

so the truth is no body say 9/11 coming.

[Hugo]

Sure, but Bill Clinton promised repeatedly that the terrorists who bombed the USS Cole and the World Trade Center (the first attempt) would be brought to justice, and then failed to fulfill those promises in any capacity whatsoever.

The least you can say of President Bush is that he does what he says he will, which doesn't apply to Clinton.

[Craig Read]

1999 Gary Hart and his Senate Colleauge investigated the Terrorist threat - their conclusion ?

Something massive would occur latest by 2001.

"Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers" as the result of terrorist attacks. The first warning came in September 1999, when former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, co-chairs, used those words in the first of three documents from an entity called the United States Commission on National Security, created during a rare moment of agreement between President Clinton and House speaker Newt Gingrich.

Their prescience is rather astonishing.

http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp

Clinton's reaction ? "Can't go after Osama because the American people would not support a war." Besides Billy had too many ugly women to bed.

That's leadership for you - dumbocrud style.

Not only are they the world's greatest liars, they are cowards.

They don't even believe enough in their own country to defend it !!!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Craig and Hugo,

You two make me giggle. Were it not for the actions of the US, especially the CIA in dealing with and against terrorists, the US might have a smidgeon of credibility.

Selling Stingers to the Mujahadeen at $75,000 (even though they could only pay in hashish and opium) in the 80's, how could they be surprised to see them on the blackmarket at $200,000? The Taliban, as ruthless as they were, committed the most major of crimes against the US by cutting off the supply of opium, a billion + dollar a year business for whomever controls it. I wonder who that could be?

Here is some proverbs from the Pathan tibesmen in Afghanistan:

Women have no noses, they will eat shit.

One's own mother and sister are disgusting.

Women belong in the house or in the grave.

Sure am glad the US saw fit to make those guys well armed, but as long as it served US interests, it's all good. Until it comes back to haunt everyone.

[SirRiff]

The least you can say of President Bush is that he does what he says he will, which doesn't apply to Clinton.

what was his alternative, surrender?

if clinton had reason for war, he would have gone, he was a smart guy. but being in the middle of a great economy, everyone would have jumped on him if he rocked the boat. especially when the war would be open ended.

bush had 3000 people die in a horrible way when there was nothing much else going for him. he went to war and milked the fear for everything it was worth.

if time was inverted, clinton and bush would have exchanged roles perfectly. its silly to even suggest each of them had much leeway in thier actions. they have senior military and political people to answer to as well.

i read about that guy who was convicted of spying for isreal. when clinton thought about altering his sentance the CIA chief threatened to resign. which would be unaccepatable obviously.

[FastNed]

SirRiff, while you and I often have different viewpoints, I can usually follow you but this time you have me lost. What on earth does the Jonathan Pollard Case have to do with anything under discussion?

For the record, Pollard was nailed in 1985 for passing highly classified info to Israel. Since his conviction, the State of Israel has attempted to have his life sentence reduced. They thought they had a good shot with Clinton who was inclined to do so. To prevent this from happening, to prevent Pollard not only having his sentence reduced but a deal being made to release him to Israel, a number of high Intelligence figures had to threaten Clinton with Very public resignations were he to do so! Pollard will serve his sentence and rot and die in prison - the intelligence community wanted the death penalty.

The mantra you will hear is: "What's the Harm? Israel is an Ally." He only gave information to one of our friends! Well, there are times your friends are more dangerous than your enemies. Let's just suppose that the information Pollard provided named the agent who provided it - a highly placed spy in a third nation. And lets suppose that the Israeli Intelligence Department just happened to be penetrated by that Third Nation. Need I spell out what happened to that agent? That is why American Intelligence people are truly p1ssed off and why Pollard will rot in jail.

None of this, however, relates to 9 - 11 or the terrorist problem which grew on Clinton's watch. Willie was big at ordering women onto their knees but p1ss poor at defending Americans or extracting a price for their deaths. How about Somalia, two embassy bombings in Africa and then the USS Cole - all on his watch and his total response was a few cruise missiles and he blew up an aspirin factory. What, they should get a headache and die? The man has no stones and that will be the judgment of history. He is and was a politician, not a patriot.

A man with vision, with principles, a man with courage can lead Americans to do the most dangerous and wonderful things. All Clinton could see was women he wanted on their knees.

[Craig Read]

That is right Ned.

In 1999 as I outlined before, and far before that, there were reports outlining the huge threat Bin Laden posed to US national interests.

Even Blair in 1997 stated that Al Qaeda and terrorism were massvie threats to Western interests.

The problem with Clinton, Gore and the Dumbocruds is their facile, child like faith in multi-lateralism, dialogue, the UNO, and feeling other people's pain. This is sheer drivel and hyperbole.

As Tom Clancy said last night in an interview a nation's security is above politics.

Clinton and his pizza party, panty raiding friends allowed 9-11 to happen.

[Hugo]

Had Bill Clinton actually spent any time and energy pursuing Al-Queda after the USS Cole attack, rather than vetoing pro-life bills on the (probable) orders of his wife or cheating on said wife in the oval office, or trying to stick Bill Gates with some stupid charges (if Microsoft is a monopoly, how come Apple has a larger share of the computer market than Ford does of the car market?), 9/11 might never have happened.

President Bush may not have caught Osama bin Laden, but most Al-Queda members are now dead and their bases and facilities are rubble. Any nations thinking of harbouring them can take a look at Afghanistan and Iraq and wonder if backing Osama is worth having their regime obliterated for.

After every terrorist attack on US citizens and property Clinton promised retaliation and delivered nothing. The man was a wash-out and a liar, and deserves to be held up beside Nixon as one of only two US Presidents to actually be impeached.

[theloniusfleabag]

The Jonathan Pollard case is deeper than some might see. The information passed by Pollard was nuclear targetting info to be used by Israel. The Israelis were quite upset that the US intel would not give KH11 time for strictly Israeli purposes. So they went through Pollard.

One of the biggest reasons for keeping him locked up is so that no one has any proof Israel has nukes. Israel refuses to sign non-proliferation accords based on denial of possession of nukes, but most everyone knows that France and then South Africa helped build and test them.

The US would be obligated to act against Israel for possessing nukes, and Israel has plenty of contempt for the US, as you can see if you visit any of their news sites.

Pollard is locked up for what he could prove, not for what he passed.

On the topic, the US has directly and indirectly created more terrorists to help it's own cause than they are currently fighting. Clinton, while being a grade A fool, realized when he tried to push health-care reform through senate, that the president does not run the country. Business does. The biggest legitimate business that the US has is the military. Not just their own, mind you, there are lots of tin-pot brutal dictators out there that depend on the US to control those oppressed countries. Where do you think all those juicy profits come from? Certainly not from countries that have free populations that want to profit from their own labour and resources. America has a right to own them. Even if they have to support brutal dictatorships.

[FastNed]

Is is a rather open "secret" that Israel possesses between two hundred and four hundred devices which, if assembled, would be considered nuclear weapons. Note that this is "if, as and when" assembled - this technical arrangement has allowed Israel to certify that it does not possess Nukes for quite a few years.

Israel assisted South Africa in creating that Nations Nukes, not the other way around.

Any suggestion that France ever assisted Israel in atomic weapon development is merely another display of ignorance; anti-Semitism by France is a long existing condition.

Three strikes, you're out!

[theloniusfleabag]

FastNed, I suggest you do some reading. The Samson Option by Seymour M. Hersch, former editor of the Washington Post for starters. The French may not have aided in developing a nuclear program, but certainly abetted in setting up the Dimona reactor and provided experise on how to build enrichment facilities.

Strike one, FastNed: for I said France AND THEN South Africa... helped build (perhaps for semantics' sake i should have replaced 'build' with 'develop') nukes.

Strike two, FastNed: show me one book, Un Mandate, US intel report that even suggests South Africa is sitting on nukes and I will eliminate this strike.

Strike Three, FastNed: what constitutes possession of 'illegal WMDs'? If Israel did have 200-400 devices capable of being deliverable nuclear weapons, by how much does that exceed the maximum allowable amount according to the US government's official stance? About 100% I would say.

3 strikes and you're out (of your big league!)

[theloniusfleabag]

I almost forgot to mention, If Iraq allowed inspections, was subsequently (Along with the UN) disbelieved, invaded, and occupied, just how many 'delivery capable WMDs' were found there? Zero, you say?

Israel will not allow ANY inspections whatsoever, only offer vehement denials and charges of anti-sematism when questioned.

[FastNed]

What did the then government of South Africa do in 1991 with its nuclear weapons?

Why am I not surprised that you fail to do any research?

[Craig Read]

Israel is Western, democratic and surrounded by countries that want to dismember and eat it.

Of course it will possess any and all weapons to defend itself and well it should.

The Left Liberals would have the Israeli's disarm, profess their love and admiration of the superior Arab culture and then watch their men and children get systematically destroyed.

Nice idea. Clowns.

You want countries that have Liberal constitutions and democracies to be well armed. You want ill-Liberal countries and Islamo Fascist regimes to be dis-armed.

Get the idea ??? There is nothing relative about security and yes there are Good countries and Bad regimes.

Israel is country we should support. The Arab world is populated by regimes that are bad and need change.

Period. There is no need to cry about 'root causes'. Security is not about Post Modern Peacenik love. It is the prime function of government and a strong military is a sign of being an adult. Too bad Canada is still a child.

If you are so worried about those wonderful Arabs go to Palestine and fight for your cause.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FastNed,

They voluntarily dismantled the 6 acknowledged bombs.

Have you read "The Samson Option" yet?

In a nutshell, Israel threatened the US with going nuclear in the Six-Day War. The US was compelled to offer materiel assistance to avert this.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read,

While I find it amusing that your posts are mostly juvenile name-calling, and the opinions you profess are mostly regurgitated Rush Limbaugh 'infotainment factoids', I will endeavour to explain why the existence of Israel in fact should not be supported.

Zionism in it's basic framework is the founding of national borders based on religion. In that regard, it is no different from the Taliban wishing to rule Afghanistan, or Islamic Law ruling Kuwait or Iran. A better example would be the creation of a new nation, lets call it Allahstan. For argument's sake, lets say a group of Muslims said "Allah promised us the holy land, on which to dwell" Unfortunately, it is smack-dab in the middle of Israel.

Who would be right? Would they then have the right to build a nation on the 3000 year old scribblings of some zealots? Does Israel have more rights because their scribblings are older?

Either there is a root cause, adherence to wacky religions, or there is only Nietzche's and Hitler's and Stalin's 'Will To Power' left to rule. Or, as reasonable human beings, we could bring all this out into the open.

Israel may be democratic, but that will only last as long as they keep winning. The second an Islamic party leads the polls, democracy will come to an abrupt halt.

I am a firm believer in democracy, and a devout opponent of Islam, Judaism, and Zionism. That is to say, religion is fime as long as it is kept to the individual. Faith is better than religion, for you don't have to tithe for the sake of building golden temples or calfs.

[Craig Read]

The world is at war. Either you understand who your friends are or shut up.

Canada is becoming a cowardly sect of the EU fan club.

Not a group that is particulary endearing or intelligent.

Canada is a large modern industrialised country with a puny military and anti-American/anti-jewish racism abundant in its leadership, media and population [propagated by Marxist teachers and professors, who have, astonishly, never worked without being paid by the tax payer].

Time to stop free riding and pay our way.

Or is that too adult for you?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read,

I know who my friends are.

The US has no friends, nor are they expecting to aquire any based on their actions. They have no concern except themselves, and do not wish to have support unless it is in the form of military alliances or cash donations.

Most of the world suported them after 9/11, sending troops to Afghanistan because they believed a threat existed there. Not only to the USA, but to the free world.

In Iraq, the threat was being addressed by the UN inspectors under international support. All eyes were on Iraq, and Saddam had little time for foolishness.

The US, however, threw away all the support it had garnered in Afghanistan by deciding it did not need anyone else, and invading a country without the support of anyone (save the UK) for it was the mightiest superpower.

Where are they now? Asking for help. Should the rest of the world help, or spank the petulant child? Are they the 'prodigal son' of morality? Or an bunch of greedy bastards? I think they are proving which one.

[Nuclear]

I also understand Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese about nukes(whom not a year later gave us a hard time with that plane which they all but shot down) and Clinton also took taxpayer dollars and used it to buy off the NK's...just so he could avoid dealing with them...

[FastNed]

Hi Nuke, Willie Wanker is a small town, pretty-boy, snake oil salesman politician and it's a poor reflection on America that we elected him not once, but twice. Part of the reason, I believe, is a problem both Canada and America share - about half the electorate no longer bother to vote.

Depending upon your flavor of politics, there is one or another reason expressed for this and perhaps both are correct. People on both the right and the left have given up on politics for reasons which make sense to them and if we wish them back to the voting booth, we need to discover why!

I think much of this alienation comes from the belief that the special interest groups now are so powerful that we average people have no input into the process. Those on the left rant about "right wing" interests and vice versa. Again, I think both are correct. The political people have proven what they are, it's down to dickering about price and when that is paid, they'll whore for any cause.

More and more, politics has become a matter of the extremes - of the right and the left - and more and more "regular" people view the political pandering and walk away from the process. I believe this is a clear and present danger to the very existence of our democratic countries. Both the left and the right need to consider where this is taking us - it is not a pretty picture.

If anyone has thoughts on how this alienated group can be brought back to participation, it would be a good subject for a new posting.

[Hugo]

In Iraq, the threat was being addressed by the UN inspectors under international support.

Yes, for 12 years, at great expense without any tangible result. Great "solution", I must say. Why fix a problem when you can hold a committee instead?

[invaded Iraq] without the support of anyone (save the UK) 

The Coalition of the Willing numbers 48 nations now. Included are:

Afghanistan

*Albania

Angola

*Australia

Azerbaijan

*Bulgaria

Colombia

Costa Rica

*Czech Republic

*Denmark

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Eritrea

Estonia

Ethiopia

Georgia

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Kuwait

Japan

South Korea

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

*Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Mongolia

*Netherlands

Nicaragua

*Palau

Philippines

*Poland

*Portugal

*Romania

Rwanda

Singapore

*Slovakia

*Spain

Solomon Islands

Tonga

Turkey

Uganda

*Ukraine

*United Kingdom

Uzbekistan

*USA

Those nations marked with asterisks have troops on active duty in Iraq.

Way to research your post.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I do not recall such a vast membership in 'the coalition of the coerced' at the time of invasion. One of us must be mistaken.

[Hugo]

There were "only" 30 nations at the time of invasion - far more than fought Hitler. 18 more have since joined.

It must be you who is mistaken, but that should come as no surprise.