Saturday, September 16, 2006

IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Some highlights....

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center. For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge. Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton. Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen. Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.

6 comments:

Jay Bullock said...

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

(3) It destroyed all the remnants of Saddam's WMD programs, leaving him weakened and not a threat to this country.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, Little Oral Annies tirade doesnt even possess humor on this occaision. Since its always devoid of factual argument, it leaves nothing of use.

Jay is correct, above. All WMD remains discovered in Iraq date to this period. Now, lets all thank Clinton on 3. 1, 2, 3....

Also, the only lunatics in Iraq before the US invasion, were the gov't. Now, its a cesspool of them.

It also just shows that its the Cons and their "control of everything"-filled hatred towards all things Clinton that are the ones to try and re-write history. Good luck.

jhbowden said...

Jay--

Saddam Hussein trained 8000 terrorists from 1992-2002. Hussein had 500 tons of yellowcake and 1.8 tons of uranium at the time of the regime change, and built a reactor before in 1981 that the Israeli's bombed.

With Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions, and the way the west is totally being played right now, and considering the new political strength of hippie peaceniks, there is no doubt in my mind Hussein would have thumbed his nose at the IAEA, which was supervising those materials, and restarted the program. This is especially plausible given liberals wanted to remove all sanctions "for the children." A noble end, given 500,000 Iraqis died under the sanctions, but an end that didn't justify the costs of rearming Hussein.

Under Bush, no more Iraqis are dying because of sanctions, and Hussein won't be back in power causing the deaths of untold amounts of people.

Liberals are only compassionate when compassion serves the goals of socialism -- otherwise they are heartless bastards.

jhbowden said...

Jim--

Conservatives are already talking about Darfur.

Consider this, though. If the next administration takes us there, you guys will say it is a conspiracy to gobble up Sudan's natural resources. Your almighty all-powerful world community isn't doing anything to stop what's going on there, and it will be up to to the big bad United States to set things right.

Which is politically difficult to do, given you guys will trot out the usual PNAC-style theories. The left thinks it can stop things like weapons proliferation, international terrorism, and ethnic cleansing with negotiation and diplomacy. It isn't going to happen my friend.

With respect to Iraqi casualities, 250,000 people were dying there under the sanctions every five years. That number is greater than the 50,000 that have died in the struggle for democracy in Iraq, so your argument fails even in this regard.

Jim said...

Activists around the world focus on Darfur

The left thinks it can stop things like weapons proliferation, international terrorism, and ethnic cleansing with negotiation and diplomacy.

So, uh, who do we bomb the shit out of to make things right? Or is there a different alternative to negotiation and diplomacy that you have in mind?

Dedanna said...

jason said...

Under Bush, no more Iraqis are dying because of sanctions,

Nah, they're just dying now because of another regime that's blowing them up.

Show me the difference, please? We kill them or Saddam does? Take your pick?