NY Times Hits New Low

[Hagbard Celine]

You are right. Lets not have anymore 9-11 in our country and kill the enemy where they are in the Middle East

Now if the Dems and the liberal media would only join the fight, terrorists would see a united country

I wonder how the family of the US arine would answer your distorted liberal talking points?

With their declining numbers the NY Times is no offering bulk rates to terrorists training camps. Since they publish classified documents and anti military coverage, they have to find someone to read their garbage

Oh bullcrap. The terrorists don't even understand how our government works, much less the intricacies of the American people's opinions on the war. What we need is a military strategy that works! Instead of our soldiers sitting around in the desert waiting for the roadside bomb to blow them up, how about tightening border security in Iraq so that weapons flow into the country would be restricted? How about looking at realistic options like splitting the country into sectarian zones instead of clinging to the dead government we put into place after the invasion? We need strategy. What we don't need is people like you acting like there shouldn't be any debate here at home.

 

[red states rule]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/protestphotos.html


check out the photos of the last pro terrorist rally in DC a couple weeks ago

the peace nik libs expressed their hate toward the US, Pres Bush, and the US military. (one peace nik spit at a crippled Iraq war vet)

But no outrage toward the terrorists

Oh, to these loony tunes, the only terrorist is Pres Bush

 

[maineman]

just preventing one more bonehead lib from rewriting history to give credit to Clinton where none is due

so Clinton did NOT send a cruise missile attack against Osama's purported location in Afghanistan? Is THAT now your latest version?

 

[red states rule]

so Clinton did NOT send a cruise missile attack against Osama's purported location in Afghanistan? Is THAT now your latest version?

you are such a Clinton ass kisser. I hope you have plenty of Chap Stick



Bill Clinton’s Excuses
No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism.

By Byron York

“I worked hard to try and kill him,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News Sunday. “I tried. I tried and failed.”

"Him” is Osama bin Laden. And in his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the former president based nearly his entire defense on one source: Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, the book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. “All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book,” Clinton said at one point in the interview. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror,” he said at another. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true,” he said at yet another point. In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke’s name 11 times during the Fox interview.

But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”

That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.

The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. “I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,” Clarke writes. “I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.”

Clarke hit the CIA again a few pages later, on page 210, on the issue of the CIA’s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”

The FBI proved equally frustrating. On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That fucker is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.” Clarke adds: “I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.”

So Clinton couldn’t get the job done. Why not? According to Clarke’s pro-Clinton view, the president was stymied by Republican opposition. “Weakened by continual political attack,” Clarke writes, “[Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.”

Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225:

Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.

In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton “put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.”

But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.

— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Q2ZDBiNWJlYjE=

 

[Hagbard Celine]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/protestphotos.html


check out the photos of the last pro terrorist rally in DC a couple weeks ago

the peace nik libs expressed their hate toward the US, Pres Bush, and the US military. (one peace nik spit at a crippled Iraq war vet)

But no outrage toward the terrorists

Oh, to these loony tunes, the only terrorist is Pres Bush

There are a lot of people who think that the US is a hegemonic tyrant that makes money by creating war and conflict around the world. It's a point that's very easy to support and one that's widely held throughout the entirety of the world. I think spitting at war veterans is despicable and I think veterans should be given our full support, especially if they come back from war maimed. I also think that these "libs" as you call them--I call them hippies--who apologize for Muslim extremists should be ignored as I think they mostly are. However, I recognize the reasons behind why extremism is bred around the world and I also recognize why there is so much enmity for the US. I'm as patriotic as they come, but I don't buy into the dream that the US is benevolent and innocent in all its dealings. I think two wrongs don't make a right and I hope that we can find a solution to the Islamic extremist problem before too many more people have to die.

 

[red states rule]

There are a lot of people who think that the US is a hegemonic tyrant that makes money by creating war and conflict around the world. It's a point that's very easy to support and one that's widely held throughout the entirety of the world. I think spitting at war veterans is despicable and I think veterans should be given our full support, especially if they come back from war maimed. I also think that these "libs" as you call them--I call them hippies--who apologize for Muslim extremists should be ignored as I think they mostly are. However, I recognize the reasons behind why extremism is bred around the world and I also recognize why there is so much enmity for the US. I'm as patriotic as they come, but I don't buy into the dream that the US is benevolent and innocent in all its dealings. I think two wrongs don't make a right and I hope that we can find a solution to the Islamic extremist problem before too many more people have to die.

These same people who smear the US, in most cases, have made their money in the USA. The Hollywood libs and the elected Dems love to bash America but they also love the US dollar

America has been blamed for the worlds problems for the last 4o years. Without the US half the world would be living under dictators, and whenever their is a disaster we are the first ones there with aid and money

Our thanks?

Spit in the face. Next time when they call area code 202, I hope nobody answers the phone. Leave a message and we might get back to you

 

[maineman]

you are such a Clinton ass kisser. I hope you have plenty of Chap Stick

why can't you just answer a simple question? Damn...if I asked you what time it is, you'd tell me how to build a damned clock.

Once and for all... you clearly denied my claim that Clinton tried to have Osama killed. Is that your position, or will you modify it yet again?

 

[red states rule]

why can't you just answer a simple question? Damn...if I asked you what time it is, you'd tell me how to build a damned clock.

Once and for all... you clearly denied my claim that Clinton tried to have Osama killed. Is that your position, or will you modify it yet again?

If you are not careful, your lips will be permanently attached to his ass. Or is is already?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

These same people who smear the US, in most cases, have made their money in the USA. The Hollywood libs and the elected Dems love to bash America but they also love the US dollar

America has been blamed for the worlds problems for the last 4o years. Without the US half the world would be living under dictators, and whenever their is a disaster we are the first ones there with aid and money

Our thanks?

Spit in the face. Next time when they call area code 202, I hope nobody answers the phone. Leave a message and we might get back to you

The US gets blamed for the world's problems because the US sticks it's nose into every problem that arises and usually sends troops in to solve the problem with violence. As for dictators, the US funds and props-up every dictatorship that suits its fancy! Saddam and the Shah of Iran were put into power by the US. We need to take a stance of neutrality for a year and let the world solve its own problems for once.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

If you are not careful, your lips will be permanently attached to his ass. Or is is already?

Nice dodge. "Thanks it's a hemi! Whoooeeee!"

 

[maineman]

If you are not careful, your lips will be permanently attached to his ass. Or is is already?

run away little boy...run away.

what a pathetic joke

 

[red states rule]

run away little boy...run away.

what a pathetic joke

you may be pathetic, but you are the best the libs have on this board

 

[Hagbard Celine]

you may be pathetic, but you are the best the libs have on this board

Why don't answer Maineman's question Red?

 

[red states rule]

Why don't answer Maineman's question Red?

I have. He/she keeps ignoring the answers. (Hint - they go against the DNC pro Clinton talking points)

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I have. He/she keeps ignoring the answers. (Hint - they go against the DNC pro Clinton talking points)

Well if I understand correctly, the question was: Did Clinton try to kill Osama? right? The answer is simple: Yes. He ordered strikes at two different Al-Qaeda training camps and he ordered to kill the target, Osama. What's the argument over and how does that go against the DNC talking points? Or is it all part of the "vast liberal media conspiracy" to cover up the TRUTH?

 

[red states rule]

Well if I understand correctly, the question was: Did Clinton try to kill Osama? right? The answer is simple: Yes. He ordered strikes at two different Al-Qaeda training camps and he ordered to kill the target, Osama. What's the argument over and how does that go against the DNC talking points? Or is it all part of the "vast liberal media conspiracy" to cover up the TRUTH?

Yea, Bill tried hard - real hard - to pass the buck and make excuses



In February 2002, however, Mr. Clinton clearly admitted that the Sudanese offer had indeed taken place. And that he turned it down.

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.

"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, 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 and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yea, Bill tried hard - real hard - to pass the buck and make excuses



In February 2002, however, Mr. Clinton clearly admitted that the Sudanese offer had indeed taken place. And that he turned it down.

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.

"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

"They released him. At the time, 1996, 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 and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

So do you think that W. would've done more to take him out had he been president at the time? Keep in mind that 9/11 had not yet occurred.

 

[red states rule]

So do you think that W. would've done more to take him out had he been president at the time? Keep in mind that 9/11 had not yet occurred.

Clinton had eight years (and knew about Atta and his buds were in the US for over a year)
Bush had less then nine months

I know libs would have loved for 9-11 to happen under Clinton so he could show how tough he would be against terrorists

Oh, wait, the US had FIVE attacks by terrorists, and he did nothing to fight back. He did run like hell out of Somalia which inspired OBL to hit us on 9-11

Thanks Bill

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Clinton had eight years (and knew about Atta and his buds were in the US for over a year)
Bush had less then nine months

I know libs would have loved for 9-11 to happen under Clinton so he could show how tough he would be against terrorists

Oh, wait, the US had FIVE attacks by terrorists, and he did nothing to fight back. He did run like hell out of Somalia which inspired OBL to hit us on 9-11

Thanks Bill

Bush ignored the issue until it bit him on the ass.

 

[red states rule]

Bush ignored the issue until it bit him on the ass.

Pres Bush did not, he was to busy fighting off a Dem Congress who were having a temper tanturm over his win over Gore

Of course. we were hit five times under Clinton and he did nothing

Oh sorry, I am not supposed to bring up facts when debating a liberal