Bill Clinton's other genocide

-Cp

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2004
2,911
362
48
Earth
Bill Clinton apologized last weekend for his "personal failure" to prevent the 1994 slaughter of 800,000 mostly Christian members of the Tutsi tribe in Rwanda.

It was certainly appropriate – if a little late.

But there was another genocide that took place during Clinton's watch that occurred not because of his inaction, but because of his deliberate, criminal and immoral military actions.

Let me tell you the little-known story.

In 1997, Osama bin Laden visited Albania to help establish the Kosovo Liberation Army. He provided between $500 million to $700 million and – according to an upcoming book by Paul L. Williams, "The Al Qaeda Connection" – 500 seasoned Arab Afghan troops to train KLA recruits at the al-Qaida headquarters in Albania and at another camp in Macedonia.

Understand the KLA was, from its creation by bin Laden, a jihadist terrorist group.

Here's how Williams tells the story from here:


At this point in the twisted history of Kosovo, the CIA and the Clinton administration began to view the KLA as an army of 'freedom fighters' and offered aid in the form of military training and field advice. The United States, unbeknown to the American people, was now in league with a group that contained enemies who were intent upon its destruction. They were generally not the innocent people who had been targeted and attacked by the Serbs.


A year later, with help from both al-Qaida and the United States, the KLA had an army of 30,000 with sophisticated weaponry, including anti-tank rocket launchers, mortars, recoilless rifles and anti-aircraft machine guns. Naturally, they began to use them – conducting hit-and-run attacks on Serbian special-forces police units.

Slobodan Milosevic, the president of Serbia, responded by burning homes and killing dozens of ethnic Albanians. Soon, there was a little war raging – "culminating," Williams writes, "in the infamous 'Racak Massacre' of Jan. 15, 1999, when the bodies of 45 Albanians were discovered in a gully within the village of Racak."

Milosevic insisted the bodies had been placed there by the KLA to implicate the Serbs and justify Western intervention. In fact, European papers found his claim was supported by the unnatural position of the bodies, the absence of cartridge shells and the inability of Racak villagers to identify the bodies.

But, this time, Clinton wasn't going to sit on the sidelines and watch a genocide take place as he had done in Rwanda. On the basis of this "evidence" and amid international outcries of ethnic cleansing, the United States and its European allies became militarily involved – not as "peacemakers," mind you, but as partisans in an ethnic and religious conflict initiated by al-Qaida.

At a cost exceeding $4 billion, NATO forces soon reduced Kosovo to rubble, flying 37,465 missions, destroying 400 Serbian artillery positions, 270 armored personnel carriers, 150 tanks, 100 planes, killing 10,000 Serbian soldiers and causing 1.4 million Kosovars to flee for their lives. Williams calls it "the greatest mass migration since World War II."

Milosevic surrendered and NATO placed a force of 1,700 police officers on the ground to restore order.

But those forces did little to restrain the "victorious" KLA. Over 200 churches were burned – including monasteries dating back to the 13th century. There were uninvestigated reports of mass executions of Serbian farmers, the murders of scores of priests.

"Of the 40,000 Serbs who lived in Kosovo before the war, only 400 were left within a month after Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate," writes Williams.

Soon, hundreds of Wahhabi mosques and schools were built.

"Kosovo, with a Muslim population of 1.8 million now stood as an Islamic bulwark in the midst of the Balkans," Williams writes.

And an even more strategic objective was won by bin Laden. He now had his European connection for the international drug-running operation that would subsidize his future terrorist attacks – including Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45446
 
It will be a mighty boring day when Republicans run out of things to blame on Clinton. :bang3:
 
Yes, because if Bush had handled Kosovo the way Clinton did the Democrats would be singing his praises.

Come on, Gabby, you can like Clinton for a number of reasons...but the way he handed Kosovo, Somalia, and the terrorist attacks that occurred during his presidency CAN'T be some of those reasons.
 
I actually can't find many reasons to like Clinton. But the truth is, Clinton has been out of office for FIVE YEARS. And people are STILL bashing him and blaming stuff on him.
At the same time, you can't blame anything on Reagan, since he is on the fast track to political sainthood. Reagan was a bad president. Clinton was a bad president. The difference is, Reagan is dead and Clinton is not.

It's just too easy to pick on Clinton. Just like it is easy to pick on Nixon. The most bogus defense of any Bush wrong doing is "hey! Clinton did the same thing!" The same people say "one sin is not greater than another."

Clinton is laughing at every attempt to smear him. He seriously is. He makes a killing on personal appearances. "Yeah, I did all that stuff. Buy my book and read about it!" He's laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Gabriella84 said:
I actually can't find many reasons to like Clinton. But the truth is, Clinton has been out of office for FIVE YEARS. And people are STILL bashing him and blaming stuff on him.
At the same time, you can't blame anything on Reagan, since he is on the fast track to political sainthood. Reagan was a bad president. Clinton was a bad president. The difference is, Reagan is dead and Clinton is not.

It's just too easy to pick on Clinton. Just like it is easy to pick on Nixon. The most bogus defense of any Bush wrong doing is "hey! Clinton did the same thing!" The same people say "one sin is not greater than another."

Clinton is laughing at every attempt to smear him. He seriously is. He makes a killing on personal appearances. "Yeah, I did all that stuff. Buy my book and read about it!" He's laughing all the way to the bank.

hey, I can make good fun of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, what do you all want?
 
I personally think Clinton had a Kennedy Complex. Only Marilyn Monroe was dead and Madonna wouldn't return his phone calls. Monica and Gennifer were the best he could do. :eek:
 
The reason irrational people are still talking about Clinton is because he is an easy target for their ire.

The reason rational people are still talking about Clinton is because many of the mistakes he made while in office FIVE YEARS AGO still resonate strongly today. His decision to leave Osama bin Laden when he had several opportunities to arrest him is just one example.

To state that a President's legacy no longer matters because he has left office is short-sighted. George Bush's decision not to go into Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein from power during the first Gulf War (thanks UN for forcing that decision) was absolutely disasterous...leading to the massacre thousands of Iraqis who had aided and assisted us and the notion that supporting the United States when we say we are going to help you overthrow your terroristic dictator of a leader is dangerous because we have a tendancy to cut and run leaving you for dead...a belief that has certainly hurt us in Iraq under this administration....and the first Bush presidency was well over TEN YEARS AGO!!! ANCIENT HISTORY!!!

I understand completely, that pointless Clinton bashing is tiresome and overdone...but to look critically at what past Presidents have done (or not done) and how it has effected us and put us where we are today is not neccessarily meaningless bashing, but rather a critical look at what mistakes (or good decisions) we have made in the past.

The fact that Clinton is the predominantly mentioned figure is simply because many of the Democrats who are clamoring to bash Bush's decisions were lining up to sing Clinton's decisions...many of which were disasterous.
 
Gem said:
The reason irrational people are still talking about Clinton is because he is an easy target for their ire.

The reason rational people are still talking about Clinton is because many of the mistakes he made while in office FIVE YEARS AGO still resonate strongly today. His decision to leave Osama bin Laden when he had several opportunities to arrest him is just one example.

To state that a President's legacy no longer matters because he has left office is short-sighted. George Bush's decision not to go into Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein from power during the first Gulf War (thanks UN for forcing that decision) was absolutely disasterous...leading to the massacre thousands of Iraqis who had aided and assisted us and the notion that supporting the United States when we say we are going to help you overthrow your terroristic dictator of a leader is dangerous because we have a tendancy to cut and run leaving you for dead...a belief that has certainly hurt us in Iraq under this administration....and the first Bush presidency was well over TEN YEARS AGO!!! ANCIENT HISTORY!!!

I understand completely, that pointless Clinton bashing is tiresome and overdone...but to look critically at what past Presidents have done (or not done) and how it has effected us and put us where we are today is not neccessarily meaningless bashing, but rather a critical look at what mistakes (or good decisions) we have made in the past.

The fact that Clinton is the predominantly mentioned figure is simply because many of the Democrats who are clamoring to bash Bush's decisions were lining up to sing Clinton's decisions...many of which were disasterous.


Bottom line, Clinton's dalliances made for a more dangerous world. Whether one is speaking of WOT or China or Supreme Court filabusters.
 
Gabriella84 said:
I actually can't find many reasons to like Clinton. But the truth is, Clinton has been out of office for FIVE YEARS. And people are STILL bashing him and blaming stuff on him.
At the same time, you can't blame anything on Reagan, since he is on the fast track to political sainthood. Reagan was a bad president. Clinton was a bad president. The difference is, Reagan is dead and Clinton is not.

It's just too easy to pick on Clinton. Just like it is easy to pick on Nixon. The most bogus defense of any Bush wrong doing is "hey! Clinton did the same thing!" The same people say "one sin is not greater than another."

Clinton is laughing at every attempt to smear him. He seriously is. He makes a killing on personal appearances. "Yeah, I did all that stuff. Buy my book and read about it!" He's laughing all the way to the bank.

Was a total waste, as a president, he did nothing for our country, that wasn'st already started on tract by Reagan, and he got a free ride. His legacy will be Monica and BJs, in the oval office. And just what do you know about Reagan, you must off been 10yr old when he was elected to office????? Oh thats right it's what was told to you........... As far as Billy clinton , he's the one who keeps seeking the spotlight so he's fair game as far as I'm concerned, he thinks he's someone special, he can't just go off into the sunset like a good retired president, Just like Jimmy carter, he still cant get over the fact that he was a worthless president, yet he has done some good,with habitat for humanity, but clinton has done nada, nothing, zip... And your cloating over the fact that he is making zillions and laughting at all the people he served, what the hell does that say about him and you for that matter.
 
Gabriella84 said:
I actually can't find many reasons to like Clinton. But the truth is, Clinton has been out of office for FIVE YEARS. And people are STILL bashing him and blaming stuff on him.
At the same time, you can't blame anything on Reagan, since he is on the fast track to political sainthood. Reagan was a bad president. Clinton was a bad president. The difference is, Reagan is dead and Clinton is not.

It's just too easy to pick on Clinton. Just like it is easy to pick on Nixon. The most bogus defense of any Bush wrong doing is "hey! Clinton did the same thing!" The same people say "one sin is not greater than another."

Clinton is laughing at every attempt to smear him. He seriously is. He makes a killing on personal appearances. "Yeah, I did all that stuff. Buy my book and read about it!" He's laughing all the way to the bank.

That is why people still bash him. His total attitude about the whole thing. He got a blow job in the oval office from Monica Lewinsky while talking to the President of Mexico. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

And he laughs about it.

There are people who don't find this amusing.
 
Actually I think GotZoom really nailed something here. And its something important for people who can't understand why some hate Clinton so much should try to listen to.

Clinton got blowjobs while conducting business for the nation. Many people find that completely repulsive. Note: They do not find blowjobs repulsive...they are not jealous that Clinton was getting some...they do not want to ban blowjobs. They simply feel that the President of the United States of America should treat the office with the respect it deserves.

Clinton's wife asked the Marines stationed around the White House to protect the first family if they would serve hors devours at a cocktail party because they were short-staffed...when they refused she threw a tirade. She also asked them not to wear their uniforms because she hated them...while this is not Clinton, but rather his wife...the lack of respect shown by both of them to the office and those serving them was evident and painful to many who served them.

Clinton hurt many, many women. Several women have quite credibly accused Clinton of rape...Juanita Broderick's assertions are chilling. Yet, feminist groups aren't interested in hearing her story. Clinton allowed his staff to pressure, intimidate, and force Monica Lewinsky to lie for him...yet he is a stud and she is a slut...and again, the feminists don't care, because Clinton as pro-abortion and was a "sexy" president. Many people find this offensive.

Clinton lied to a grand jury. Was it about something relatively small? Yes. But we should hold our Presidents to a higher standard when they are in office. I could care less that Clinton smoked pot in college...I do care that he values his own image more than he values the laws of the nation he claimed to serve.

People hate Clinton because he did not even try to respect the office to which he had been elected. Presidents are human, they will make mistakes. But Clinton reveled in his, and his choices demonstrate that his primary concern was not the nation, not the importance of the office he held, but rather his image...and how to get his rocks off in new and exciting ways.
 
Gabriella84 said:
I actually can't find many reasons to like Clinton. But the truth is, Clinton has been out of office for FIVE YEARS. And people are STILL bashing him and blaming stuff on him.
At the same time, you can't blame anything on Reagan, since he is on the fast track to political sainthood. Reagan was a bad president. Clinton was a bad president. The difference is, Reagan is dead and Clinton is not.

It's just too easy to pick on Clinton. Just like it is easy to pick on Nixon. The most bogus defense of any Bush wrong doing is "hey! Clinton did the same thing!" The same people say "one sin is not greater than another."

Clinton is laughing at every attempt to smear him. He seriously is. He makes a killing on personal appearances. "Yeah, I did all that stuff. Buy my book and read about it!" He's laughing all the way to the bank.

It's too easy to pick on Clinton because he constantly was getting caught in one lie after another. The guy is the luckiest SOB on the planet, he could have murdered Monica in the Oval office and probably would have gotten away with it and the liberals would still be explaining it all away.

Five years have gone by since the 2000 elections, and we're still hearing how the were "stolen", too. Although the Supreme Court said that they were legitimate.

Clinton's foreign policy gave us a nuclear North Korea, enabled Al Quada to attack the United States and was primarily directed by polls taken at shopping malls. Reagan's foreign policy was directed mostly by the realization that Communism had to be defeated. Reagan is becoming a political saint because he was a good president. He turned the nation around after 4 years of "malaise" under Mr. Peanut's presidency
 
I visited the Clinton Library in Little Rock back in April and the sad thing about it is that Clinton claims success in Kosovo because we "did not lose one American soldier." Perhaps not, but that does not mean the mission was handled correctly.

BTW - he never mentioned the 19 Marines we lost in Somolia in Oct '93 anywhere in the "legacy trailer."
 
Gem said:
Actually I think GotZoom really nailed something here. And its something important for people who can't understand why some hate Clinton so much should try to listen to.

Clinton got blowjobs while conducting business for the nation. Many people find that completely repulsive. Note: They do not find blowjobs repulsive...they are not jealous that Clinton was getting some...they do not want to ban blowjobs. They simply feel that the President of the United States of America should treat the office with the respect it deserves.

Clinton's wife asked the Marines stationed around the White House to protect the first family if they would serve hors devours at a cocktail party because they were short-staffed...when they refused she threw a tirade. She also asked them not to wear their uniforms because she hated them...while this is not Clinton, but rather his wife...the lack of respect shown by both of them to the office and those serving them was evident and painful to many who served them.

Clinton hurt many, many women. Several women have quite credibly accused Clinton of rape...Juanita Broderick's assertions are chilling. Yet, feminist groups aren't interested in hearing her story. Clinton allowed his staff to pressure, intimidate, and force Monica Lewinsky to lie for him...yet he is a stud and she is a slut...and again, the feminists don't care, because Clinton as pro-abortion and was a "sexy" president. Many people find this offensive.

Clinton lied to a grand jury. Was it about something relatively small? Yes. But we should hold our Presidents to a higher standard when they are in office. I could care less that Clinton smoked pot in college...I do care that he values his own image more than he values the laws of the nation he claimed to serve.

People hate Clinton because he did not even try to respect the office to which he had been elected. Presidents are human, they will make mistakes. But Clinton reveled in his, and his choices demonstrate that his primary concern was not the nation, not the importance of the office he held, but rather his image...and how to get his rocks off in new and exciting ways.


:thewave:
 
Let us not forget those sickening Presidential pardons that Clinton defiantly made on his way out. The man just doesn't care what anyone thinks. People still talk about him because as someone said, he still puts himself in the limelight, and because people realize that Mr. & Mrs. C will stop at nothing to get what they want; be it money, sex with interns, White House furniture, or the Presidency.
 
I aint no fan of Clinton, but let's be a little fair here: Slobo, the dictator of Serbia, was a murderous Stalinist commie, period. He was murdering Muslim slavs who were converted by the Turks when the ottomans ran the area. As for Somalia, Bush Sr. got us in there in December 92, just weeks before Clinton took office, a totally dumb-a** move. Bush Sr liked his wars. I still think Rove will be Bush Jr's downfall and Bush should can him now before it's too late. Otherwise the Dems are gonna win next time and undo all the accomplishments that Bush has made.
 
bushlover,

While I understand your sentiment, and agree that we should look at the leaders of the nations we sent troops to, as well as the actions of previous presidents and how their decisions effected the Clinton and W. Bush Presidencies...

I don't think that most people here (at least I am not) are angry at Clinton for getting us involved in those conflicts, but rather, are upset at the way Clinton handled things once he had committed US forces.

His decision to withdraw from Somalia after the soldiers were killed was cited by Osama bin Laden as one of the main indicators that 9/11 would be successful and would cripple the US. It was one final straw into pushing the plan into its final stages. Osama bin Laden honestly felt that, just as we had in Somalia, that the US people would demand a retreat from all Middle Eastern nations after 9/11 and that Clinton, as he had in the past, would support the retreat. Khalid Shaik Mohammad stated as much when he was captured, and admitted that there had been at least one more major attack planned on Chicago and L.A. because they were counting on the attacks being handled the way Clinton had handled Somalia, the first WTC bombing, the bombing of the USS Cole, etc. They had to cancel those attacks because of Bush's decisive and much stronger actions.
 
Gabriella84 said:
I actually can't find many reasons to like Clinton. But the truth is, Clinton has been out of office for FIVE YEARS. And people are STILL bashing him and blaming stuff on him.

Five years? Thats it? Girl wake up. We are still suffering from things FDR and Carter screwed up with. And they have been out of office alot longer than five years

At the same time, you can't blame anything on Reagan, since he is on the fast track to political sainthood. Reagan was a bad president. Clinton was a bad president. The difference is, Reagan is dead and Clinton is not.

That is because President Reagan was arguably the greatest president of the 20th century. His policies as President have done more the strengthen American and make the world freer and more peaceful than almost anyone else in American history. Wake up lil girl.

It's just too easy to pick on Clinton. Just like it is easy to pick on Nixon. The most bogus defense of any Bush wrong doing is "hey! Clinton did the same thing!" The same people say "one sin is not greater than another."

Damn are you sure you are in school? People point out what Clinton did because you libs are such hypocrites. You attack Bush for doing the same things you praised Clinton for. You dont think people are going to point that out?

Clinton is laughing at every attempt to smear him. He seriously is. He makes a killing on personal appearances. "Yeah, I did all that stuff. Buy my book and read about it!" He's laughing all the way to the bank.

So what? Who cares? Money isnt everything. He will die a lowly moraless man. In twenty years people will forget he even existed. Or if they do remember him they will remember him as one of t he worst Presidents of our time.
 
Gabriella84 said:
I actually can't find many reasons to like Clinton. But the truth is, Clinton has been out of office for FIVE YEARS. And people are STILL bashing him and blaming stuff on him.
At the same time, you can't blame anything on Reagan, since he is on the fast track to political sainthood. Reagan was a bad president. Clinton was a bad president. The difference is, Reagan is dead and Clinton is not.

It's just too easy to pick on Clinton. Just like it is easy to pick on Nixon. The most bogus defense of any Bush wrong doing is "hey! Clinton did the same thing!" The same people say "one sin is not greater than another."

Clinton is laughing at every attempt to smear him. He seriously is. He makes a killing on personal appearances. "Yeah, I did all that stuff. Buy my book and read about it!" He's laughing all the way to the bank.

President's leave legacies, including Clinton. My guess is history may be rather harsh on Clinton, he should have been great, yet accomplished little of substance. The BJ will be only a footnote, with emphasis on his reaction to the machinations of the Left and Right.

I wonder if you notice how often references are made to George Washington's precedents? Accomplishments and schemes of FDR? The Monroe Doctrine? The Roosevelt Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine? Jacksonian name your noun? Jeffersonian? Give Em Hell, Harry? Wilsonian?

Whether for good or ill, most a combination of, each President does leave a legacy. What they do has implications for the future, which is why so many lust after the position, while others avoid it. Only the very young or very dense are clueless enough to think the influence stops with the next President.
 

Forum List

Back
Top