All you war hungry jerks -- have you had yer fill?
Major Debacle
bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
have only one question for ya.
Have you had yer fill?
ObamaNation is an Abomination
Are you talking to the coon-in-charge?
Bill Gamelson
"Major Debacle" <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote in message
news:hdie90$tvj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
At least I had a fucking job then!
ObamaNation is an Abomination
bu...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote:
>
>"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>news:i83Lm.28858$6c2....@newsfe03.iad...
>
>> As opposed to the TRILLIONS that President Wee-Wee is giving to HIS
>> buddies?
>
>Peanuts compared to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Czar Bush dynasty that
>should be gassed out of their compound like the vermin they are.
The coon-in-charge makes them look like pikers dealing in petty cash.
1-20-2013
Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
so unfortunately - the war on terror must surge forward with no
foreseeable end in sight.
Thankfully Obama is following in George W Bush's footsteps and
continuing the war on terror, keeping Club Gitmo open, and continuing to
wiretap suspected terrorists phones!!!!!
Major Debacle
Git off yer lazy ass and *hustle*, Goober!
You think Obama or the country or *anybody* owes you a job?
If so, you got another thinkin' coming.
Major Debacle
> Major Debacle wrote:
>> All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>> bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>> China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>> have only one question for ya.
>>
>> Have you had yer fill?
>
> Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
No comparison to the one Bush allowed on 9/11/01, though, is it?
Harold Burton
Major Debacle <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> whined:
Yep.
snicker.
Harold Burton
Major Debacle <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote:
Yeah, who does he think he is a DemocRAT voter on welfare?
snicker.
Tater Gumfries
> Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
How?
Tater
1-20-2013
A muslim terrorist attack is a muslim terrorist attack. One dead
American at the hands of muslim extremists is equally as disgusting at 1
million dead Americans at the hands of muslim extremists.
Clearly you want to pretend that the muslim terrorist attack at Ft Hood
wasn't a "muslim terrorist attack" and your friends in the liberal media
are bending over backwards trying to make the Ft Hood scumbag look like
some sort of a "victim"....but at the end of the day - the attack at Ft
Hood was indeed a muslim terrorist attack where Americans were killed,
wounded, and maimed - similar to what happened on 9/11.
Regardless - the war on terror must continue and thankfully your messiah
is following in George W Bush's footsteps in fighting the war on terror!!!
1-20-2013
We'd all LOVE to know. It appears that Obama's Apology Tour didn't work
out so well.
But facts is facts....and your liberal messiah clearly dropped the ball
as a muslim extremist terrorized Americans at Ft Hood last week and
slaughtered 13 of them.
In the meantime, Obama is just about finishing page 5 of My Pet Goat....
george bush@tsniffsniff.net NYFD
"ObamaNation is an Abomination" <he...@home.org> wrote in message
news:4afcc38a...@news.eternal-september.org...
Well, Bush's depression dispells your lying racist obsessive disorder and
retardation.
ObamaNation is an Abomination
bu...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote:
>
>"ObamaNation is an Abomination" <he...@home.org> wrote in message
>news:4afcc38a...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:22:14 -0800, "NYFD" <poor george
>> bu...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>>>news:i83Lm.28858$6c2....@newsfe03.iad...
>>>
>>>> As opposed to the TRILLIONS that President Wee-Wee is giving to HIS
>>>> buddies?
>>>
>>>Peanuts compared to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Czar Bush dynasty that
>>>should be gassed out of their compound like the vermin they are.
>>
>> The coon-in-charge makes them look like pikers dealing in petty cash.
>
>Well, Bush's depression dispells your lying racist obsessive disorder and
>retardation.
Clue: George Soros' rent-a-boy turned an economic downturn, part of
which was caused by his own Party, into a depression.
You white niggers simply continue to fail to hold a black accountable
for his actions.
Major Debacle
> Major Debacle wrote:
>> 1-20-2013 wrote:
>>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>>> All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>>>> bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>>>> China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>>>> have only one question for ya.
>>>>
>>>> Have you had yer fill?
>>> Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
>>
>> No comparison to the one Bush allowed on 9/11/01, though, is it?
>
> A muslim terrorist attack is a muslim terrorist attack. One dead
> American at the hands of muslim extremists is equally as disgusting at 1
> million dead Americans at the hands of muslim extremists.
>
> Clearly you want to pretend that the muslim terrorist attack at Ft Hood
> wasn't a "muslim terrorist attack"
It wasn't. You know it and I know it.
This guy would have been a nutcase in Saudi Arabia.
ObamaNation is an Abomination
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote:
>1-20-2013 wrote:
>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>> 1-20-2013 wrote:
>>>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>>>> All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>>>>> bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>>>>> China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>>>>> have only one question for ya.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you had yer fill?
>>>> Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
>>>
>>> No comparison to the one Bush allowed on 9/11/01, though, is it?
>>
>> A muslim terrorist attack is a muslim terrorist attack. One dead
>> American at the hands of muslim extremists is equally as disgusting at 1
>> million dead Americans at the hands of muslim extremists.
>>
>> Clearly you want to pretend that the muslim terrorist attack at Ft Hood
>> wasn't a "muslim terrorist attack"
>
>It wasn't. You know it and I know it.
>
>This guy would have been a nutcase in Saudi Arabia.
Actually, he's a hero there.
And a victim in the leftist mind here.
1-20-2013
> 1-20-2013 wrote:
>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>> 1-20-2013 wrote:
>>>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>>>> All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>>>>> bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>>>>> China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>>>>> have only one question for ya.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you had yer fill?
>>>> Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
>>> No comparison to the one Bush allowed on 9/11/01, though, is it?
>> A muslim terrorist attack is a muslim terrorist attack. One dead
>> American at the hands of muslim extremists is equally as disgusting at 1
>> million dead Americans at the hands of muslim extremists.
>>
>> Clearly you want to pretend that the muslim terrorist attack at Ft Hood
>> wasn't a "muslim terrorist attack"
>
> It wasn't. You know it and I know it.
Huh???? So a muslim terrorized and slaughtered Americans on US soil -
but it can't be considered a muslim terrorist attack????????????????
No wonder no one can take liberals seriously.
>
> This guy would have been a nutcase in Saudi Arabia.
He is probably considered a hero in Saudi Arabia. muslim extremists love
it when a muslim terrorist attack is successful on US soil - or anywhere
else in the world for that matter.
You need to face it - your liberal messiah allowed a muslim terrorist
attack to occur on US soil on his watch *AFTER* his apparently failed
Apology Tour(s).
Major Debacle
> Major Debacle wrote:
>> 1-20-2013 wrote:
>>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>>> 1-20-2013 wrote:
>>>>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>>>>> All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>>>>>> bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>>>>>> China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>>>>>> have only one question for ya.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you had yer fill?
>>>>> Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
>>>> No comparison to the one Bush allowed on 9/11/01, though, is it?
>>> A muslim terrorist attack is a muslim terrorist attack. One dead
>>> American at the hands of muslim extremists is equally as disgusting at 1
>>> million dead Americans at the hands of muslim extremists.
>>>
>>> Clearly you want to pretend that the muslim terrorist attack at Ft Hood
>>> wasn't a "muslim terrorist attack"
>> It wasn't. You know it and I know it.
>
> Huh???? So a muslim terrorized and slaughtered Americans on US soil -
> but it can't be considered a muslim terrorist attack????????????????
You can consider it anything you damn well please.
The guy is nutcase and would be a nutcase in any society.
He couldn't get a girl, he couldn't get a friend and he flipped out.
He was born and raised in Arlington, Virginia.
You want to invade Arlington, Virginia?
1-20-2013
All muslim terrorists that I've ever read about appear to be total nutcases.
>
> He was born and raised in Arlington, Virginia.
>
> You want to invade Arlington, Virginia?
Huh??????? Why would I want to invade Arlington, VA????
What I would like to see is all the liberal PC bullcrap go away so when
these muslim total nutcases show signs of being nutcases - they can be
tracked and stopped prior to them declaring jihad and committing another
act of muslim terrorism on US soil or anywhere else for that matter.
But you liberals don't want to hurt their feelings......hence atrocities
will continue to occur - despite your messiah going on Apology Tours.
Major Debacle
This guy was a loner. He was not in cahoots with anyone but the voices
in his head.
Don't glorify him with the title of "Muslim Terrorist".
Major Debacle
> Tater Gumfries wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 7:35 pm, 1-20-2013 <01202...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
>> How?
>>
>> Tater
>
> We'd all LOVE to know.
*You* will *never* know anything.
That's because *you* have scrambled eggs for brains and would, like
Nidal Malik Hasan, be a nutcase in whatever society you might find yerself.
1-20-2013
Well, except for his acquaintances with those that preached to some of
the 911 terrorists, his attempted acquaintances with al-qaeda, his
history of praising allah and demeaning America.
He is a muslim. Fact.
He terrorized Americans on US soil. Fact.
He was shouting allah ahkbar during his rampage. Fact.
He is a muslim terrorist that attacked Americans on US soil. Fact.
His muslim terrorist attack occurred on Obama's watch. Fact.
>
> Don't glorify him with the title of "Muslim Terrorist".
Why not?
True, Obama went on his apology tour to apologize on behalf of all bad
Americans in hopes of preventing muslim terrorist nutbags from attacking
us again....but that effort clearly failed.
America was attacked by a muslim terrorist last week - no matter how
uncomfortable that makes you, your messiah, and the liberal media feel.
Major Debacle
American was not attacked by a muslim terrorist last week.
A demented nutcase shot up his workplace last week.
No different than the many postal workers who "went postal" across
America in recent years.
No different that Tim Mcveigh, registered Republican, who went off the
deep end and killed and maimed over 800 men, women and children in
Oklahoma City.
This particular nutcase had a thin, inconsequential veneer of Islam
covering a massive amount of insanity.
george bush@tsniffsniff.net NYFD
Most people know who the niggers are and they aren't black.
ObamaNation is an Abomination
bu...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote:
>
>"ObamaNation is an Abomination" <he...@home.org> wrote in message
>news:4afcd58a...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:37:15 -0800, "NYFD" <poor george
>> bu...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"ObamaNation is an Abomination" <he...@home.org> wrote in message
>>>news:4afcc38a...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:22:14 -0800, "NYFD" <poor george
>>>> bu...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:i83Lm.28858$6c2....@newsfe03.iad...
>>>>>
>>>>>> As opposed to the TRILLIONS that President Wee-Wee is giving to HIS
>>>>>> buddies?
>>>>>
>>>>>Peanuts compared to Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Czar Bush dynasty that
>>>>>should be gassed out of their compound like the vermin they are.
>>>>
>>>> The coon-in-charge makes them look like pikers dealing in petty cash.
>>>
>>>Well, Bush's depression dispells your lying racist obsessive disorder and
>>>retardation.
>>
>> Clue: George Soros' rent-a-boy turned an economic downturn, part of
>> which was caused by his own Party, into a depression.
>>
>> You white niggers simply continue to fail to hold a black accountable
>> for his actions.
>
>Most people know who the niggers are and they aren't black.
We call them white liberals AKA whiggers.
ObamaNation is an Abomination
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote:
>This particular nutcase had a thin, inconsequential veneer of Islam
>covering a massive amount of insanity.
>
His veneer was about as thin as Osama Bin Laden's
THE PROBLEM IS ISLAM... SAYING OTHERWISE DOES NOT NEGATE THAT FACT.
SENSE OF UMMAH
The Trouble With Islam
Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.
BY TAWFIK HAMID
Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published
a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went
Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a
vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics
protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things
have been, or could be, right.
But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic
world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang
from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of
Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other
daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the
ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic
establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily,
the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come,
actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.
These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root
causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation
of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite
different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya,
a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know
firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can
transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without
confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be
impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets"
of Islamism, the main tap root has a name--Salafism, or Salafi Islam,
a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic
teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows
apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them,
seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies
declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the
Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the
Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough
that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack
of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that
clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism,
more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not
provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel
proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20
years I have been developing and working to establish a
theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.
Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western
intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have
become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among
Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity.
They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism
such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of
Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when
Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if
the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder
why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances
refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of
terror.
Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that
Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This
analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder
of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last
few decades--or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or
the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything
to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and
opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a fa�ade of cultural
relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live
under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot
vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to
self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans
demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate
against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them.
Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish
citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But
once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror
attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message
to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.
Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the
problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the
Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few
violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish
magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The
apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners.
It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal
identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to
morally support America's enemies.
Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an
antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and
practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that
Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take
for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we
experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.
Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been
fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim
organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce
violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims
who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be
considered "moderates."
All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When
Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually
endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of
suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of
relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the
reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue
to face us.
Bill Gamelson
"Major Debacle" <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote in message
> Git off yer lazy ass and *hustle*, Goober!
I am, every single day. There's nothing out there, ignoramous!
>
> You think Obama or the country or *anybody* owes you a job?
>
Not at all. I've applied at five area airports doing what I was doing
before I was laid off, thanks to the Muslim in charge. Nothing. I've
applied at six area McDonald's. Nothing. I've applied at 14 area
restaraunts for a dishwasher. Nothing. Temp services, nothing.
Thannks to the monkey in charge, nobody's hiring.
And now he wants to tax me to pay for YOUR FUCKING HEALTH CARE!!!
Bill Gamelson
"Major Debacle" <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote in message
According to the Dummycrats, this is exactlly what happened. Now what's the
difference?
lab~rat >:-)
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> puked:
It's all that redistributive change. He's taking jobs from working
people and creating do nothing jobs for bums.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Major Debacle
And for all that the guy is nothing but a nutcase.
Fer chrissake, he was fucking *psychiatrist*!
How much nuttier can you get?!
--
Rights Are Not Given, They Are Taken
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."
W Spilman
"Bill Gamelson" <bill.g...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TedLm.29021$6c2....@newsfe03.iad...
Tax what? How are you going to pay taxes when you have no income?
The only thing Obama does that keeps you from getting a job is extend
unemployment benefits, it stops you from looking. Everybody I know
who really wants a job has a job.
WS
Bill Gamelson
"W Spilman" <w...@knows.com> wrote in message
news:IXeLm.26193$_Y3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> Tax what? How are you going to pay taxes when you have no income?
Why don't you go tell Hillary Clinton this because she's threatening to fine
me for not paying for health care even if I can't afford health care.
> The only thing Obama does that keeps you from getting a job is extend
> unemployment benefits, it stops you from looking. Everybody I know
> who really wants a job has a job.
That is an outright lie and you know it. I don't qualify for unemployment
because I wasn't at my previous job long enough to qualify. So now I
m scraping by as best I can. I look for jobs every single day. Sometimes I
can't afford to do laundry, so the employers are less likely to hire someone
that smells. I am told at some places that they are out of applications
because of all the people who have applied there. The lines are long and
nobody is hiring thanks to this economy under Barack Hussein Obama..
Kevin Cunningham
> Major Debacle wrote:
> > All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
> > bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
> > China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
> > have only one question for ya.
>
> > Have you had yer fill?
>
> foreseeable end in sight.
>
> Thankfully Obama is following in George W Bush's footsteps and
> continuing the war on terror, keeping Club Gitmo open, and continuing to
> wiretap suspected terrorists phones!!!!!
So when did Bush, Cheney and Rove ever serve in the military? They
wanted war, they got two wars going and they lost both. Yeah, what we
need is more hypocrites.
And you repugs sure are hypocrites. You never served, you want others
to fight your wars.
Oh, sorry, Obama is closing Gitmo and all the prisoners have counsel.
Kevin Cunningham
Ok, scum, come up with the rest of the names of the Muslim Terrorists
who attacked. The FBI is waiting with baited breath.
See, scum, there was no group involved. The filth that killed our
troops was a Muslim but that is not the reason he killed 13 people.
He did it because he has a mental disease but probably not enough to
get him to a psychiatric facility.
Kevin Cunningham
Face it Gamelson, the real reason you can't get hired is your
demented. You don't qualify for any thing but the local nut hatch.
You got run out of your previous job because your nuts and you won't
get hired by any sane person.
ObamaNation is an Abomination
<major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote:
>ObamaNation is an Abomination wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:16:25 -0800, Major Debacle
>> <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote:
>>=20
>>> This particular nutcase had a thin, inconsequential veneer of Islam
>>> covering a massive amount of insanity.
>>>
>>=20
>> His veneer was about as thin as Osama Bin Laden's
>>=20
>>=20
>> THE PROBLEM IS ISLAM... SAYING OTHERWISE DOES NOT NEGATE THAT FACT.
>>=20
>> SENSE OF UMMAH
>>=20
>> The Trouble With Islam=20
>> Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.=20
>>=20
>> BY TAWFIK HAMID=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published
>> a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went
>> Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a
>> vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics
>> protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things
>> have been, or could be, right.=20
>>=20
>> But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic
>> world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang
>> from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of
>> Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other
>> daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the
>> ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic
>> establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily,
>> the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come,
>> actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.
>>=20
>> These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root
>> causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation
>> of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite
>> different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya,
>> a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know
>> firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can
>> transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without
>> confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be
>> impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets"
>> of Islamism, the main tap root has a name--Salafism, or Salafi Islam,
>> a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
>>=20
>> It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic
>> teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows
>> apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them,
>> seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies
>> declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the
>> Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the
>> Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough
>> that there is something fundamentally wrong.=20
>>=20
>> The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack
>> of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that
>> clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism,
>> more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not
>> provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel
>> proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20
>> years I have been developing and working to establish a
>> theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.=20
>>=20
>> Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western
>> intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have
>> become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among
>> Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity.
>> They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism
>> such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of
>> Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when
>> Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if
>> the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder
>> why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances
>> refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of
>> terror.=20
>>=20
>> Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that
>> Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This
>> analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder
>> of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last
>> few decades--or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or
>> the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything
>> to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.=20
>> Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and
>> opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a fa=E7ade of cultural
>> relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live
>> under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot
>> vote, drive cars and dress as they please.
>>=20
>> The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to
>> self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans
>> demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate
>> against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them.
>> Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish
>> citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But
>> once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror
>> attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message
>> to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.=20
>>=20
>> Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the
>> problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the
>> Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few
>> violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish
>> magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The
>> apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.
>>=20
>> Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners.
>> It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal
>> identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to
>> morally support America's enemies.=20
>>=20
>> Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an
>> antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and
>> practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that
>> Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take
>> for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we
>> experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.
>>=20
>> Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been
>> fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim
>> organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce
>> violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims
>> who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be
>> considered "moderates."
>>=20
>> All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When
>> Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually
>> endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of
>> suppressing their voices.
>> Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of
>> relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the
>> reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue
>> to face us.
>>=20
>
>And for all that the guy is nothing but a nutcase.
>
>Fer chrissake, he was fucking *psychiatrist*!
>
>How much nuttier can you get?!
Islam is nutty.
Two dead in soccer celebration gunfire. From correspondents in
Baghdad
THEY WON THE GAME; IMAGINE THE CARNAGE IF THEY HAD LOST
Article from: Reuters
TWO people were killed and 15 wounded in Baghdad today when
soccer-loving Iraqis fired weapons into the air to celebrate their
team's quarter-final victory over Vietnam in the Asian Cup.
Police said the victims had all been killed and wounded in central
Baghdad.
Repeated bursts of automatic fire echoed around Baghdad straight after
Iraq's national team won the match 2-0 in Bangkok.
With their country on the verge of all-out civil war, Iraqis have
taken great delight in revelling in the progress of their soccer team
in the Asian Cup.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22114047-23109,00.html
>--=20
*us*
wrote:
>All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>have only one question for ya.
>
>Have you had yer fill?
The party of Nixon-Reagan-BushWimps have
stolen the US Treasury and handed America
over to China, exactly on schedule.
*us*
>"Major Debacle" <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> wrote in message news:hdie90$tvj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>> bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>> China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>> have only one question for ya.
>>
>> Have you had yer fill?
>
>At least I had a fucking job then!
So enlist.
*us*
>... nobody's hiring.
Nobody's hiring you.
*us*
>In article <hdihnu$kba$2...@news.eternal-september.org>, Major Debacle <major_debacle@The_Pentagon.invalid> whined:
>> 1-20-2013 wrote:
>> > Major Debacle wrote:
>> >> All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>> >> bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>> >> China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>> >> have only one question for ya.
>> >>
>> >> Have you had yer fill?
>> >
>> > Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
>>
>> No comparison to the one Bush allowed on 9/11/01, though, is it?
>
>
>Yep.
>
>
>snicker.
9/11 couldn't have happened without the Bush Wimps.
Dave Heil
> Face it Gamelson, the real reason you can't get hired is your
> demented.
Don't keep us in suspense! His demented what?
> You don't qualify for any thing but the local nut hatch.
> You got run out of your previous job because your nuts and you won't
> get hired by any sane person.
Because his nuts did what?
Dave Heil
Please explain how terrorism is limited to group activities.
Dave Heil
> On Nov 12, 9:35 pm, 1-20-2013 <01202...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote:
>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>> All you war hungry jerks who cheered Bush on every step of the way as he
>>> bankrupted the nation, borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from
>>> China to pour into the pockets of his buddies in the war industry, I
>>> have only one question for ya.
>>> Have you had yer fill?
>> Obama allowed a muslim terrorist to attack on American soil last week,
>> so unfortunately - the war on terror must surge forward with no
>> foreseeable end in sight.
>>
>> Thankfully Obama is following in George W Bush's footsteps and
>> continuing the war on terror, keeping Club Gitmo open, and continuing to
>> wiretap suspected terrorists phones!!!!!
>
> So when did Bush, Cheney and Rove ever serve in the military?
You seemed to know when President Bush was in the military just a couple
of days back. Are you having trouble with your memory?
I've asked you repeatedly about your military experience, Kevin. You
never seem to get around to answering. You've called a number of
posters here "coward" for not serving when, in fact, they have served.
> They
> wanted war, they got two wars going and they lost both.
Well, the American people wanted war. The House and the Senate wanted
war because they voted for it. Neither war is lost; both are ongoing.
Didn't you know any of this?
> Yeah, what we
> need is more hypocrites.
What we need is more citizens with a command of the facts.
> And you repugs sure are hypocrites. You never served, you want others
> to fight your wars.
When and where did you serve in the U.S. military?
> Oh, sorry, Obama is closing Gitmo and all the prisoners have counsel.
A White House staffer just quit over Obama's pushing the Gitmo closure
date back. Maybe you didn't get the memo.
Nobama
>9/11 couldn't have happened without the lying crook Clinton.
How Chinagate Led to 9/11
As the 9/11 Commission tries to uncover what kept intelligence
agencies from preventing September 11, it has overlooked two vital
factors: Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton. Gorelick, who has browbeaten
the current administration, helped erect the walls between the FBI,
CIA and local investigators that made 9/11 inevitable. However, she
was merely expanding the policy Bill Clinton established with
Presidential Decision Directive 24. What has been little underreported
is why the policy came about: to thwart investigations into the
Chinese funding of Clinton�s re-election campaign, and the favors he
bestowed on them in return.
In April, CNSNews.com staff writer Scott Wheeler reported that a
senior U.S. government official and three other sources claimed that
the 1995 memo written by Jamie Gorelick, who served as the Clinton
Justice Department�s deputy attorney general from 1994 to 1997,
created "a roadblock" to the investigation of illegal Chinese
donations to the Democratic National Committee. But the picture is
much bigger than that. The Gorelick memo, which blocked intelligence
agents from sharing information that could have halted the September
11 hijacking plot, was only the mortar in a much larger maze of
bureaucratic walls whose creation Gorelick personally oversaw.
It�s a story the 9/11 Commission may not want to hear, and one that
Gorelick � now incredibly a member of that commission � has so far
refused to tell. But it is perhaps the most crucial one to
understanding the intentional breakdown of intelligence that led to
the September 11 disaster.
Nearly from the moment Gorelick took office in the Clinton Justice
Department, she began acting as the point woman for a large-scale
bureaucratic reorganization of intelligence agencies that ultimately
placed the gathering of intelligence, and decisions about what � if
anything � would be done with it. This entire operation was under
near-direct control of the White House. In the process, more than a
dozen CIA and FBI investigations underway at the time got caught
beneath the heel of the presidential boot, investigations that would
ultimately reveal massive Chinese espionage as millions in illegal
Chinese donations filled Democratic Party campaign coffers.
When Gorelick took office in 1994, the CIA was reeling from the news
that a Russian spy had been found in CIA ranks, and Congress was
hungry for a quick fix. A month after Gorelick was sworn in, Bill
Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 24. PDD 24 put
intelligence gathering under the direct control of the president�s
National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a
four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (that is,
stifle) intelligence sharing and cooperation between intelligence
agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence
sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a
befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President�s
office.
First, the directive effectively neutered the CIA by creating a
National Counterintelligence Center (NCI) to oversee the Agency. NCI
was staffed by an FBI agent appointed by the Clinton administration.
It also brought multiple international investigations underway at the
time under direct administrative control. The job of the NCI was to
�implement counterintelligence activities,� which meant that virtually
everything the CIA did, from a foreign intelligence agent�s report to
polygraph test results, now passed through the intelligence center
that PDD 24 created.
NCI reported to an administration-appointed National
Counterintelligence Operations Board (NCOB) charged with �discussing
counterintelligence matters.� The NCOB in turn reported to a National
Intelligence Policy Board, which coordinated activities between
intelligence agencies attempting to work together. The policy board
reported �directly� to the president through the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs.
The result was a massive bureaucratic roadblock for the CIA � which at
the time had a vast lead on the FBI in foreign intelligence � and for
the FBI itself, which was also forced to report to the NCOB. This
hampered cooperation between the two entities. All this occurred at a
time when both agencies were working separate ends of investigations
that would eventually implicate China in technology transfers and the
Democratic Party in a Chinese campaign cash grab.
And the woman charged with selling this plan to Congress, convince the
media and ultimately implement much of it? Jamie Gorelick.
Many in Congress, including some Democrats, found the changes PDD 24
put in place baffling: they seemed to do nothing to insulate the CIA
from infiltration while devastating the agency�s ability to collect
information. At the time, Democrat House Intelligence Chairman Dan
Glickman referred to the plan as �regulatory gobbledygook." Others
questioned how FBI control of CIA intelligence would foster greater
communication between the lower levels of the CIA and FBI, now that
all information would have to be run through a multi-tier bureaucratic
maze that only went upward.
Despite their doubts, Gorelick helped the administration sell the plan
on Capitol Hill. The Directive stood.
But that wasn�t good enough for the Clinton administration, which
wanted control over every criminal and intelligence investigation,
domestic and foreign, for reasons that would become apparent in a few
years. For the first time in Justice Department history, a political
appointee, Richard Scruggs � an old crony or Attorney General Janet
Reno�s from Florida � was put in charge of the Office of Intelligence
and Policy Review (OIPR). OIPR is the Justice Department agency in
charge of requesting wiretap and surveillance authority for criminal
and intelligence investigations on behalf of investigative agencies
from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. The
court�s activities are kept secret from the public.
A year after PDD 24, with the new bureaucratic structure loaded with
administration appointees, Gorelick drafted the 1995 memo Attorney
General John Ashcroft mentioned while testifying before the 9/11
Commission. The Gorelick memo, and other supporting memos released in
recent weeks, not only created walls within the intelligence agencies
that prevented information sharing among their own agents, but
effectively walled these agencies off from each other and from outside
contact with the U.S. prosecutors instrumental in helping them gather
the evidence needed to make the case for criminal charges.
The only place left to go with intelligence information � particularly
for efforts to share intelligence information or obtain search
warrants � was straight up Clinton and Gorelick�s multi-tiered chain
of command. Instead, information lethal to the Democratic Party
languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind Gorelick�s
walls.
The implications were enormous. In her letter of protest to Attorney
General Reno over Gorelick�s memo, United States Attorney Mary Jo
White spelled them out: �These instructions leave entirely to OIPR and
the (Justice Department) Criminal Division when, if ever, to contact
affected U.S. attorneys on investigations including terrorism and
espionage,� White wrote. (Like OIPR, the Criminal Division is also
part of the Justice Department.)
Without an enforcer, the walls might Gorelick�s memo put in place
might not have held. But Scruggs acted as that enforcer, and he
excelled at it. Scruggs maintained Gorelick�s walls between the FBI
and Justice's Criminal Division by threatening to automatically reject
any FBI request for a wiretap or search warrant if the Bureau
contacted the Justice Department's Criminal Division without
permission. This deprived the FBI, and ultimately the CIA, of
gathering advice and assistance from the Criminal Division that was
critical in espionage and terrorist cases.
It is no coincidence that this occurred at the same time both the FBI
and the CIA were churning up evidence damaging to the Democratic
Party, its fundraisers, the Chinese and ultimately the Clinton
administration itself. Between 1994 and the 1996 election, as Chinese
dollars poured into Democratic coffers, Clinton struggled to reopen
high-tech trade to China. Had agents confirmed Chinese theft of
weapons technology or its transfer of weapons technology to nations
like Pakistan, Iran and Syria, Clinton would have been forced by law
and international treaty to react.
Gorelick�s appointment to the job at Justice in 1994 occurred during a
period in which the FBI had begun to systematically investigate
technology theft by foreign powers. For the first time, these
investigations singled out the U.S. chemical, telecommunications,
aircraft and aerospace industries for intelligence collection.
By the time Gorelick wrote the March 1995 memo that sealed off
American intelligence agencies from each other and the outside world,
all of the most critical Chinagate investigations by American
intelligence agencies were already underway. Some of their findings
were damning:
In an investigation originally instigated by the CIA, the FBI was
beginning its search for the source of the leak of W-88 nuclear
warhead technology to China among the more than 1,000 people who had
access to the secrets. Despite Justice Department stonewalling and the
Department�s refusal to seek wiretap authority in 1997, the
investigation eventually led to Wen Ho Lee and the Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
The FBI first collected Extensive evidence in 1995 linking illegal
Democratic Party donations to China, according to the Congressional
Record. But Congress and the Director of the CIA didn�t find out about
the Justice Department�s failure to act upon that evidence until 1997,
safely after the 1996 election.
According to classified CIA documents leaked to the Washington Times,
between 1994 and 1997, the CIA learned that China sold Iran missile
technology, a nuclear fission reactor, advanced air-defense radar and
chemical agents. The Chinese also provided 5,000 ring magnets to
Pakistan, used in producing weapons-grade uranium. The Chinese also
provided uranium fuel for India's reactors.
In many cases the CIA resorting to leaking classified information to
the media, in an effort to bypass the administration�s blackout.
Gorelick knew these facts well. While Clinton may have refused to meet
with top CIA officials, Gorelick didn�t. According to a 1996 report by
the legal news service American Lawyer Media, Gorelick and then-Deputy
Director of the CIA George Tenet met every other week to discuss
intelligence and intelligence sharing.
But those in the Clinton administration weren�t the only ones to gain
from the secrecy. In 1994, the McDonnell Douglas Corporation
transferred military-use machine tools to the China National
Aero-Technology Import and Export Corporation that ended up in the
hands of the Chinese army. The sale occurred despite Defense
Department objections. McDonnell Douglas was a client of the Miller
Cassidy Larroca & Lewin, L.L.P. (now called Baker Botts), the
Washington, D.C., law firm where Gorelick worked for 17 years and was
a partner. Ray Larroca, another partner in the firm, represented
McDonnell in the Justice Department�s investigation of the technology
transfer.
In 1995, General Electric, a former client of Gorelick�s, also had
much to lose if the damaging information the CIA and the FBI had
reached Congress. At the time, GE was publicly lobbying for a
lucrative permit to assist the Chinese in replacing coal-fired power
stations with nuclear plants. A 1990 law required that the president
certify to Congress that China was not aiding in nuclear proliferation
before U.S. companies could execute the business agreement.
Moreover, in 1995, Michael Armstrong, then the CEO of Hughes
Electronics � a division of General Electric and another client of
Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin � was publicly lobbying Clinton to
switch satellite export controls from the State Department to the
Commerce Department. After the controls were lifted, Hughes and
another company gave sensitive data to the Chinese, equipment a
Pentagon study later concluded would allow China to develop
intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles aimed at
American targets. Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin partner Randall Turk
represented Hughes in the Congressional, State Department, and Justice
Department investigations that resulted.
The Cox Report, which detailed Chinese espionage for Congress during
the period, revealed that FBI surveillance caught Chinese officials
frantically trying to keep Democratic donor Johnny Chung from
divulging any information that would be damaging to Hughes
Electronics. Chung funneled $300,000 in illegal contributions from the
Chinese military to the DNC between 1994 and 1996.
It was this web of investigations that led Gorelick and Bill Clinton
to erect the wall between intelligence agencies that resulted in the
toppling of the Twin Towers. The connections go on and on, but they
all lead back to Gorelick, the one person who could best explain how
the Clinton administration neutered the American intelligence agencies
that could have stopped the September 11 plot. Yet another high crime
will have been committed if the September 11 Commission doesn�t demand
testimony from her.
W Spilman
Come to North Carolina. We need farm workers and roofers, and you
can even send an illegal alien back when you take his job.
WS
*us*
Even the most desperate bushworshipper can't dispute that.
Nobama
>9/11 couldn't have happened without the complete
>cooperation of Bill Clinton.
Tell me about it.
miles
> 9/11 couldn't have happened without the Bush Wimps.
Um, hate to tell you this but 99% of the planning that went into the
9/11 attack occurred during Clintons years in office, not Bush's.
Bill Gamelson
"miles" <no...@nopers.com> wrote in message
news:HQVLm.17026$ET3....@newsfe17.iad...
And Osama bin Laden himself stated the reason he masterminded it is because
of Bill Clinton's failed atempts at killing him in his training compound.
To which the Dims holllered: "But it happened on Bush's watch!"
Now then, when the unemployment is at 10.2% and climbing, the same Dims
holler: It's Bush's recession!"
*us*
Even the most desperate bushworshipper can't dispute that.
*us*
>...hate...
Why is that all you have? Why do you hate Americans?
9/11 couldn't have happened without the Bush Wimps.
Even the most desperate bushworshipper can't dispute that.
*us*
>And Osama bin Laden himself stated ...
He said he had nothing to do with the crimes of 9/11.
So far, the FBI agrees.
9/11 couldn't have happened without the Bush Wimps.
Even the most desperate bushworshipper can't dispute that.
Nobama
>9/11 couldn't have happened without the
>full cooperation and incompetence of Clinton.
Ayuh
What Happ'n'd To The Magic Mulatto?
>He said he had nothing to do with the crimes of 9/11.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: What did the Clinton administration know about
Osama bin Laden and when did they know it?
Richard Miniter: One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that
no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001. In fact, the bin
Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton
administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept
escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden
was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch.
President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn
into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he
first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World
Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that
same year.
In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.)
repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other
administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists.
McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on
Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of
contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who
regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training
camps and evil ambitions.
Indeed, it is possible that Clinton and his national-security team
learned of bin Laden even before the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
My interviews and investigation revealed that bin Laden made his first
attack on Americans was December 1992, a little more than a month
after Clinton won the 1992 election. His target was 100 U.S. Marines
housed in two towering Yemen hotels. Within hours, the CIA's
counterterrorism center learned that the Yemen suspected a man named
Osama bin Laden. (One of the arrested bombing suspects later escaped
and was detained in a police sweep after al Qaeda attacked the USS
Cole in 2000.) Lake says he doesn't remember briefing the
president-elect about the attempted attack, but that he well might
have.
So it is safe to conclude that Clinton knew about the threat posed by
bin Laden since 1993, his first year in office.
Lopez: What exactly was U.S. reaction to the attack on the USS Cole?
Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen.
Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost
sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered
an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and
World War I when our ships were attacked.
Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke had ordered his staff to review
existing intelligence in relation to the bombing of the USS Cole.
After that review, he and Michael Sheehan, the State Department's
counterterrorism coordinator, were convinced it was the work of Osama
bin Laden. The Pentagon had on-the-shelf, regularly updated and
detailed strike plans for bin Laden's training camps and strongholds
in Afghanistan.
At a meeting with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Director of
Central Intelligence George Tenet, Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, Attorney General Janet Reno, and other staffers, Clarke was
the only one in favor of retaliation against bin Laden. Reno thought
retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against
it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind
the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was
concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against
Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton
Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not
consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military
retaliation. Michael Sheehan was particularly surprised that the
Pentagon did not want to act. He told Clarke: "What's it going to take
to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to
attack the Pentagon?"
Instead of destroying bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and
capabilities, President Clinton phoned twice phoned the president of
Yemen demanding better cooperation between the FBI and the Yemeni
security services. If Clarke's plan had been implemented, al Qaeda's
infrastructure would have been demolished and bin Laden might well
have been killed. Sept. 11, 2001 might have been just another sunny
day.
Lopez: When the World Trade Center was first bombed in '93, why was it
treated at first as a criminal investigation?
Miniter: The Clinton administration was in the dark about the full
extent of the bin Laden menace because the president's decision to
treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a crime. Once the FBI
began a criminal investigation, it could not lawfully share its
information with the CIA � without also having to share the same data
with the accused terrorists. Woolsey told me about his frustration
that he had less access to evidence from the World Trade Center
bombing � the then-largest ever foreign terrorist attack on U.S soil �
than any junior agent in the FBI's New York office.
Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several
reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the
towers had been bombed at all � even though the FBI made that
determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had
exploded or a bank heist went bad.
More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was
politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy
process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from
consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to
blame if the terrorists were released on a "technicality" or if
foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. Oh well, he
tried.
By contrast, if Clinton treated the bombing as the act of terrorism
that it was, he would be assuming personal responsibility for a series
of politically risky moves. Should he deploy the CIA or special forces
to hunt down the perpetrators? What happens if the agents or soldiers
die? What if they try to capture the terrorists and fail? One misstep
and the media, Congress, and even the public might blame the
president. So Clinton took the easy, safe way out, and called it a
crime.
Lopez: Bill Clinton was actually offered bin Laden? Could you set the
scene a little and clue us in on why, for heavens sakes, he would not
take advantage of such opportunities?
Miniter: On March 3, 1996, U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Tim Carney,
Director of East African Affairs at the State Department, David Shinn,
and a member of the CIA's directorate of operations' Africa division
met with Sudan's then-Minister of State for Defense Elfatih Erwa in a
Rosslyn, Virginia hotel room. Item number two on the CIA's list of
demands was to provide information about Osama bin Laden. Five days
later, Erwa met with the CIA officer and offered more than
information. He offered to arrest and turn over bin Laden himself. Two
years earlier, the Sudan had turned over the infamous terrorist,
Carlos the Jackal to the French. He now sits in a French prison. Sudan
wanted to repeat that scenario with bin Laden in the starring role.
Clinton administration officials have offered various explanations for
not taking the Sudanese offer. One argument is that an offer was never
made. But the same officials are on the record as saying the offer was
"not serious." Even a supposedly non-serious offer is an offer.
Another argument is that the Sudanese had not come through on a prior
request so this offer could not be trusted. But, as Ambassador Tim
Carney had argued at the time, even if you believe that, why not call
their bluff and ask for bin Laden?
The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of
taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor
Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we
had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore
opposed bringing him to the United States." Even if that was true �
and it wasn't � the U.S. could have turned bin Laden over to Yemen or
Libya, both of which had valid warrants for his arrest stemming from
terrorist activities in those countries. Given the legal systems of
those two countries, Osama would have soon ceased to be a threat to
anyone.
After months of debating how to respond to the Sudanese offer, the
Clinton administration simply asked Sudan to deport him. Where to?
Ambassador Carney told me what he told the Sudanese: "Anywhere but
Somalia."
In May 1996 bin Laden was welcomed into Afghanistan by the Taliban. It
could not have been a better haven for Osama bin Laden.
Steven Simon, Clinton's counterterrorism director on the National
Security Council thought that kicking bin Laden out of Sudan would
benefit U.S. security since "It's going to take him a while to
reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time." Buys time? Oh
yeah, 1996 was an election year and team Clinton did not want to deal
with bin Laden until after it was safely reelected.
Lopez: This amazes me every time I hear it: You write, "When a small
plane accidentally crashed into the White House lawn in 1994, West
Wing staffers joked that it was [Jim] Woolsey trying to see the
president..." How could the CIA director have that bad a relationship
with his president? And this, after the first WTC attack. Did no one
in the West Wing get it?
Miniter: Never once in his two-year tenure did CIA director James
Woolsey ever have a one-on-one meeting with Clinton. Even semiprivate
meetings were rare. They only happened twice. Woolsey told me: "It
wasn't that I had a bad relationship with the president. It just
didn't exist."
One of the little scoops in the book is the revelation that Clinton
froze Woolsey out because the CIA director refused to put a friend of
Bill on the agency's payroll. This account was confirmed by both
Woolsey and the Clinton's consigliore Bruce Lindsey.
Considering the Justice Department's experience with Webster Hubbell,
another Friend of Bill, Woolsey's decision may have done the CIA a
great deal of good. But Clinton's pique did not make America any safer
from bin Laden.
Another Clinton intelligence failure involved a refusal to help the
CIA hire more Arabic language translators. In 1993, Woolsey learned
that the agency was able to translate only 10 percent of its Arabic
intercepts and badly wanted more translators. But Sen. Dennis
DeConcini refused to approve the funds unless Clinton phoned him and
said it was a presidential priority. Despite entreaties, Clinton never
phoned the Democratic senator and the CIA didn't get those translators
for years.
Lopez: In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?
Miniter: Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:
1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in
Yemen.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation,
hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip
through their fingers in Qatar.
4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia.
5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.
6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private
back channel.
7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in
Afghanistan.
8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in
Afghanistan.
9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda
operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another
little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two
terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration
declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to
Pakistan.
10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese
pharmaceutical factory.
11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden
before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998.
Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.
12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile
strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.
15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane,
which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton
administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the
archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous
attack on the USS Cole.
Lopez: You sorta defend Clinton against "wag the dog" criticisms in
regard to that infamous August 1998 (Monica times) bombing of a
pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan and some bin Laden strongholds in
Afghanistan. That wasn't the problem, was it � that we fired then?
Miniter: Certainly the timing is suspicious. The day before the East
African-embassy bombings, Monica Lewinsky had recanted her prior
affidavit denying a sexual relationship with Clinton. The sex scandals
kicked into overdrive.
Still, the president wasn't doing too much in combating bin Laden
because of his sex scandals � he was doing too little. He should have
launched more missile strikes against bin Laden and the hell with the
political timing. Besides, after the East African-embassy bombings,
any president would have been negligent not to strike back. If he had
not, it would be open season on Americans. He would have been as
ineffectual as Carter was during the Tehran hostage crisis. Indeed,
this was the mistake made following the attack on the USS Cole.
But Clinton was distracted by sex and campaign-finance scandals and
his political support was already heavily leveraged to get him through
those scandals. If he fought bin Laden more vigorously, the leftwing
of the Democratic party might have deserted him � which could have
cost him the White House.
Instead Clinton's token, ineffectual missile strikes that only
emboldened bin Laden. He believed that America was too intimidated to
fight back � and was free to plan one of the most-murderous terrorist
attacks in history.
Lopez: How did George Tenet perform during the Clinton years vis-�-vis
al Qaeda/bin Laden?
Miniter: Tenet seemed to take a too legalistic view of CIA operations.
He was risk-averse, wanting almost absolute certainty before
recommending action, focused on safeguards against error and
unintended consequences. Tenet seemed more concerned with not getting
in trouble rather than relentlessly pursuing results to safeguard
Americans against terrorism, the focus of a warrior.
Each time U.S. intelligence pinpointed bin Laden, Tenet was against a
missile strike on the grounds that the information was "single
threaded" � a pet phrase of the director which means single source.
The predator was armed and fitted with video cameras mostly to
overcome Tenet's objections to taking out bin Laden.
Lopez: Madeline Albright � frequently called upon expert nowadays �
what's her record vis-�-vis al Qaeda?
Miniter: Albright always insisted that diplomatic efforts would best
yield results on bin Laden. Even after the Cole bombing, Albright
urged continued diplomatic efforts with the Taliban to turn him over,
even though that effort had been going on for two years with no
progress. Two simple facts should have made Albright aware that the
Taliban would never turn over bin Laden: Osama had married off one of
his sons to Mullah Omar's daughter. The Taliban weren't about to
surrender a member of the family � especially one that commanded
thousands of armed fighters who helped maintain Omar's grip on power.
Lopez: What exactly is the Iraq-al Qaeda connection?
Miniter: Osama bin Laden's wealth is overestimated. He had been
financially drained during his years in Sudan and financing terrorist
operations in dozens of countries, including training camps, bribes,
etc., requires a large, constant cash flow. Saddam Hussein was
unquestionably a generous financier of terrorism. Baghdad had a long
history of funding terrorist campaigns in the bin Laden-allied region
that straddles Iran and Pakistan known as Beluchistan. Documents found
in Baghdad in April 2003 showed that Saddam funded the Allied
Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric
linked to bin Laden since the 1990s. Saddam openly funded the Iraqi
Kurdish Group and its leader, Melan Krekar, admitted that he met bin
Laden in Afghanistan. George Tenet testified to the Senate
Intelligence Committee that Iraq had provided training in forging
documents and making bombs. Farouk Harazi, a senior officer in the
Iraqi Mukhabarat reportedly offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq. Salah
Suleiman, an Iraqi intelligence operative, was arrested in October
2000 near the Afghan border, apparently returning from a visit to bin
Laden. One of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin,
reportedly fled to Baghdad in 1994. Iraq ran an extensive intelligence
hub in Khartoum; Sudanese intelligence officers told me about dozens
of meeting between Iraqi Intel and bin Laden. Tellingly, reports that
Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague several
times in 2000 and 2001 have not been disproved. I have far more on
this in Appendix A of Losing bin Laden.
Lopez: What most surprised you to learn about the Clinton years and
terrorism?
Miniter: Three things:
1) That the Sept. 11 attacks were planned in May 1998 in the Khalden
Camp in southeastern Afghanistan, according to American and British
intelligence officers I interviewed. In other words, the 9/11 attacks
were planned on Clinton's watch.
2) The sheer number of bin Laden's attacks on Americans during the
Clinton years.
3) And how much senior Clinton-administration officials knew about bin
Laden and how little they did about it.
Lopez: This sounds like this could all be right-wing propaganda. How
can you convince readers otherwise?
Miniter: Most of my best sources were senior Clinton officials,
including both of his national-security advisers, his first CIA
director, Clinton's counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Madeline
Albright, and others. Plus, I interviewed scores of career federal
officials. None of them are card-carrying members of the vast
right-wing conspiracy.
And, while I shine the light on Clinton's shortcomings in dealing with
bin Laden, I also give credit where it is due. Chapter nine is all
about one of the greatest (and least-known) Clinton victories over bin
Laden � the successful thwarting of a series of plots to murder
thousands of Americans on Millennium night, 1999.
If anyone has any doubts about the credibility of this book, they
should read the acknowledgements, which list many of my sources. Or
peruse the more than 15,000 words of footnotes, that allow the reader
to see exactly where information is coming from. Or examine the
intelligence documents reproduced in Appendix B. Or pick a page at
random and read it. Any fair-minded reader will see a carefully
constructed and balanced account that attempts to lay out the history
of Clinton and bin Laden.
Bill Gamelson
<* US *> wrote in message news:ugg2g553b0pekeec3...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:42:06 -0700, "Bill Gamelson"
> <bill.g...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>And Osama bin Laden himself stated ...
>
> He said he had nothing to do with the crimes of 9/11.
>
> So far, the FBI agrees.
Lie.
After initial denial, in 2004 Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the
September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States
Eggen, Dan (28 August 2006). "Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?".
The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html.
?
"Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11". CBC News. 29 October 2004.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html.
Retrieved 2006-11-02.
?
"Osama claims responsibility for 9/11". The Times of India. 2006-05-24.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms.
?
lab~rat >:-)
<bill.g...@cox.net> puked:
>
>"W Spilman" <w...@knows.com> wrote in message
>news:IXeLm.26193$_Y3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>>
>> Tax what? How are you going to pay taxes when you have no income?
>
>Why don't you go tell Hillary Clinton this because she's threatening to fine
>me for not paying for health care even if I can't afford health care.
>
>> The only thing Obama does that keeps you from getting a job is extend
>> unemployment benefits, it stops you from looking. Everybody I know
>> who really wants a job has a job.
>
>That is an outright lie and you know it.
I know plenty of people that are out of work and a lot that should be
but are hanging in there hoping the economy rebounds sooner than
later. Myself and the people that work for me included. Where do you
live? I'm in S. Florida.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Bill Gamelson
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
news:anr2g5hbdv0hbct0a...@4ax.com...
> I know plenty of people that are out of work and a lot that should be
> but are hanging in there hoping the economy rebounds sooner than
> later. Myself and the people that work for me included. Where do you
> live? I'm in S. Florida.
I live in Mesa AZ.
lab~rat >:-)
<bill.g...@cox.net> puked:
>
Good luck finding work.
I read this over the weekend and was encouraged by it. I hope it
isn't a fluke:
A cautious turnaround: Builders running low on new home inventory
Day Brown
involved the presidency. Yet that does not disturb you?
No wonder those few who can see beyond partisan rhetoric see the
republic headed for disaster.
Day Brown
> Miniter: In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen.
> Seventeen sailors were killed in the blast. The USS Cole was almost
> sunk. In any ordinary administration, this would have been considered
> an act of war. After all, America entered the Spanish-American war and
> World War I when our ships were attacked.
is where the explosion came from according to reports by divers. We also
know the Gulf of Tonkin was a con job. We further now know there were
those in the FDR administration who knew the Jap fleet was on the way to
Pearl, but let it happen to motivate the nation for WWII. So, in this
case, it looks like Minter, and not Clinton, was the fool.
Likewise, there were those in the Bush administration who knew 911 was
coming down, which is really obvious in the Swiss report on short sales
just before 9/11/2001.
This is not to say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not needed, only
that the electorate is too stupid, ignorant, and neurotic to listen to
reason, so 911 was setup.
What Happ'n'd To The Magic Mulatto?
wrote:
You ain't shittin'
Evil Eric Holder is trying the perps in a civilian court where they
can get on their Islamic soapboxes. They haven't been Mirandized
which means that their confessions can be thrown out. Also, your
President has said that they were tortured.
Look for acquittals.
What Happ'n'd To The Magic Mulatto?
wrote:
>What Happ'n'd To The Magic Mulatto? wrote:
Clinton's Artless Equivocation on 'The Path to 9/11'
By Dennis Byrne
If the worst criticism of President Bush is that he lied to us about
Iraq, then we just got a whopping reminder of Bill Clinton's
extraordinary talents for deception.
In a letter to ABC's chief Bob Iger, Clinton's attorney, Bruce
Lindsey, alleges that the network's program, The Path to 9/11 is
"factually and incontrovertibly" inaccurate in suggesting that the
Clinton administration let Osama Bin Laden slip through its fingers.
Clinton's defenders, from their high horses, arrogantly have demand
that the program be edited to their satisfaction, or be pulled
entirely.
Bristling at evidence that Clinton and his administration were
wavering and indecisive, the letter asserted that the president
aggressively tried to "take a shot at Bin Laden." It cites the 9/11
Commission Report for supposedly giving credit to Clinton for
approving "every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military
involving using force against Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
This is close enough to the truth to make the "I-didn't-inhale" and
"I-didn't-have-sex-with-that-woman" Clinton think he can get away with
it. But it is far enough away from the truth to be classified as, if
not a bold lie, an artless equivocation.
As usual, Clinton figures that the rest of us are too stupid or lazy
to look it up for ourselves. And having read the complete report when
it came out more than two years ago, I think it is an inescapable fact
that a vacillating, equivocating administration had more than one
opportunity to take out terrorist mastermind Bin Laden, but blew it.
A good place to look is the report's "Chapter 4: Responses to Al
Qaeda's initial assaults," Section 4.5, "Searching for Fresh Options."
There you have details of how Bin Laden was ready to be plucked, but
someone in the administration either ignored or nixed it. Or put it on
an endless "you-decide, not-me" merry-go-round.
For example, the report said the CIA was receiving "reliable" reports
that Bin Laden would be in the Sheikh Ali hunting camp in the Afghan
desert south of Kandahar until at least midmorning of Feb. 11, 1999.
The military was targeting him for a hit with cruise missiles, and
only needed a green light. Yet, no missiles were launched, to the
disappointment of field agents and the CIA's "Bin Laden" unit. By Feb.
12, Bin Laden had moved on, and the golden opportunity passed.
Still, the CIA hoped that Bin Laden would return to the popular camp,
but Richard Clarke, the nation's counterterrorism chief, may have
blown it by calling the United Arab Emirate to express his concern
about the their officials associating with Bin Laden at the hunting
camp. Being no fools, the terrorists within a week had "hurriedly
dismantled" and deserted the camp, the report said.
In May, 1999, the report said, the administration may have missed the
best and last opportunity to hit Bin Laden with cruise missiles as he
was moving in and around Kandahar. "It was a fat pitch, a home run," a
senior military official told the commission, confident of the
intelligence and the possibility of minimal "collateral damage." The
report picks up the story:
"He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that
they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, 'We all just
slumped.' He told [the commission] he knew of no one at the Pentagon
or the CIA who thought it was a bad game. Bin Laden 'should have been
a dead man' that night, he said."
From there, the story gets cloudy. Some told the commission that
former CIA Director George Tenet nixed the strike, believing the
chance of the intelligence being accurate was only 50-50. (He may have
been the only one who thought the odds were that bad.) Tenet told the
commission he didn't remember the details. Berger's memory at this
historic moment also turned sketchy. "Berger remembered only that in
all such cases, the call had been Tenet's. Berger felt sure that Tenet
was eager to get Bin Laden. In his view, Tenet did his job
responsibly," the report said. It quoted Berger: "George would call
and say, 'We just don't have it.'"
Judge for yourself, but to me this sounds like Berger tying to "pin
the tail on Tenet."
The report added this tidbit about the administration's inaction:
"Replying to a frustrated colleague in the field, the [CIA's] Bin
Ladin unit chief wrote: '...having a chance to get [Bin Laden] three
times in 36 hours, and foregoing the chance each time has made me a
bit angry.'" [Emphasis added.] The field officer opined that it was
Tenet who was pushing for an attack, but was standing alone, with
Berger adopting the cover-your-ass attitude that it was Tenet's
decision, and "we'd go along" with whatever it was.
To be sure, the administration's approach was hesitant, if not overly
cautious. Why? They were reflecting Clinton's policy, put into writing
in several Memoranda of Notification that he wanted Bin Laden captured
and treated humanely, but not killed, unless it was in the process of
capture. He even personally edited one memorandum, making it more
"ambiguous," the report said. "...[I]t is possible to understand how
the former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree
as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill Bin
Laden."
There should be no disagreement on this: Lindsey's letter to ABC is
mere word play. It is couched in equivocations such as Clinton
"authorized the use of force" and that the president and Berger had
authorized Tenet to "get" Bin Laden. None of it means that Tenet was
ordered to kill Bin Laden when he had a chance.
Ahmed Shah Massoud, an Afghanistan Northern Alliance commander who
offered to kill Bin Laden for the United States, put the
capture-not-kill-decision more succinctly: "You guys are crazy." Lt.
Gen William Boykin, a founding member of the elite Delta Force, told
the commission, "...opportunities were missed because of an
unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."
If they weren't describing the Clinton administration, then who?
A full reading of the report makes clear that the Clinton
administration understood the seriousness of the Bin Laden threat, but
failed to act decisively. In this, when ABC said "general
indecisiveness" allowed the 9/11 attacks, it was correct to include
the Clinton administration.
And why the indecisiveness? Rack it up to the idea that he need to
prosecute, not kill, terrorists; that someone who has literally
declared war on us should be tried with all the rights of American
citizens. Maybe we should have tried negotiations instead.
*us*
>Lie.
Of course you do: tell us that one about
the WMD in Iraq, again, bushfilth.
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:42:06 -0700, "Bill Gamelson" <bill.g...@cox.net> wrote:
>And Osama bin Laden himself stated ...
He said he had nothing to do with the crimes of 9/11.
So far, the FBI agrees.
9/11 couldn't have happened without the Bush Wimps.
*us*
>And we also know the sinking of the USS Maine was an inside job for that
>is where the explosion came from according to reports by divers. We also
> know the Gulf of Tonkin was a con job. We further now know there were
>those in the FDR administration who knew the Jap fleet was on the way to
>Pearl, but let it happen to motivate the nation for WWII. So, in this
>case, it looks like Minter, and not Clinton, was the fool.
>
>Likewise, there were those in the Bush administration who knew 911 was
>coming down, which is really obvious in the Swiss report on short sales
>just before 9/11/2001.
>
>This is not to say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not needed, only
>that the electorate is too stupid, ignorant, and neurotic to listen to
>reason, so 911 was setup.
Good points.
*us*
Even the most desperate bushworshipper can't dispute that.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id29.html
Bush stopped the FBI from investigating his intended
scapegoat, and made sure the pilots were disarmed.
Cheney made sure the air defense systems were thwarted.
*us*
>... a videotape ...
You got duped by a fake. You must be an idiot.
*us*
wrote:
>... they were tortured.
That's how Bush and Cheney got false confessions.
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:58:49 -0600, Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nobama wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:20:11 -0500, * US * wrote:
>>
>>> 9/11 couldn't have happened without the
>>> full cooperation and incompetence of Clinton.
>>
>> Ayuh
>>
>Either way, the fact, which you all seem to agree on, is that 911
>involved the presidency. Yet that does not disturb you?
>
>No wonder those few who can see beyond partisan rhetoric see the
>republic headed for disaster.
Good point.
Bush and Cheney did have to curtail Clinton's efforts
in order for 9/11 to happen, though.
*us*
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:42:06 -0700, "Bill Gamelson" <bill.g...@cox.net> wrote:
>And Osama bin Laden himself stated ...
He said he had nothing to do with the crimes of 9/11.
So far, the FBI agrees.
Nobama
>9/11 couldn't have happened without Clinton's compliance.
Sho 'nuff.
*us*
President Clinton led the fight against terrorism over strong opposition from Republicans
in Congress and the pro-Republican Media. Here's a partial - yet incredibly long - list of
accomplishments against terrorism for which the Clinton Administration gets almost no
credit or even recognition. President Clinton:
-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before
911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the
airlines.
-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was
defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING
OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition
from the NRA.
When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:
-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national
coordinator.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts
denounced by the G.O.P.).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it
occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and
successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major
steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for
counterterrorism.
-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of
smallpox vaccine.
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give
them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying
he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton
left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and
was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September
11, 2001:
-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.
-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet
before 9/11.
-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.
-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.
-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and
Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.
-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.
-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by
hijack of an airliner almost certain.
-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists
were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.
-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop
the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.
-- Blamed President Clinton for 9/11."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2101184
Bush and Cheney stopped Clinton's anti-terrorism programs.
Nobama
Bill Clinton got off way too easily when discussing the failures of
pre-9/11 intelligence gathering and our lack of response when
repeatedly provoked. Yes, we were attacked prior to Clinton entering
office.
The kidnapping of our hostages in Iran and the Hezbollah attack in
Beirut are but two glaring examples of pre-al-Qaida terror. The
hostage taking was a nadir for our country and Jimmy Carter did not
have the nerve or the military to respond. Ronald Reagan also did not
respond to the attack that killed 240 Marines and others in Beirut,
but at the time we were in the middle of a civil war and we had no
idea which side was which and who our friends were and who were our
enemies.
The attacks against our interests and military in the 1990's were a
different story altogether. From Mogadishu to the first World Trade
Center Bombing to he African embassy bombings to the Khobar Towers to
finally a direct attack on a U.S. warship -- the USS Cole -- and still
we did almost nothing. We said to Osama bin-Laden "attack, we won't
respond" and he was emboldened enough to first allow planning for the
Millenium bombings and the Bojinka plane bombings (both luckily
stopped by heads-up policewomen) while funding the attacks on the WTC
and Pentagon.
Now Michael Isikoff writes that Clinton lied on Fox during that
finger-pointing charade with Chris Wallace:
The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was
president, detailing political and legal "constraints" agency
officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous
encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and
waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done
enough to get bin Laden. "What did I do? What did I do?" Clinton said
at one point. "I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a
finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill
him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum
of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal
force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general's
report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a
license to "kill" bin Laden-one reason it never mounted more effective
operations against him. "The restrictions in the authorities given the
CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously,
relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the
range of permissible operations," the report stated. (Scheuer agreed
with the inspector general's findings on this issue, but said if
anything the report was overly diplomatic. "There was never any
ambiguity," he said. "None of those authorities ever allowed us to
kill anyone. At least that's what the CIA lawyers told us." A
spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)
So, in effect, we just were treated to more Clinton spin. Note that
the darling of the left, Michael Scheuer, makes perfectly clear that
Clinton flat out lied while being interviewed by Wallace. There was
never an order to kill Osama bin Laden and Clinton knew it when he was
being interviewed. Instead he proceeded to make a big show and got
major kudos for putting that Fox interviewer in his place. It was all
a sham, which those of us who actually viewed Clinton with a realistic
eye during the nineties knew from the start. I can see the Clinton
team forming their response: "It depends on what the definition of
"kill" means".
This only makes me bring up the question again: What did Sandy Berger
shove in his pants and steal from the National Archives that he and
Clinton didn't want the 9/11 Commission to see? Clinton had to know
this report would eventually be released and he would be proven wrong
once again. Surprisingly, he did have a comment, which means that the
Clinton spin machine is triangulating something or looking for someone
else to scapegoat as has been their M.O. for years.
As I've said before, 9/11 was not President Clinton's fault and it was
not President Bush's fault. It was the fault of a terror network that
used our freedoms against us. I do blame Clinton for destroying a
military and an intelligence entity that could have prevented the
attack from occurring had they been given the leadership and the tools
needed. Sadly, the Clinton administration had people such as 9/11
Commission member Jamie Gorelick who hamstrung the intel agencies and
Bill Clinton got off way too easily when discussing the failures of
pre-9/11 intelligence gathering and our lack of response when
repeatedly provoked. Yes, we were attacked prior to Clinton entering
office.
The kidnapping of our hostages in Iran and the Hezbollah attack in
Beirut are but two glaring examples of pre-al-Qaida terror. The
hostage taking was a nadir for our country and Jimmy Carter did not
have the nerve or the military to respond. Ronald Reagan also did not
respond to the attack that killed 240 Marines and others in Beirut,
but at the time we were in the middle of a civil war and we had no
idea which side was which and who our friends were and who were our
enemies.
The attacks against our interests and military in the 1990's were a
different story altogether. From Mogadishu to the first World Trade
Center Bombing to he African embassy bombings to the Khobar Towers to
finally a direct attack on a U.S. warship -- the USS Cole -- and still
we did almost nothing. We said to Osama bin-Laden "attack, we won't
respond" and he was emboldened enough to first allow planning for the
Millenium bombings and the Bojinka plane bombings (both luckily
stopped by heads-up policewomen) while funding the attacks on the WTC
and Pentagon.
Now Michael Isikoff writes that Clinton lied on Fox during that
finger-pointing charade with Chris Wallace:
The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was
president, detailing political and legal "constraints" agency
officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous
encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and
waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done
enough to get bin Laden. "What did I do? What did I do?" Clinton said
at one point. "I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a
finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill
him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
Clinton appeared to have been referring to a December 1999 Memorandum
of Notification (MON) he signed that authorized the CIA to use lethal
force to capture, not kill, bin Laden. But the inspector general's
report made it clear that the agency never viewed the order as a
license to "kill" bin Laden-one reason it never mounted more effective
operations against him. "The restrictions in the authorities given the
CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously,
relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the
range of permissible operations," the report stated. (Scheuer agreed
with the inspector general's findings on this issue, but said if
anything the report was overly diplomatic. "There was never any
ambiguity," he said. "None of those authorities ever allowed us to
kill anyone. At least that's what the CIA lawyers told us." A
spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)
So, in effect, we just were treated to more Clinton spin. Note that
the darling of the left, Michael Scheuer, makes perfectly clear that
Clinton flat out lied while being interviewed by Wallace. There was
never an order to kill Osama bin Laden and Clinton knew it when he was
being interviewed. Instead he proceeded to make a big show and got
major kudos for putting that Fox interviewer in his place. It was all
a sham, which those of us who actually viewed Clinton with a realistic
eye during the nineties knew from the start. I can see the Clinton
team forming their response: "It depends on what the definition of
"kill" means".
This only makes me bring up the question again: What did Sandy Berger
shove in his pants and steal from the National Archives that he and
Clinton didn't want the 9/11 Commission to see? Clinton had to know
this report would eventually be released and he would be proven wrong
once again. Surprisingly, he did have a comment, which means that the
Clinton spin machine is triangulating something or looking for someone
else to scapegoat as has been their M.O. for years.
As I've said before, 9/11 was not President Clinton's fault and it was
not President Bush's fault. It was the fault of a terror network that
used our freedoms against us. I do blame Clinton for destroying a
military and an intelligence entity that could have prevented the
attack from occurring had they been given the leadership and the tools
needed. Sadly, the Clinton administration had people such as 9/11
Commission member Jamie Gorelick who hamstrung the intel agencies and
RLM
>
Billions upon billions of Bush dollars later we still lost another war.
Notice a trend yet? Go back to Korea and let me know what we have won so
far.
NONE!
Do you feel stupid as I see you now?
Bill Gamelson
"RLM" <R...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:hduo8c$m1j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:26:09 +0000, Nobama wrote:
>
>>
> Billions upon billions of Bush dollars later we still lost another war.
>
Trillions and trillions of Obama dollars later, and I still don't have a
job.
RLM
You have to be worth employing! Be glad runny nose raygun isn't still at
the helm. You could have never achieved employment.
Nobama
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:26:09 +0000, Nobama wrote:
>
>>
>Billions upon billions of Bush dollars later we still lost another war.
Fuck Bush; he's one of your boys with his set asides, amnesty, open
borders ....
>Notice a trend yet? Go back to Korea and let me know what we have won so
>far.
>NONE!
>
>Do you feel stupid as I see you now?
You're the one who voted for a communist, comrade.
Nobama
Obammy set ya up with a guvmint job, eh?
*us*
>Trillions and trillions ...
The part of the Pentagon that was hit on 9/11
was the area where accountants were trying to
find out what happened to $2.3 trillion that
had gone 'missing'.
*us*
can't actually dispute any of these facts:
*us*
>Fuck Bush ...
So, are you 'Jeff Gannon', or a sheik, or communist Chinese?
Nobama
Fact check Palin but not Obammy.
What about her scares you weenies?
"Imagine that," the post read. "11 AP reporters dedicating time and
resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and
resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial,
Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc.
Amazing."
The AP, an organization with over 4,000 employees and 49 Pulitzer
Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, wouldn't comment on their
own reporting for this story.
Reviewing books and holding public figures accountable is at the core
of good journalism, but the treatment Palin's book received appears to
be something new for the AP. The organization did not review for
accuracy recent books by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, then-Sen. Joe
Biden, either book by Barack Obama released before he was president or
autobiographies by Bill or Hillary Clinton. The AP did more
traditional news stories on those books.
Nobama
>"Clinton
Chinagate, Malaysian coal mine kickbacks, banking crisis, and of
course, enabling al qaida.
*us*
>Fuck Bush ...
So, are you 'Jeff Gannon', or a sheik, or communist Chinese?
Can't answer?
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:42:38 GMT, ho...@home.net (Nobrain Scared Weenie) wrote:
>Fact check ...scares ... weenies ...
Of course you're too weak and fearful to deal with reality:
you're a mere bushworshipper, not a competent adult.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:05:06 -0700, "Bill Gamelson" <bill.g...@cox.net> wrote:
>Trillions and trillions ...
The part of the Pentagon that was hit on 9/11
was the area where accountants were trying to
find out what happened to $2.3 trillion that
had gone 'missing'.
"Clinton vs. Terror, Republicans vs. Clinton
*us*
>...enabling al qaida [sic]
You've misspelled "CIA".
Nobama
for
The Clinton Coal Con
A large part of America's energy dependence on foreign sources can be
traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood on the
edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive
proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.
...At the time, the Clintons were worried that Ralph Nader's presence
on the ballot in a few Western states would draw green votes from
Clinton in a race that promised to be close after the GOP retook
Congress two years earlier.
In fact, the declaration of 1.7 million Utah acres as a national
monument, thereby depriving an energy-starved U.S. up to 62 billion
tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion and
minable with minimal surface impact, was a political payoff to the
family of James Riady.
He's the son of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady. James was found
guilty of -- and paid a multimillion dollar fine for -- funneling more
than $1 million in illegal political contributions through Lippo Bank
into various American political campaigns, including Bill Clinton's
presidential run in 1992.
Clinton took off the world market the largest known deposit of
clean-burning coal. And who owned and controlled the second-largest
deposit in the world of this clean coal? The Indonesian Lippo Group of
James Riady. It is found and strip-mined on the Indonesian island of
Kalimantan.
The Utah reserve contains a kind of low-sulfur, low-ash and therefore
low-polluting coal that can be found in only a couple of places in the
world. It burns so cleanly that it meets the requirements of the Clean
Air Act without additional technology.
"The mother of all land grabs," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said at the
time. He has called what was designated as the Grande Staircase of the
Escalante National Monument the "Saudi Arabia of coal." --
Nobama
>President Clinton and Chinagate led to 9/11.
He will burn in hell.
*us*
*us*
>...burn in hell.
You believe in myths because your brain is defective.
Nobama
>"Clinton
His dalliances with Monica etc. were small 'taters compared to his
enabling of 9/11, Chinagate, Riday scandal ......
Oh and don't forget his relaxation of the safeguard rules.
Triggering the banking crisis.
Yup, he gonna burn baby burn.
Nobama
>This is really a good link:
>http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/billC.htm
Hear! hear!
Day Brown
>> Either way, the fact, which you all seem to agree on, is that 911
>> involved the presidency. Yet that does not disturb you?
>>
>> No wonder those few who can see beyond partisan rhetoric see the
>> republic headed for disaster.
>
> Good point.
>
> Bush and Cheney did have to curtail Clinton's efforts
> in order for 9/11 to happen, though.
WJC- velvet glove. Bush II- Iron fist, Obama- Velvet glove...
The way empire has always been run. Behind it all the transnationals cut
the Chinese ruling elite in on the action to have a free hand to take on
the Islamic cultures, the last remaining power structure they dont
control, with 911 as the false flag event to justify the effort and
motivate the support of the masses, since they are too stupid to get it
otherwise.
*us*
*us*
Nobama
>How did Clinton's Chinagate
>fit in to 9/11.
See previous post.
Nobama
>Didn't they make a song about
>Clinton's failure to get Osama?
They resurrected an oldie:
"I held you right
on the tips of my fingers
but I let you slip right
thru my hands
Oh I let you slip
right thru
my
hands"
*us*
Good points.
*us*
State 9/11 Possibly an Inside Job"
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911
The bushfilth is helplessly incapable of disputing
anything they have to say, of course.
*us*
side as the USA, in fact.
Nobama
>Wasn't Clinton the first to nominate
>the anti-American racist, Eric Holder?
Deputy AG.
Nobama
>Do you think that McVeigh was a hero?
His beef was with the Fed. Govt., especially, Jackboot Janet Reno.
It was wrong for him to kill innocents at random.