"If only Bin Laden had a Stained Blue Dress..."

Status
Not open for further replies.

progunner1957

member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
831
Location
A wolf living in Sheeple land
From Ann Coulter comes insightful - and true - commentary regarding the war, Islamic savagery, the war on terror and Clinton's dereliction of duty while in office.

Ya gotta love a woman who calls a spade a spade!:D


If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress...
by Ann Coulter
Posted Sep 13, 2006

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

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace -- al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" -- staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton Administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

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

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because -- he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 -- "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

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

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing. This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company), Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."


CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."


Secretary of State Madeleine 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." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)


Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."
Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush -- but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.
 
According to both Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, Sudan never made an offer to extradite Bin Laden to the USA. Sudan did refuse to extradite him to Saudi Arabia though. The 9/11 Commission later concluded that Sudan never offered Bin Laden directly to the USA.
She also ignores that Clinton was one of the first to place sanctions against assets that could be traced to Bin Laden, he convinced the UN to levy sanctions against Afghanistan and even signed an executive order authorizing the arrest or assassination of Osama Bin Laden.

Guess facts aren't that important to Ms. Coulter.

:barf: She's like Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken...except O'Reilly and Franken are funny.
 
According to the Republicans, it's all Bill Clinton's fault. According to the Democrats, it's all George Bush's fault. Truth is, it doesn't matter which faction of our de facto one party system is in power. Government continues to metastasize, and Liberty dies one congressional session at a time.
 
So, this makes Bush's performance acceptable? Also, I saw Ann on the tube babble that Bin Ladden was irrelevant was pushed on Bush's incompetence in taking him down after 9/11. Ann's a phoney.

Look at that famous gun picture of her:

1. No eye protection
2. Thumbs crossed in back of the gun slide - a Beretta.

Classy.
 
I guess it was Clinton's fault that the Bush administration told such whoppers prior to the invasion of Iraq, too.

IMHO the worst part of the whole deal is that there has been an acceptance by Coulter that terrorism isnt just a criminal act. In Northern Ireland (sadly this was a concept abandoned for the peace process) the murderers, torturers and extortionists on both sides which blighted that land (and the mainland too) were treated as criminals, which is exactly what they are - not terrorists, or soldiers, or combatants of whatever kind.
 
According to both Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright, Sudan never made an offer to extradite Bin Laden to the USA.

That's strange, since Clinton has provided an excuse for not acting on the offer (namely, that there was no legal grounds to take custody of Bin Laden).

Why would Clinton publicly and repeatedly offer this excuse if the offer was never made?
 
buzz_knox said:
That's strange, since Clinton has provided an excuse for not acting on the offer (namely, that there was no legal grounds to take custody of Bin Laden).

Why would Clinton publicly and repeatedly offer this excuse if the offer was never made?

I believe he was saying that we couldn't take Bin Laden at the time because we didn't have enough for a case against him regardless of whether or not he was offered to us.
President Clinton, his administration and the 9/11 commission all deny that an extradition offer was made. The only one I know of was between Sudan and Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis wouldn't accept it.
Bin Laden then went back to Afghanistan and the rest is history.
 
Quoting an entertainer who makes "her"* money by making up whatever facts "she" thinks will get a rise out of the audience is seldom a good idea.

* still highly debatable, that determination
 
His statement was that he decided that we couldn't hold him. It wasn't an explanation of why such an offer wouldn't have worked, but a justification for why it wasn't accepted. At least, that's how it was interpreted/presented prior to the new party line of the offer never being made.

The 9/11 Commission based its report on the statements of Sandy Berger, who has some credibility issues of his own given his penchant for stealing and destroying classified documents, and Clinton, whose use of perjury as a career enhancing technique is well known.
 
I don't know what to tell you buzz.

Some say that a single statement by Bill Clinton is the truth while others say that a retraction by the same and reports by an investigatory committee are true.
I guess its up to the individual to decide, but the offer that may or may not have existed was supposedly made in 1996; two years prior to the first indictments against Osama.
Even if the offer was there, we still couldn't have held him legally. It was a bad spot either way. Arrest him and he's entitled to due process. Don't arrest him and hope to get him another day when we can legally hold him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top