| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"*Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2005 10:08:02 AM |
| Object: |
Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden. Try to cover this one up |
Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden
The Clintonistas will do all they can to try to cover this one up, but they
goofed!
Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any
responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself admitted he
played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech, which was recorded
exclusively by NewsMax.com. "We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted
America to start dealing with them again," he told a New York business
group. "They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime
against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which
to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But
they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up
in Afghanistan." [End of Excerpt]
The Times report, however, ignored the Clinton admission - as the paper
has since NewsMax first reported it on Feb. 15, 2002.
Instead the paper notes: "Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly
denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission
concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable
evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'"
In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was
confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.
Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission
member Bob Kerrey.
After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president
changed his story, saying instead that he had "misspoken" during the 2002
speech.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Times that the new
information "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad
outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and
unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."
This is a HUGE example folks, of what happens when you have people in office
who worry more about what the ACLU and all those peaceniks have to say than
those who realize the threat of of leaving terrorists alone.
You need someone in office who realizes that the lives and safety of
American citizens here and abroad trumps all. Not someone who's going to
worry about how any action will affect his poll numbers or what the ACLU
will think. What a huge mistake these people are going to have to live with
for the rest of their lives. But being true liberals, they will lie to
themselves, and make thenselves believe that they were right to let that
murderer go.
.
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden. Try to cover this one up |
19 Aug 2005 11:14:26 AM |
|
|
"*Harry Hope" <THHjr@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:mBmNe.6137$1J2.53721@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden
The Clintonistas will do all they can to try to cover this one up, but
they goofed!
Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any
responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself admitted
he played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech, which was
recorded exclusively by NewsMax.com. "We'd been hearing that the Sudanese
wanted America to start dealing with them again," he told a New York
business group. "They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no
crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis
on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against
America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But
they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound
up in Afghanistan." [End of Excerpt]
The Times report, however, ignored the Clinton admission - as the paper
has since NewsMax first reported it on Feb. 15, 2002.
Instead the paper notes: "Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly
denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission
concluded in one of its staff reports that it had 'not found any reliable
evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'"
In his April 2004 testimony before the Commission, Mr. Clinton was
confronted with his 2002 comments on the Sudanese offer.
Initially he claimed he had been misquoted, according 9/11 Commission
member Bob Kerrey.
After being told that his remarks were on tape, however, the ex-president
changed his story, saying instead that he had "misspoken" during the 2002
speech.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Times that the new
information "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad
outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and
unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."
This is a HUGE example folks, of what happens when you have people in
office who worry more about what the ACLU and all those peaceniks have to
say than those who realize the threat of of leaving terrorists alone.
You need someone in office who realizes that the lives and safety of
American citizens here and abroad trumps all. Not someone who's going to
worry about how any action will affect his poll numbers or what the ACLU
will think. What a huge mistake these people are going to have to live
with for the rest of their lives. But being true liberals, they will lie
to themselves, and make thenselves believe that they were right to let
that murderer go.
rofl Please cite ANY republican concern over Bin Laden pre-9/11.
"The following are all uncontroversial facts reported in the mainstream
media:
On or about Jan. 20th, 2001, as the Clinton administration transitioned
to the Bush, NSC chief Sandy Berger briefed Condi Rice extensively on the
terrorism threat posed by bin Laden, telling her she would be spending
more time on this threat than she ever imagined. At the Dept. of Defense,
William Cohen was performing the same courtesy for Don Rumsfeld, again
with a sharp reminder of the terrorist threat in the form of a hand-written
letter to Rumsfeld containing the phone numbers of people in the Pentagon
Rumsfeld needed to speak to directly on the subject. On Jan. 26th, the CIA
confirmed to the new Bush administration that bin Laden and Al Qaeda were
responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole which killed 17 American
sailors.
The response of the Bush administration was to cease Predator drone
surveillance flights to track bin Laden, reassign the cruise-missile
equipped submarine stationed in the Indian Ocean with the specific mission
of targeting bin Laden, reassign the AC-130 gunships on scramble alert that
could be on top of bin Laden after a six hour flight, suspend the special
forces operations targeting bin Laden already based in Uzbekistan for the
purpose thanks to a treaty signed by Bill Clinton.
In May, June and July, the sole remaining Clinton appointee, CIA Director
Tenet, was frantic with concern over incoming intelligence indicating a huge
terrorist attack on American soil. Vice-President ***** Cheney was head
of a
new counter-terrorism task force, yet held no meetings. Attorney General
John Ashcroft refused FBI requests for hundreds of new agents to be assigned
to counter-terrorism; his concerns were drugs and pornography, yet in late
July he stopped flying commercial airliners due to a "threat assessment."
The general threat assessment was considered to be the most severe in
decades
according to CIA's Tenet; members of the Senate Intelligence Committee were
briefed on the situation on July 5th.
Also in July, an Arizona FBI agent wrote the 'Phoenix Memo,' expressing
concern about possible Al Qaeda members taking flying lessons in this
country towards the end of terrorist attacks. One of the two FBI officials
to see it before the attacks was New York counter-terrorism chief John
O'Neill; contemporaneous with the timing of this memo was O'Neill's remarks
to the authors of 'Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth,' wherein O'Neill expressed
his outrage with the Bush administration's thwarting of counter-terrorist
efforts in the interests of protecting its Saudi sponsors. John O'Neill
would soon quit the FBI in disgust, only to die at his new job as chief of
security at the WTC.
Also in July, the FAA rescinded the rule allowing airline pilots to be
armed,
a rule that had been in force since 1961.
August found George W. Bush 'vacationing' for the entire month in rural
Texas, while ***** Cheney similarly spent the month in rural Wyoming. On
August 1st actor James Woods as flying from Logan to Los Angeles, sharing
1st class with four Middle Eastern men, who ate nothing, drank nothing,
read nothing, nor slept the entire flight, only making occasional low
comments to one another. Woods remarked to the flight attendant that 'These
guys act like they're going to hijack the plane,' and once the plane landed
he repeated his concerns to the FAA. All four men were hijackers on Sept.
11th. On Aug. 6th, Bush himself was apparently finally briefed about the
specific threat of attacks on American soil. His vacation continued. On Aug.
17th, the Minneapolis FBI office arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, on the basis
of an expired student visa and very curious pilot training requests. FBI
field agents at this office were convinced of Moussaoui's intentions as a
terrorist, and repeatedly tried to obtain a FISA (Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act) warrant to search his computer. In early Sept., French
Intelligence informed both the CIA and the FBI that Moussaoui had Al Qaeda
connections. A FISA warrant remained ungranted against Moussaoui, even
though under Clinton and Janet Reno no FISA request had been refused.
As an interesting aside, before 9/11 Ashcroft was known to put in 3 1/2 day
work weeks at the Dept. of Justice. In the early months of the
administration,
FBI agents flew to Ashcroft's home in rural Missouri to obtain his signature
on a wire-tap for a terrorism investigation. Ashcroft was so displeased to
see the agents, he had them stand out in the cold while he sat in his pickup
to read and sign the documents.
On Sept. 4th, Cheney's counter-terrorism task force met for the first time.
According to the Pentagon's liaison for terrorism, Gen. Kerrik, Clinton's
had met almost weekly, but with Bush he "didn't see that same kind of
focus."
On Sept. 10, Diane Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
briefed on July 5th, asked ***** Cheney's chief of staff Scooter Libby when
the administration would start focusing on these terror threats which had
so pre-occupied CIA's Tenet, the most severe in decades - she was told it
would have to wait another six months.
So, obviously, it's all Clinton's fault.
Pre-9/11 And The Bush Administration. It's All Clinton's Fault, Right?
by Kent Southard
.
|
|
|
| User: "SmirkS" |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden. Try to cover this one up |
19 Aug 2005 12:23:12 PM |
|
|
ouroboros rex posted:
So, obviously, it's all Clinton's fault.
Pre-9/11 And The Bush Administration. It's All Clinton's Fault, Right?
Republicans Sabotaged Clinton's Anti-Terror Efforts
By Mike Hersh
President Clinton took the oath of office January 20, 1993. February, 26
- barely a month later - terrorists detonated more than 1,000 pounds of
explosives under the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring about a
thousand people. Bill Clinton and the Democrats never dreamed of trying to
blame the outgoing George Herbert Walker Bush Administration.
They just began working to keep us safe from terrorism.
As reported by the "debunking" website, snopes2.com: Within a year, law
enforcement officials hunted down four of the "blind cleric" Sheik Omar
Abdel Rahman's disciples, then prosecuted and convicted them for the
bombing and sentenced them to 240 years in prison in March 1994.
Officials captured the prime suspect Ramzi Ahmed Yousef in 1995. A court
convicted him in November 1997 and sentenced him to 240 years in prison as
well. An additional suspect fled.
"In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets
in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to
the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on
the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours,
and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the
strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:
In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to
kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation - from such people
as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) - that he was acting precipitously to draw
attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil.
Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much
around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue
in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City,
some Republicans accused him of hysteria.
See: "Claim: The Clinton administration failed to track down the
perpetrators of several terrorist attacks against Americans. Status:
False." http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm. Also see: Lauria, Joe.
"U.S. Embassy Bombers Get Life Sentences." The Ottawa Citizen. 19 October
2001 (p. A5). As well as Randolph, Eleanor. "4 Guilty in Bombing of World
Trade Center," The Washington Post: 5 March 1994 (p. A1) and "Trade Center
Bombers Given 240 Years Each," The Washington Post: 25 May
1994 (p. A1).
Republicans typically couldn't decide whether President Clinton was too
blasé or too "hysterical." In reality, his response was appropriately
focused on bin Laden and al Qaeda according to top anti-terror officials
of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. What did Bill Clinton do?
Issued January 23, 1995 his Executive Order 12947 "Prohibiting
Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace
Process," provided for prevention and punishment of efforts to fund
terrorism and authorized the FBI and Treasury Department to investigate
and prevent financial support of terrorism. It read in part:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America ... I, William J. Clinton, President
of the United States of America, find that grave acts of violence
committed by foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process
constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security,
foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a
national emergency to deal with that threat."
This executive order provided for prohibition and punishment of
transactions to support terrorism including transfer of "property and
interests in property of ... the persons [found] to have committed, or to
pose a significant risk of committing, acts of violence that have the
purpose or effect of disrupting the Middle East peace process, or ... to
assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological
support for, or services in support of, such acts of violence...."
This order held that "any transaction or dealing by United States persons
or within the United States in property or interests in property of the
persons designated in or pursuant to this order is prohibited, including
the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services
to or for the benefit of such persons [and] any transaction by any United
States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has
the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the
prohibitions set forth in this order, is prohibited."
Clinton ordered the prohibition of donations "by United States persons to
persons [which] would seriously impair [his] ability to deal with the
national emergency declared in this order, [and determined that any]
investigation emanating from a possible violation of this order ...
shall first be coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
and any matter involving evidence of a criminal violation shall be
referred to the FBI for further investigation...."
See: Executive Order 12947 of January 23, 1995, Federal Register, Vol.
60, No. 16,
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1995_register&
docid=fr25ja95-126.pdf
Later, President Clinton expanded that Order, explaining to the Speaker of
the House: "On January 23, 1995, in light of the threat posed by grave
acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle
East peace process, using my authority under, inter alia, the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act ... I declared a national
emergency and issued Executive Order 12947. Because such terrorist
activities continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, I
have renewed the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12947
annually, most recently on January 21, 1998."
He added, "I hereby report to the Congress that I have exercised my
statutory authority to issue an Executive Order that amends Executive
Order 12947 in order more effectively to respond to the worldwide threat
posed by foreign terrorists [to add] Usama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Ladin
(a.k.a. Usama bin Ladin), Islamic Army, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and Rifa'i
Ahmad Taha Musa to the list of terrorists that are subject to the
prohibitions contained in the Executive Order." See: "Clinton's Letter to
Congress on Freezing of bin Ladin Assets," August 22, 1998
http://www.ict.org.il/documents/documentdet.cfm?docid=22
President Clinton also ordered a "terrorism threat assessment of every
federal facility in the country," which had "already begun" when, in
February 1995, the Clinton Administration introduced a counter-terrorism
bill in the Senate (S. 390) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 896).
Note: this was before the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Oklahoma City
bombing on April 19 that year.
President Clinton's proposals would have expanded pre-trial detention and
allowed more federal wiretaps of terrorism suspects, eased deportation of
foreigners convicted of crimes, allowed the detention of aliens convicted
or suspected of crimes, let the President criminalize fund-raising for
terrorism, and revived visa denial provisions to keep dangerous people out
of the US.
Unfortunately, Republicans sabotaged Clinton's efforts to keep us safe.
If in force before April 19, 1995 federal officials might have detected
and prevented the Murrah Building plot. 9/11/01. If the Republicans had
passed Clinton's proposals before September 11, 2001 we might have blocked
the al Qaeda terrorist plot that killed 3000 Americans. We all know what
happened eight months into the illegitimate Bush/Cheney reign of error.
Republican Congressional leaders shot down Clinton's proposals, tried to
impeach him on trumped up grounds, and dragged their feet when it came to
national security. They did this even after the Murrah Building bombing.
Clinton's "Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995" would have:
"[P]rovided clear Federal criminal jurisdiction for any international
terrorist attack that might occur in the United States [including] Federal
criminal jurisdiction over terrorists who use the United States as the
place from which to plan terrorist attacks overseas." Allowed deportation
of "alien terrorists without risking the disclosure of national security
information or techniques."
It would have "prevent[ed] fundraising in the United States that supports
international terrorist activities overseas," implemented "an
international treaty requiring the insertion of a chemical agent into
plastic explosives when manufactured to make them detectable," and granted
"more tools to federal law enforcement agencies fighting terrorism."
These proposed "tools" would have included: Providing for "disclosures by
consumer reporting agencies to the FBI for counterintelligence and
counterterrorism purposes." Also "relaxed standard[s] for obtaining 'pen
registers' and 'trap and trace' device orders which already exists in
routine criminal cases, to national security cases."
Note: a "'pen register' is a device which records the number dialed on a
telephone" and a "'trap and trace' device is similar to 'Caller ID,'
providing law enforcement with the telephone number from which a call
originates. [This] would not permit law enforcement to monitor actual
conversations being conducted."
Clinton's proposals "would require hotel/motel and common carriers such as
airlines and bus companies to provide records to the FBI pursuant to
authorized national security requests just as they must do now for
virtually all state and local law enforcement. [This because] FBI has
found that, while some of these entities voluntarily provide such
information, an increasing number refuse, absent a court order, a
subpoena, or other legal protection.
Clinton also sought to "fund costs associated cases which arise in
connection with terrorism crises, including logistics and other support"
and he wanted to "Create an interagency Domestic Counterterrorism Center
headed by the FBI" to "establish a partnership effort between the Justice
Department, including the FBI, and other federal and state law enforcement
authorities to coordinate [ant-terror] efforts within the United States."
President Clinton "directed the Attorney General to conduct this
assessment and report her recommendations in 60 days. The assessment has
already begun" and directed "the FBI Director, the Attorney General, and
the National Security Adviser to prepare a presidential decision directive
authorizing any and all further steps necessary to combat foreign and
domestic terrorism.
The Clinton Administration also submitted "New Legislative Proposals"
which called for investigations and hiring "approximately 1000 new agents,
prosecutors, and other federal law enforcement and support personnel to
investigate, deter, and prosecute terrorist activity," and would have made
it more difficult for terrorists to commit - and easier for law
enforcement officers to detect, prevent and investigate - terrorist acts.
It would have required "the inclusion of microscopic particles in certain
raw materials, thereby permitting law enforcement to trace the source of
the explosive even after a device has been detonated" and "permitted
military participation in crime-fighting involving weapons of mass
destruction ... to permit military participation in criminal cases
involving chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction;
areas in which the military has specialized expertise."
Today, some Republicans claim President Clinton "did nothing" to combat
terrorism. Back then - when they might have prevented the 9/11 attacks -
Republicans blocked or stalled all of the anti-terrorism proposals above.
First, they stone-walled for months despite Clinton Administration
warnings. Then, the GOP watered-down key provisions.
Finally the Republican Congress passed S.735 "A bill to prevent and punish
acts of terrorism, and for other purposes." It became Public Law
No: 104-132 when President Clinton signed it, despite his and others'
concerns that the Republicans watered down the bill too much.
As CNN reported: "Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill ... a
watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton
administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak. The
original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's
anti-terrorism provisions...." See: "Congress passes anti-terrorism
bill," CNN April 18, 1996:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html
Republicans weakened and blocked anti-terror legislation several times,
sabotaging Clinton Administration efforts to keep us safe. President
Clinton and his administration never stopped working to combat terrorism
and kept pushing the Republicans for adequate anti-terror laws.
Other Clinton Administration anti-terrorism legislative proposals
include: The Comprehensive Antiterrorism Act of 1995, The Counter
Terrorism Technology Research Act of 1995, The Antiterrorism Amendments
Act of 1995, The Effective Death Penalty and Antiterrorism Act of 1995,
and the Senate and House versions of The Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of
1995.
According to CNN, Republicans refused to cooperate with President
Clinton's efforts to protect us from terrorist attacks: "July 30, 1996
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing
anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. But while the
president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened
their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate
would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to
study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next
three days would be tough. One key GOP senator was more critical, calling
a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives 'a phony issue.'" See:
"President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws," CNN July
30, 1996:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
Despite President Clinton's extensive efforts to combat terrorism - and
their own refusal to help, even eagerness to hinder those efforts -
Republicans shamelessly blame Bill Clinton. The Washington Post
reported: "The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks had been over for a few hours
when Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) announced his conclusion about the
root of the problem. 'We had Bill Clinton backing off, letting the Taliban
go, over and over again,' the conservative from Orange County declared at
a news conference."
"On the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal [October 5, 2001] Rush
Limbaugh penned a column on how 'Mr. Clinton can be held culpable for not
doing enough when he was commander in chief to combat the terrorists who
wound up attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon.'" See:
Harris, John F. "Conservatives Sound Refrain: It's Clinton's Fault." The
Washington Post: 7 October 2001 (p. A15).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentI
d=A17702-2001Oct6¬Found=true
What does all this prove? That besides lacking any sense of honor, honesty
or decency, top Republicans don't know the first thing about national
security. They didn't care enough about the Atlanta Olympics bombing, the
first WTC bombing, or even the Murrah Building bombing to do anything to
prevent the next terrorist attack. Republicans remained soft on terror
when they might have made it harder for terrorists to kill Americans.
Again, we all know what happened eight months into the illegitimate
Bush/Cheney reign of error.
Even though President Clinton knew about the al Qaeda threat and took
action to kill bin Laden, and to punish and thwart terrorists and their
plots. The Clinton Administration warned the Republicans about terrorism
more than six and a half years before 9/11/01 and then again as the
illegitimate Bush Occupation stole into office. Still, the GOP did nothing
or actually blocked most efforts to keep us alive!
Here's more from President Clinton's Letter to Congress on Freezing of bin
Ladin Assets: "Usama bin Ladin and his organizations and associates have
repeatedly called upon their supporters to perform acts of violence. Bin
Ladin has declared that killing Americans and their allies 'is an
individual duty for every Muslim ... in order to liberate the Al-Aqsa
Mosque and the Holy Mosque.' These threats are clearly intended to
violently disrupt the Middle East peace process."
He stressed, "I have authorized these actions in view of the danger posed
to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States
by the activities of Usama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Ladin (a.k.a. Usama
bin Ladin), Islamic Army, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and Rifa'i Ahmad Taha Musa
that disrupt the Middle East peace process. I am enclosing a copy of the
Executive Order that I have issued exercising my emergency authorities."
The Republicans ignored these warnings "from President Clinton to the
leaders of Congress explaining why he ordered the freezing of all assets
controlled by or affiliated with terrorist chieftain Usama bin Ladin."
See: Clinton's Letter, August 22, 1998:
http://www.ict.org.il/documents/documentdet.cfm?docid=22
Under Bush and Cheney, their anti-terror task force never met until it was
too late. Their top defense officials, Rumsfeld and Rice, tried to slash
anti-terror funding and claimed terrorism wasn't their responsibility
respectively. It took the horrible attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon before the Republicans woke up and recognized the serious
terrorist threat.
The next time a Republican tries to blame President Clinton for their
refusal to cooperate with his efforts to keep us safe, don't get angry.
When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice or any right winger claims only
Republicans can protect us from terrorism - despite their failure to do
anything in response to the specific warnings about the looming al Qaeda
threat - don't just decry their hypocrisy and lies. Make a big donation to
anti-right wing efforts like this website, or the Democratic National
Committee.
Also, vote against any and every Republican running for any office. Your
life and your family's lives depend on it. Never forget, Republicans are
soft on terror and soft in reason. All they can do is blame others for
their mistakes. They can't keep us safe.
© Copyright 2004 by Mike Hersh of MikeHersh.com
--
TheTruthHurts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clinton = Blow Jobs, Bush = NO Jobs." |
|
| Title: Re: Clinton Warned After Giving up bin Laden. Try to cover this one up |
20 Aug 2005 02:37:41 AM |
|
|
THE FAKE "*Harry Hope" <THHjr@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:mBmNe.6137$1J2.53721@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Though Clinton administration officials have repeatedly denied any
responsibility for bin Laden's escape, the ex-president himself admitted
he played a key role the blunder in a February 2002 speech, which was
recorded exclusively by NewsMax.com.
LOL...so Bill Clinton gave a speech and only NewsMax was given permission to
record it? Because if they didn't have permission, they're criminals, and if
they did, well that just seems amazing. More lies from one of the classic
right-wing BS websites. It seems like the desparate right is finding fewer
and fewer credible sources to back up their ***** these days.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
