Regarding Bill Clinton’s insanity and criticism of the war on terror. Which is really a war against the most orthodox form of the cult known as Islam.
Reader Ron_B offers this piece of wisdom.
…
In my view the 8 MONTHS THEY DID NOTHING CHARGE does not stand to reason. Here are the multiple ways using Left wing talking points to dismiss it
…
2) If the Intel report that came out said that US Military action has enraged Muslims around the world and thus increased the threat of terrorism what do the opponents think that killing Osama during this critical 8 months would have done and thus they are talking out of both sides of their necks
…
Yes sir they are!
And it’s amazing to hear Bill Clinton say how he would have handled things if he were President now. Given he never sent troops to actually wage war against Islamic radicals during his 8 years in office. The only time he came close was after the unfortunate 1993 Black Hawk Down incident. Which was an extraction mission and not an actual military assault on the enemy. Even after that incident, the US did not carry out a major follow up attack.
Look at the list of major attacks against the US and US interests, by followers of orthodox Islam (maybe you call it radical Islam) during the Clinton years:
So the state sponsors were not removed and no effort was made to remove the leaders of these nations for their part in sponsoring terrorism.
Bill Clinton made very little effort to take down the state sponsors of terrorism, after the many attacks on our nation. But now he claims he would have done so much more in Afghanistan. I doubt it, given his lax record. He says he would not have done so much in Iraq. I have no doubt he would have done nothing in Iraq or to any other state sponsor of terrorism, other than to fire some missiles and leave it at that. It was because of weak responses by people like Bill Clinton, that Islamists were led to feel the US had no stomach to take the fight to the enemy.
For a change, the USA is going after 2 state sponsors of terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq. A war that is going to have to expand in order to truly defeat Islamists.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2007 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
31 queries. 0.307 seconds
September 28th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Senator Clinton said that if her husband had gotten a report saying that Bin Laden was going to attack the US he would have done more than George Bush did.
She is an idiot…her husband had the 1993 Twin Towers bombing and did nothing beyond saying a few passing words. If Clinton didn’t respond to an attack on the Twin Towers in 1993 why would anyone believe he’d jump to action over a peice of paper?
Please Hillary…save the bullcrap for your fans.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
While it was an act of Islamic nuts, the 1993 WTC bombing has never been connected with bin Laden in terms of operational planning or financing.
However it is of the same orthodox Islamic view. All the attacks have sponsors and those sponsors run up the chain of leaders in many Islamic lands. Even in nations where they have not sponsored terrorism, the attitude on the streets usually fosters and supports it.
Clinton obviously missed the memo in the form of the 1996, 1998 and 2000 bombings.
Believe it or not, Al Gore gave Bill Clinton a fully detailed list of how to secure passenger airliners. His research was done to try and find how to prevent another event like the Lockerbie airline bombing like in 1988. That bombing involved Libya. Remember when Ronald Reagan bombed Kadafi’s house?
The airline industry did not like Gore’s proposal and Clinton tabled most of it.
If Gore’s full plan was in effect before 9/11, the 9/11 attacks probably would not have happened. Remember Gore’s CAPPS system is what identified some of the terrorists.
Once upon a time, Gore was a little better than the nut he has become. It seems he goes more to the Left with every passing year of his life and gets worse.