Kristol: 9/11 Is Bill Clinton’s Legacy
Bill Kristol writes that Bill Clinton “inherited a hard-won peace, failed to lead, and part of his legacy is 9/11.” 9/11 is, of course, shorthand for the events of September 11, 2001 at which point Clinton hadn’t been in office for months. Condoleezza Rice, writing for the Bush campaign in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs said a lack of prioritization was a problem with the Clinton administration’s foreign policy and that “a Republican administration should refocus the country on key priorities: building a military ready to ensure American power, coping with rogue regimes, and managing Beijing and Moscow.”
In other words, Bush came into office determined to reduce the level of attention given to al-Qaeda. And boy did they! Richard Clarke’s strategy for stepped-up efforts against al-Qaeda, developed in the waning days of the Clinton administration, was put on the back burner in favor of this approach:
The book’s opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush’s Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president’s attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”
Clearly inattention to the problem is Clinton’s fault. Or, you might want to look in the direction of neoconservatism. Robert Kagan published an edited volume called Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy in November 2000. It contains fifteen chapters, none of which are about al-Qaeda. Indeed, the term “al-Qaeda” doesn’t appear in the book on the list of threats. One chapter does refer to “Usama bin Laden” in order to suggest that the Clinton administration was over-hyping bin Laden in order to downplay the threat from Iran. Terrorism is discussed in the book as a tool of Iranian or Chinese (?) policy, but not at all as a non-state phenomenon or in relationship to Afghanistan. Needless to say, there’s lots about Iraq, a whole chapter on “Will and Power,” and several invocations of the evils of appeasement.
57 Responses to “Kristol: 9/11 Is Bill Clinton’s Legacy”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
When Bill Clinton left office, we had 2 World Trade Centers, a 5-sided Pentagon, and 0 planes hijacked to crash into targets.
Eight months into the George W. Bush Jr. administration, we had 0 World Trade Centers, a 4-sided Pentagon ripe for rebuild, and 4 planes hijacked into targets.
Bill Clinton also never had 1/3 of a major U.S. city’s population and busiest port have to evacuate permanently because it flooded, leaving corpses to rot in the streets.
They can yell & scream all they want, but if they want to play that game, George W. Bush Jr. was in charge and responsible when the U.S. suffered its largest domestic terrorist attack ever on 9/11/2001, and his worshipers can moan and cry and whine and bleat ’til the ends of the Earth that Daddy Clinton should have done their work for them and how unfair it was that there were still problems when they took office, but it was they who said they were bringing the “grownups” to DC, not the grade school finger-pointing squad.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Kind of rich coming from the guys who let bin Laden get away, isn’t it?
August 28th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
One should note that McCain has never exactly been interested in the details of anti-terrorism issues, either. It wasn’t as though he was the Cassandra warning about the problems of terrorism in the leadup to 9/11.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
why the nyt reserves so many spots for right-wing ideologues is one mystery.
why they stoop even lower than that, to a shameless, lying, wrong-every-time hack like kristol, and make themselves into a conduit for the rnc, is still a further level of mystery.
the nyt really does itself, and the nation, a disservice.
(i realize that this particular piece was not in the nyt. but they give the same guy real estate, and he craps in it on a regular basis).
August 28th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Both Clinton and Bush were responsible, but to cut them some slack it was pretty unprecedented.
After 8 years of Clinton, a totally dystfunctional relationship between the FBI and CIA meant no communication between the two and a chance to prevent the attack was missed. (It existed before Clinton). Clinton kept launching missiles at bin Laden and missing, pissing him off further.
It was interesting to hear Clinton say he was on the “right side of history.” It was ridiculous for Kristol to blame him for 9/11 though. Also Bush had no foreign policy experience at the start like Clinton and Obama.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Of course it’s Clinton’s fault. He should have paid more attention to that historically based briefing about bin Laden being determined to attack in the US. Instead, Slick Willie played the “I’m no longer the president” card — and people died because of it! No more excuses! With relinquished power comes increased responsibility — it couldn’t be plainer!
August 28th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Re kid bitzer’s comment “why the nyt reserves so many spots for right-wing ideologues is one mystery.
why they stoop even lower than that, to a shameless, lying, wrong-every-time hack like kristol, and make themselves into a conduit for the rnc, is still a further level of mystery.”
————–
Yeah, why doesn’t the New York Times replace Kristol with one of their own reporters. Say, Someone like Judith Miller.
After all, she is just as good at taking dictation from the Neocons billionaire financiers as Bill Kristol.
IF you think the New York Times is a liberal paper — no, correct that — if you think the New York Times is a REAL newspaper, then you have the right handle.
“Kid” is right. As in very naive, innocent and trusting. I bet you take candy from strangers.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Bush and Cheney ignored Bin Laden in 2001 for the same reason they’re still ignoring Bin Laden. Bin Laden doesn’t have any oil.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
It was interesting to hear Clinton say he was on the “right side of history.”
It’s the kind of phrase that sounds good, but is really utterly meaningless.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“OK, you’ve covered your ass now”. Hint- that is NOT a Bill Clinton quote, Kristol.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Peter K.,
My understanding was that Bill Clinton’s reference to being on the right side of history was in reference to him winning the election in ‘94 despite being “young” and “inexperienced.”
Kid Bitzer,
The NYTs, while ostensibly a “left-leaning” newspaper, is owned by folks with lots of money. The more drama and controversy they can drum up the better. They allow that moron to write for their paper because he brings readers, albeit ignorant folks.
One problem with our current political discourse in this country is that people view Republicans and Democrats as being entirely different. Yes, there are important differences, but on many of the issues regarding lobbyist influence, corporate greed, defense spending, insurance, medical care, etc., Democrats have been just as culpable as Republicans.
Hopefully Obama can change that, but only time will tell.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
‘92
August 28th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Good post, Matt. Also worthy of mention that when Bush came in, it was every agency that neglected counter-terrorism under Bush. For instance, at Justice, Ashcroft never made counter-terrorism a top budget priority though it was under the Reno-era department.
Every Bush agency was asleep at the wheel, while every Clinton agency was vigilant.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Clinton asked for more money for anti-terrorism efforts. The GOP led Congress said no. They mocked him as overreacting.
Clinton asked for more money for Arabic interpreters. The GOP led Congress said no. We’re still short good Arabic interpreters, and have tossed out several because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while in the midst of the WOT. (Thank you gay bashing Republicans.)
Clinton asked for roving wiretaps. The GOP led Congress said no. Roving wiretaps are now used for anti-terrorism.
Clinton asked for the ability to better track funds going to terrorists. Phil Gramm (yes, John McCain’s economic “guru” Phil Gramm) single-handedly blocked it. That ability is now used for anti-terrorism.
Janet Reno had terrorism as a top 10 DoJ priority. John Ashcroft dropped it from the list.
George W. Bush let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. He let the Taliban and AQ resurge by getting us bogged down in Iraq. Now we have two active wars going on. He made America the nation that indefinitely imprisons people without charges and who tortures … a LOT.
When it comes to anti-terrorism, the GOP legacy is a bad joke. To give them their due, they do bluster and bulls*** well, but it’s long past the time for competence.
And John McCain has no new approaches. In fact, he’s the worst of Bush and Cheney combined, a toxic mix of ignorance, arrogance, and self righteousness. If you think this country is in bad shape now (and how could you not), just imagine what Wrong-Way McCain will do to it. War with Russia? War with North Korea? Even larger deficits than Bush? He’s pledging to double down on Bush’s 8 years of disaster.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I’ve long thought that if Bush had taken strong action in response to the Cole bombing it probably would’ve disrupted Al Qaeda enough to scuttle the 9/11 plan. But he put addressing terrorism on the deep back burner. (And of course the righties all complain that responding to the Cole was Clinton’s responsibility, although boy would they have howled if he unleashed strikes on Afghanistan in November/December 2000.) This leads me to contemplating the counterfactual of Gore becoming president instead of Bush, and what Gore’s response would’ve been, and whether things might have gone differently.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
the way my right wing sister ’splained it to me – Clinton was so sidetracked by all of his sex scandals during his second term that he bascially left the country in terrible shape and ripe for 9/11 to happen. Bush simply didn’t have enough time to make up for laxness caused by the Clinton distractions and Al Quaeda took advantage of it.
This is from someone who’s knowledge of current events extends no deeper than how the latest constestants on Dancing With the Stars are doing, but if I ever try and bring anything up about the Bush Administration, I sure get an earful. Evidently there are plenty of mouth-breathers out there who very willingly ascribe to what Kristol is espousing.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Is there way to get Kristol to move to Israel, and stay there?
August 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
1) The Washington Post interviewed the REPUBLICAN Vice-Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 26, 2001 –3 MONTHS before the Sept 11 attack.
2) Here are some excerpts:
“U.S. Has Bin Laden ‘On the Run,’ Sen. Shelby Says
Back from a six-country tour of the Persian Gulf, Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) believes U.S. counterterrorism officials are winning the war against Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden.
It’s not always easy to understand how, since bin Laden and other Islamic fundamentalists clearly have the U.S. military on edge. ….
…Shelby, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a recent interview that bin Laden is the one who’s on edge.
“He’s on the run, and I think he will continue to be on the run, because we are not going to let up,” Shelby said.
“I don’t think you could say he’s got us hunkered down. I believe he’s more hunkered down,” Shelby said. “He’s moved and tried to be one step ahead of our intelligence on where he might be. He knows he’s hunted, and he’s not exactly strolling down the streets of London or Paris or Berlin, shopping.”
Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A45532-2001Jun25
3) Shelby, by the way, is the one who tipped off Bin Laden –via Fox News — that the National Security Agency was bugging Bin Laden’s cell phone. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby#Leaking_classified_information
4)Needless to say, Shelby won reelection in a landslide in 2004. The people of Alabama are morons — and evidently feel morons are entitled to representation too.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
My understanding was that Bill Clinton’s reference to being on the right side of history was in reference to him winning the election in ‘94 despite being “young” and “inexperienced.”
My guess would that it would be like saying on the side of God except replace God with “history.” It’s like Bush talking about promoting democracy in the Middle East.
LFC:
Clinton asked for more money for anti-terrorism efforts. The GOP led Congress said no. They mocked him as overreacting.
blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. Clinton shares the blame with Bush. He “tried” to get bin Laden but never did. He was too busy screwing interns.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Compare eras:
In 1999 Al Queda wanted to attack within the USA. The Clinton team was on the air almost nightly talking about the threat, and as a result of the heightened awareness we “got lucky” at the Canadian border and intercepted bombs intended for LAX.
In 2001 Al Queda wanted to attack within the USA. The Bush team said nothing, kept it under their hats, called it “gnats,” and as a result we got 9/11 and then lots of excuses from “no-one could have imagined” to “you can’t rely upon luck.”
More to Matt’s point, the Bush team came into power determined to do the opposite of whatever Clinton did on nearly every front (lying to America being the exception). The results are there for all to see.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
CORRECTION: Shelby tipped off Bin Laden via CNN.
He leaked the info to Fox News as well but Fox had enough sense to not broadcast the leak. Fair’s fair.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40886-2004Aug4.html
August 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
How about from now on, you use a macro for this?
“Kristol: Trolling Something Fucking Stupid Again
FOAD, Bill.”
That will do just fine.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Re west coast’s comment “In 1999 Al Queda wanted to attack within the USA. The Clinton team was on the air almost nightly talking about the threat, and as a result of the heightened awareness we “got lucky” at the Canadian border and intercepted bombs intended for LAX.”
————–
Oh, bullshit.
Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1997-1998. When someone does that, you find him and neutralize him immediately. Kill him if necessary.
You don’t fall back and defend 8000 miles of border –especially when you have a political deal with the Hispanic lobby that is letting several million illegals stroll across that border every year.
Clinton’s actions was one of the three reasons Bin Laden gave for declaring war on the USA. When 60 Minutes asked Madeleine Albright in 1995 about the 600,000 Iraqi children who died because Bill Clinton forced them to drink polluted war — by banning the import of water purification materials into Iraq — Madeleine said the Clinton Administration didn’t give a shit. Did Bill Clinton think 1 BILLION Muslims were going to accept that?
I despise Bush and Cheney. But Bill Clinton has a lot more Iraqi blood on his hands than George Bush. And a sizable fraction of the Democratic Money Pot has not problems with that. Or with Hillary’s vote for Bush’s destruction of IRaq. Because “It’s Good For Israel”.
Not so good for the 3000 American families who lost loved ones on Sept 11 — or the 4100 more families who lost loved on in Iraq. But George Bush and Bill Clinton agree on one thing: Fuck Those American Families. They don’t donate shit.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Peter K. said… blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.
This is what passes for discourse and debate in the Republican Party. Is it any wonder that they f***ed up the country so badly? And now they want us to be lead by yet another numbnuts who can’t keep Sunni, Shiite, and AQ straight?
“The Grand Old Party is no longer grand. It’s just old.” –Rear Adm. John Hutson
August 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Don,
Do you have a clip of Madeleine Albright saying “We don’t give a shit!”
I’d love to see that and the reporter’s reaction as well. That would be very cool!
August 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Folks may think that I’m venturing into “Truther” territory here, but I believe it’s worth considering: What if the Bush administration did nothing about Al-Quaeda because they figured that a big terrorist attack would be useful to them? They had a war to sell, after all, and we know they were planning for the Iraq occupation weeks after GWB moved into the White House. That would explain why the president’s first priority in September 2001 was not “find out who did this” but “find a way to blame Iraq.”
August 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
This is from someone who’s knowledge of current events extends no deeper than how the latest constestants on Dancing With the Stars are doing, but if I ever try and bring anything up about the Bush Administration, I sure get an earful.
Oh, but it’s designed to be that way! Surely you know that.
Where I live (liberal Massachusetts), if you leave the AM talk station on past the local morning show–and a lot of people do, without really thinking about it–you’ll hear nationally syndicated shows like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. And in the early evening you’ll hear our former mayor, a Democrat, spouting the same nonsense. The night-time show is Michael Reagan.
We also have WTKK–Boston’s Talk Revolution!–which features Imus, a local Hannity & Colmes-type show, and conservatives Michael Graham and Jay Severin.
If you’re driving into work and you turn on the mook-rawk station because to hear the jocks’ zany antics, you hear the Republican talking points of the day. If you want sports talk, your only option is “The Big Show,” which just so happens to prominently feature the Republican talking points of the day!
It’s no accident that people who aren’t very politically attuned are Republicans–the party gets its message across all day via every venue, so it happens by osmosis. By the time people get around to thinking about voting, they have a pre-existing starting point that Democrats are bad and Republicans are good.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Don,
Your point about going after Bin Laden and his cohorts is correct, but the rest of your post is off-point.
Al Queda failed to attack the US in 1999 because we were warned, we were on our guard, and people were paying closer attention to things than usual. It succeeded in 2001 due to the lack of such warning, the lack of awareness, and the lack of governmental concern.
That’s not bullshit, Don, that’s history.
By the way, Al Queda’s goal has always been power, always been about establishing a new Caliphate and wresting power away from governments in the Middle East and beyond. Al Queda cares no more for the children of Iraq than it does for the children of New York, it cares only about re-establishing one Islamic government over the entire Middle East and beyond.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Ashcroft had a list of threats to America. “Pornography” was on that list.
“Terrorism” wasn’t.
Kristol is a drunk, trying to hide his empties in his neighbor’s recycle bin, hoping no one will know what an alcoholic he is. This is his problem, as a neocon.
Someone who had failed as badly as Kristol, in China’s warring states period, would have been buried up to his neck in the ground and had his head sawed off with a bamboo saw. But we have abandoned these traditional values, and we’re paying the price.
.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
What if the Bush administration did nothing about Al-Quaeda because they figured that a big terrorist attack would be useful to them?
I’m actually in that ’soft LIHOP’ category myself: or at least happy with the ‘Que Sera, Sera’ theory. That is: there was a limited capacity to prevent whatever was going to happen, but an assumption that it would be on a scale that was ‘manageable’ (comparable to the Cole or the embassy bombings or even OKC) and could be used as a pivot.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
For the record, the CIA did not assign blame to Al Qaeda for the attack on the Cole until Feb 2, 2001. Bush was president at the time.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Re west coast’s comment “By the way, Al Queda’s goal has always been power, always been about establishing a new Caliphate and wresting power away from governments in the Middle East and beyond. Al Queda cares no more for the children of Iraq than it does for the children of New York, it cares only about re-establishing one Islamic government over the entire Middle East and beyond.”
—————
Oh bullshit.
That’s the Big Lie that the Neocon’s made up — when it looked like people had trouble swallowing Bush’s Big Lie “They attacked us because they hate our freedom”.
LOOK at Bin Laden’s interviews in 1997-1998. He clearly defined the three main reasons was going to war if the US government didn’t change its ways:
a) US support for Saudi dictatorship
b) US one-sided support for Israeli killing of Palestinians (using F16s to bomb civilian apartment buildings in Gaza)
c) US killing of 600,000 children in IRaq by bombing water plants and then blocking the import of water purification materials.
It’s all there. In the news archives. Although our TV anchors lost all memory of those archives after Sept 11 because the News Media knew its own archives contradicted the bullshit it was feeding the American public.
If Bin Laden’s organizing a “Caliphate” it is because he is arguing that Muslims need to band together to stop the buttfucking they have been getting for the past 50 years.
(CIA massacres in Indonesia, Stealing the oil wealth of the Saudi people, and seizure of the Caspian Sea oil via puppets as a coming attraction. )
August 28th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Re Howie’s question “Don,
Do you have a clip of Madeleine Albright saying “We don’t give a shit!””
—————–
1) I’m paraphrasing. What happened was Leslie Stahl noted the reports of over 500,000 Iraqi children dying from waterborne diseases due to sanctions (reports from the Red Cross and US physicans groups, not from Saddam) and Leslie then asked Madeleine if she thought the death toll was worth it (to achieve Administration goals.) Madeleine replied “We think the price is worth it.”.
See http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
August 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
LFC:
Peter K. said… blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.
This is what passes for discourse and debate in the Republican Party.
I’m not a Republican, just don’t like your idol Clinton. Can your Manichean mindset comprehend that?
I voted for Nader in 2000 and was recently making excuses for Obama over wiretapping b/c I don’t want McCain elected. Like I said, Clinton didn’t kill bin Laden b/c he was too busy screwing interns or talking to his lawyers about impeachment. I also blame Bush for not being attuned to the terrorist threat. Plus Valerie Plame and the CIA and FBI. Everyone dropped the ball.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Peter, the fact that you think Clinton’s sexual indiscretions actually impacted efforts to catch Bin Laden says a lot about the likelihood of the connection between your views and the real world. Also, there is a big difference between failing to catch Bin Laden (which is not an easy task) and failing to stop an easily preventable terrorist plot.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Great points Matt! Of course, Kristol could care less about the truth of the matter. The Aug 6 memo could not have been any clearer. If only we could have gotten the sort of mobilization then as we are getting for offshore drilling, we’d all be better off.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Tempting as it is to rebut each new release of effluent from Kristol, Goldberg, Rove, et al., it really is time that progressives stopped letting these operatives drive the discussion. Do Fox, WSJ editorial page and other right-wing media let Paul Krugman or Harold Meyerson drive their discussions?
I suppose responding to the Kristols is inevitable until election day. But if Obama is elected, quit amplifying these noisemakers with rebuttals. Engage right-wing thinkers such as Kagan, by all means, but ignore the spinners.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Don,
I think it naive to take public statements at face value. Osama’s concern for the youth of Iraq is as touching as George W. Bush’s.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I wish that ignoring them were an option, allbetsareoff, but they aren’t going to back off after election day… if anything they’ll become even more deranged after an Obama win upends their personal universes. If they become an embarrassment to their employers they’ll be fired, but I’m not holding my breath.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:36 am
It’s not relevant whether bin Laden actually cares about Iraqis or not. What matters is that that is his policy – to blame the US – correctly – for the deaths that were caused by the sanctions. bin Laden had no love for Saddam. Iraq is a policy issue for bin Laden, nothing more. Just as bin Laden doesn’t “hate our freedoms”, he doesn’t care about the individuals impacted by bad US policy – just the bad policy itself. bin Laden correctly sees the US as an enemy of Islam. And the US is – or more precisely the scumbags who run the US are.
The problem with bin Laden is that he was willing to kill US civilians to make his point – which he justifies because the US is willing to kill Islamic civilians to make US policy. What the US electorate doesn’t understand is that in the view of bin Laden, when a democratic electorate elects officials who kill civilians, that electorate is just as culpable in those civilian deaths as the actual creators and enforcers of that policy.
I don’t agree with that, but it’s hard to argue the point. The distinction between the original Russian concept of “terrorism” and how terrorism has come to be conducted is that the original concept emphasized attacking the people who make and enforce state policy – not civilians. Current practice is the exact opposite – for instance, the Palestinians blow up Israeli bus loads of civilians rather than killing Olmert.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Re Richard’s comment “The distinction between the original Russian concept of “terrorism” and how terrorism has come to be conducted is that the original concept emphasized attacking the people who make and enforce state policy – not civilians”
———-
1) Modern terrorism was largely developed by the British in the early days of WWII — their “Special Operations Executive” (SOE). Many of the techniques developed for SOE are still valid –although communications and surveillance technology has greatly advanced.
But the One Time Pad ,for example, developed for SOE was mathematically proven to be unbreakable and is still valuable (Al Qaeda uses it,according to some news reports.)
Churchill made no bones about the purpose of SOE being to terrorize the German occupation forces — AND the French.
SOE policy called for the killing of civilians who collaborated with the Germans — as well as civilian administrators.
And SOE was ahead of Al Qaeda in its operational security –although it had its share of fuckups. Use of the suicide pill and distress codes, for example.
The Arabs took notes.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:05 am
1) The three justifications Bin Laden gave for this war in 1997 interviews with US TV networks –and which he repeated after Sept 11 –are important for several reasons:
a) The archives show that Bush lied to us after Sept 11 in a major way — and that lie was supported by our News Media and by Bush’s right wing supporters. The Neocons embellished the lie.
b) The three justifications were actions the US government took on behalf of special interests (Big Oil, Israel Lobby), not actions which benefit American citizens.
c) The three justifications are what Bin Laden uses to rally support from 1 billion Muslims who would not be otherwise inclined to support Al Qaeda extremists. Someone dropped a dime on Saddam within weeks — no one seems to want to turn in Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. You don’t fight/isolate an insurgency by alienating the population in which the insurgents seek sanctuary — quite the opposite, in fact. CIA Officers trying to deal with Bin Laden — like Michael Scheuer — are as annoyed by Bush/Neocon deceit as I am.
d) Bush/Neocons’ Big Lies since 911 have hurt our ability to suppress Al Qaeda and have been done in the service of Big Oil and the Israel Lobby agenda –not for the benefit of America.
The fact Bush and the Neocons continue their vicious deceit even after the death of over 7000 Americans shows that they are as much our enemy as is Al Qaeda.
At lease Al Qaeda might agree to a truce if we stopped fucking with their part of the world — but we are stuck with the Neocons’ treason year after year. Because they can claim US citizenship even as they betray America.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The Dems will never admit that Clintons Adminastration was even partly responsible for 9/11, Even though it was in planning for 5years prior to Bush taking office. Not to mention the decline of the economey even though that happened on Clintions watch. As for the “surplus” of money he left Look at it like this If you never mantain your car, you get to keep the money you would spend on maintance, but when you sell it and it breaks down who’s fault is it? the new owner? or the guy who saved the money by not maintaining it. Clintion is the guy who saved the money then blames bush for the break down
March 1st, 2009 at 6:08 am
March 11th, 2009 at 4:58 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Thanks for the review! viagra