If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress...




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.








by: Ann Coulter

Good Points.
When we look back 80 years and see the publication of Mein Kampf preceding the Holocaust by about 13 years, we say "Why on earth didn't anyone see this coming". It looks like a total lack of common sense. The problem is that very few people see things while they are happening.

Sixty years from now, we will look back on the first WTC bombing and not be able to believe that we sat on our thumbs for following eight years.

"by: Ann Coulter"

:rolleyes: This transvestite is so wacko, Radical Conservatism at its best Fundamental Conservatism at its worst

Refute the content, not the author.

"by: Ann Coulter"

:rolleyes: This transvestite is so wacko, Radical Conservatism at its best Fundamental Conservatism at its worst

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.

9-11 Commission report's statement: "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

I could go on with replying to this mess, but I have homework to do. But hey, lets believe Sudan over the Democrats because afterall the Democrats are worse than the Sundanese government.

But hey, lets believe Sudan over the Democrats because afterall the Democrats are worse than the Sundanese government.

Finally you say something that makes sense. It would appear that your time here has not been completely wasted.

Finally you say something that makes sense. It would appear that your time here has not been completely wasted.
It seems as if you always try and turn any debate I'm in into a flame war. And I thought I was supposed to be the immature 17 year old.

That dirty hag spews nothing but unsupported emotional garbage. She's a real bitch, she even attacked the widows from 9/11. You have to be really low to do that sort of shit.

I have no respect for her whatsoever. I didn't read this shit. I won't read any more of her crap.

She's a real bitch, she even attacked the widows from 9/11.
She mostly attacked the idea that you can't or aren't allowed to respond and or question the 9/11 widows because of their loss or for the simple fact that they are widows.

The people who accuse both Clinton and Bush of "doing nothing" seemed quite satisfied with nothing being done. Now with their eagle-eyed hindsight they're blabbering about the government's mistakes, as if they'd been saying it all along. Such people (Ann Coulter) should just admit that they were as lackadaisical as everybody else was.

What's even more absurd is that such people usually put the blame on only one party.

Both parties deserve some blame. Im my opinion the Clinton Admin deserves most of the blame. (See Able Danger for one reason)


The people who accuse both Clinton and Bush of "doing nothing" seemed quite satisfied with nothing being done. Now with their eagle-eyed hindsight they're blabbering about the government's mistakes, as if they'd been saying it all along. Such people (Ann Coulter) should just admit that they were as lackadaisical as everybody else was.

What's even more absurd is that such people usually put the blame on only one party.

Refute the content, not the author.
Hindsite is 20/20,she brings nothing new.
Why does she not bring up the arming of Saddam and Osama in the 1980's. Who did that?
And she is a WACKO rightwinger!

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.When I first read the article this sentence/paragraph jumped out at me. Why the hell is she bringing up this lunatic? I thought. Mylroie is the author of Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America wherein she 'proved' that Saddam Hussein was behind the 1993 WTC attack. She has subsequently found 'evidence' that Iraq was behind the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, Oklahoma City and, of course, 9/11. IOW, Saddam Hussein is responsible for, or has had a hand in, virtually every terrorist action ever made against the US. Her work was published by the American Enterprise Institute and has been lauded by the neocons. Prominent among her acknowledgements are Richard Perle, Scooter Libby, John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz. Needless to say her efforts laid much of the groundwork for justifying the inevitable invasion of Iraq.

With that in mind I read the article again. This time the following aside jumped out:(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.)Now it was starting to make sense to me. Coulter is still trying, in a veiled backhand way, to pin 9/11 on Saddam Hussein. Her conclusionNow, 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. lends credence to my suspicion. Clearly, she is pushing the idea that invading Iraq has somehow prevented further attacks on the US (though how, exactly, this works no one has yet been able to rationally explain).

Today there seems to be so many writers of great wisdom.
Wisdom, it seems, limited to past events.

Clearly, (Coulter) is pushing the idea that invading Iraq has somehow prevented further attacks on the US (though how, exactly, this works no one has yet been able to rationally explain).

Trying to connect the word **rational* with the name *Coulter* is a study in futility.

http://www.fbesp.org/pix/ann.jpg

The people who accuse both Clinton and Bush of "doing nothing" seemed quite satisfied with nothing being done. Now with their eagle-eyed hindsight they're blabbering about the government's mistakes, as if they'd been saying it all along. Such people (Ann Coulter) should just admit that they were as lackadaisical as everybody else was.
Coulter's job isn't to protect American interests, and like most people, she can afford to be lackadaisical about our security when you figure the Federal government is on top of it. Face it, Clinton and his administration did nothing to quell the threat of terrorism, and Bush has been paying for his lack of action ever since. Never before in history was a man so lauded for doing absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, the only thing Clinton should be remembered for is being a silver-tongued used-car salesman who cheats on his wife and takes polls to decide what outfit he'll wear in the morning.

Pretty sad, actually.....

Ann Coulter does make some good points, but they get eclipsed by her occasional lapse into lunacy.
It is extremely easy to take her out of context because she writes in paragraph format instead of Howard Dean style sound bytes. A good example is some of the individual sentences about the widows which sound horrible until you read the point in its entirety.

Such people (Ann Coulter) should just admit that they were as lackadaisical as everybody else was.
But then again President Clinton was probably lacksadaisical about the job she was responsible for.

A good example is some of the individual sentences about the widows which sound horrible until you read the point in its entirety.
That's an excellent point.

Bam! That's hot.

Off topic here, Prae........but I have to tell you; to me, Paris Hilton is about as sexually appealing as a wire coat hanger.

As a well known rapper once (very astutely, as far as my vision of sexiness is concerned) pointed out------

36-24-36? Not unless she's 5' 3"!!!

Off topic here, Prae........but I have to tell you; to me, Paris Hilton is about as sexually appealing as a wire coat hanger.
Fair enough. It's not that I think she's beautiful - she's just sultry, slutty and rich. And that's a great combination if you ask me.
As a well known rapper once (very astutely, as far as my vision of sexiness is concerned) pointed out------

36-24-36? Not unless she's 5' 3"!!!
That's pretty funny. But I have to ask; what the hell is a 50-year-old white man doing listening to rap music???

Ann Coulter does make some good points, but they get eclipsed by her occasional lapse into lunacy.Occasional? I think part of her problem is that her logic is discontinuous. In this article, for example, she begins by saying we now know the truth about Joe McCarthy. Presumably he has been rehabilitated (much the same as Stalin has by Russian revisionists). She concludes by saying that Democrats need to rewrite history. Doesn't she realize that saying it took 50 years to get the truth about McCarthy implies that history has been rewritten by sympathetic Republicans? I sense that she really doesn't care if her overall argument makes any sense as long as she gets to toss around her exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies.

That's pretty funny. But I have to ask; what the hell is a 50-year-old white man doing listening to rap music???

Good question.....:eek: .....most of it I despise, but when my son was a teen, he loved it and I was "treated" to listening to quite a bit of it, and I began (for some odd reason) to really like Sir-Mix-a-Lot......his sense of humor is terrific.

I sense that she really doesn't care if her overall argument makes any sense as long as she gets to toss around her exaggerations, half-truths and outright lies.Her problems are threefold:
1. ANY publicity is good in the publishing industry.
2. People shouldn't necessarily fear controversy, but they shouldn't revel in it either
3. She is unembarassable.
This is a bad confluence of circumstances.

But on the other hand, she isn't always wrong.

3. She (Coulter) is unembarassable.

True.

She seems to me to lack the necessary humanity to BE embarassed.

In virtually the same way that a bullying, lying, rightwing ideologue drunkard like Joe McCarthy could not, no matter what, be made to feel ashamed for his trying to destroy people he happened to disagree with politically.

Coulter's job isn't to protect American interests, and like most people, she can afford to be lackadaisical about our security when you figure the Federal government is on top of it. Face it, Clinton and his administration did nothing to quell the threat of terrorism, and Bush has been paying for his lack of action ever since. Never before in history was a man so lauded for doing absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, the only thing Clinton should be remembered for is being a silver-tongued used-car salesman who cheats on his wife and takes polls to decide what outfit he'll wear in the morning.

Pretty sad, actually.....
But then again President Clinton was probably lacksadaisical about the job she was responsible for.1. Ann Coulter's entire career involves critiquing politics and policy and influencing people's opinions about them. Yet I seriously doubt that before 9/11 she was advocating strong action against al Qaeda. Therefore, though her job wasn't as important as Bill Clinton's, she still screwed up in her job as much as Clinton did in his.

It's like when you do something wrong and someone comes along telling you how much you screwed up, but you know that person didn't have shit to offer when you were actually making your mistakes. I personally would feel like kicking that person square in the nuts.

2. The President is not the only person in the government, and you therefore can't place the entire blame on him. The FBI, CIA, other intelligence agencies, and the (Republican-controlled) Congress all bear some responsibilty for the insufficient action taken against al Qaeda during the Clinton Administration. I might add that al Qaeda wasn't very high on the Bush Administration's agenda either until 9/11. Don't blow the blame on Clinton out of proportion.

1. Ann Coulter's entire career involves critiquing politics and policy and influencing people's opinions about them. Yet I seriously doubt that before 9/11 she was advocating strong action against al Qaeda. Therefore, though her job wasn't as important as Bill Clinton's, she still screwed up in her job as much as Clinton did in his.
I don't buy that for a second.
2. The President is not the only person in the government, and you therefore can't place the entire blame on him. The FBI, CIA, other intelligence agencies, and the (Republican-controlled) Congress all bear some responsibilty for the insufficient action taken against al Qaeda during the Clinton Administration. I might add that al Qaeda wasn't very high on the Bush Administration's agenda either until 9/11. Don't blow the blame on Clinton out of proportion.
Now, this, on the other hand, is a good point.