Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Americans Will Pay The Price For Clinton’s Bragging

Oliver North:

“I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”
—Former President Bill Clinton, Sept. 24, 2006

Now there’s a passage for the next edition of “Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.” It is the stunning, blatant confession made in the midst of a heated exchange on “FOX News Sunday” with Chris Wallace that as president, Bill Clinton sanctioned the assassination of Usama bin Laden.

To put this little piece of braggadocio in context, it should be noted that no other American president has ever admitted to such a serious violation of law. Although assassination is specifically forbidden as a course of action open to U.S. officials, including presidents, no one seems to have noticed what was being said— perhaps because they were so caught up with the theater of what was happening on the screen.

Over the course of the past week, there is hardly a talk show in America that hasn’t run the tape of Clinton’s tirade and then proffered instant analysis of the former president’s performance. After playing the clip, one jabber-jawed host even asked a guest “Who won that exchange between Wallace and Clinton?” as if he were interviewing the judges at the “Friday Night Fights.”

Not one of the “experts” has, as yet, observed that in all of this, the biggest loser wasn’t on the screen; it was the American people. The tape of a former president arrogantly proclaiming on international television that he personally authorized the assassination of a foreign foe may be great stuff for the screenplay of “Rambo V,” but U.S. and international law specifically forbid it. Over the course of fighting the jihad being waged against us, Mr. Clinton’s intemperate words will come back to haunt us many times over. And of course, he won’t be the one to pay the price.

Read the whole thing.

What’s amazing to me is that President Bush has weathered a storm of criticism over interrogation techniques that - in what I feel is an overreaction - many people have deemed “torture.” Yet President Clinton admits to authorizing assassinations that are explicitly against international law and there is nary a peep from these same critics who are ostensibly oh-so-concerned about America’s image in the world.

Amazing how double standards like that work, isn’t it?

Comments

Double standards are amazing:

Gary Schroen is one of the CIA’s most respected and experienced spies. Two days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, his bosses handed him a new mission targeting Osama bin Laden: “Bring his head back in a box” is the phrase Schroen remembers. Five days later, the veteran operative and his six-man team were on a plane.

CV Rick on September 30, 2006 at 08:29 am

"You did it too!” “Everybody does it!s”


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 08:35 am

The real reason nobody cares is that they know Clinton is lying, as usual.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 08:35 am

Wow, nice spin, boys.


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on September 30, 2006 at 08:38 am
Rob
Rob
17396 comments
Send a private message

Was that really an explicit assassination order, Rick, or was that just talk?

Because last time i checked America was trying to capture bin Laden first...kill him only if necessary.

We want to capture him for intelligence reasons, of course.  Nice try.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 08:39 am

And, it wasn’t publicized, which was the point of the posted article, wasn’t it?  Clinton tells a damaging lie to try to defend himself, when he should have just kept his big mouth shut.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 08:43 am

So, Rick? You think killing Osama is a bad idea? Obviously that makes it theright thing to do.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on September 30, 2006 at 08:43 am

PRESIDENT Bush said yesterday that he wanted Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile, “dead or alive” in some of the most bellicose language used by a White House occupant in recent years.

CV Rick on September 30, 2006 at 08:43 am
Rob
Rob
17396 comments
Send a private message

What spin?  Clinton supported a clear violation of international law.  You guys all gang up on Bush when it comes to the whole “torture” thing, so where’s you outrage now?

Oh yeah, its Clinton.  No need to get upset.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 08:43 am
Avatar for gregdn

Isn’t the ‘ban’ on assasinations just Executive order #11905 issued by President Ford in 1976?
And if it is, why couldn’t Clinton (or Bush for that matter) issue an order countermanding it?

gregdn on September 30, 2006 at 08:44 am

"You did it too!” Weak.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 08:44 am

2h9,

don’t put words into my mouth

CV Rick on September 30, 2006 at 08:45 am
Rob
Rob
17396 comments
Send a private message

“dead or alive”

Yes, Rick, dead or alive.  That is much different than ordering up an assassination.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 08:49 am

So, let me get this straight.

Are you against ordering up an assassination of Bin Laden?

Do you believe Bush has never ordered up an assassination?

Are you up to taking International Legal Advice from Oliver North?

CV Rick on September 30, 2006 at 08:55 am

Rob: The truth is, the present day Dems would love it if Clinton had really killed OBL, in 20/20 hindsight, because then they could pose as being strong against terrorism.  However, if President Bush does it, they will attack him. This explains CV Rick’s position perfectly.  He wants to use the same action to excuse Clinton and to blame Bush. This is pure politics for the lefties.  They really just want to talk to the poor terrorists, and maybe the terrorists will be nice to us.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 08:56 am

So what is your point, Rick?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on September 30, 2006 at 08:59 am
Rob
Rob
17396 comments
Send a private message

Are you against ordering up an assassination of Bin Laden?

I would rather see him captured for intelligence reasons.  Though if he dies in the fighting to get him I’m not going to cry.

Do you believe Bush has never ordered up an assassination?

Every time I’ve heard Bush talk about bin Laden its basically been kill or capture talk.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 08:59 am

Thanks for asking, 2h9.  My point is that Osama bin Laden is a threat to the lives of Americans.  He should be captured or killed.  If a president of the U.S. orders that to happen, then I’m not against that.  If he’s in a nation and that nation won’t honor our request to capture and extradite him, then we should not honor their boundaries and go in and get him ourselves.  If the president who orders this action is a Republican, I’m for it.  If the president who orders this action is a Democrat, I’m for it. 

This is a forward movement in a global war against terror.

That’s my point.

CV Rick on September 30, 2006 at 09:04 am

What about taking legal advice from Ollie North? . . . that one’s just killing me.

CV Rick on September 30, 2006 at 09:05 am

You should have stated than from the start, instead of post cryptic, snarky comments. Being right out in the open and up front does make life so much easier, Does it not?


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on September 30, 2006 at 09:12 am
Rob
Rob
17396 comments
Send a private message

What about taking legal advice from Ollie North? . . . that one’s just killing me.

Is North wrong?  Whatever he’s done in the past, is he wrong on this point?

If not, what’s the point of your question?  If so, please demonstrate how.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 09:14 am

Ollie North is a hero.  He confounded the commies in that Dem congress.  Hurray for him!  He nailed Clinton fair and square, and Rick can’t stand it.  Hurray for Ollie!


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 09:16 am

He nailed Clinton?  I thought it was Clinton who nailed Monica?

CV Rick on September 30, 2006 at 09:17 am

He nailed Clinton?  I thought it was Clinton who nailed Monica?

For all Clinton’s acclaimed sexual prowess, all he did was stick a cigar up her twat and squirt on her dress.  Clinton hates the truth more than he hates anything else, so telling the truth about him nails him every time, just like Chris Wallace did.  Did you see Clinton squirm during that interview?  Did you hear him squeal?


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 09:21 am

You must have seen a different interview.

CV Rick on September 30, 2006 at 09:22 am

You must have seen a different interview.

Nope. For full effect, you have to see the video of the Lewinsky lie alongside the Wallace interview.  The facial expression(and color), the finger wagging and poking, the voice tone and the facial expressions are identical.  Clinton was in his full defensive lying mode both times.  Very revealing.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 09:26 am

Sorry for the repeat of “facial expressions”.  I meant to say “head inclination”.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 09:27 am

Bottom line is this: If Slick Willie (ever really thought about that nickname?) ordered Bin laden to be killed, that’s a good thing. Bin Laden needed to be Bin Dead. If GW ordered Bin Laden to be killed that’s a good thing. Either way there would be much joy and I personally would have done the Snoopy dance. And I don’t care if my aunt’s cat ordered the killing.

Hopefully Bin Laden has died of typhoid as reported. Aside from us blowing him into tiny moist pieces, dying like an infected lab rat of a very nasty disease while hiding in a hole in the ground would be appropriate for that critter.


Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim on September 30, 2006 at 09:48 am
Avatar for puzzlefeet

What law was broken?  International or US?

puzzlefeet on September 30, 2006 at 02:03 pm

The law of good sense, at least.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 03:00 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.