Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Ann Coulter :: Townhall.com Columnist
If only bin Laden had a stained blue dress
by Ann Coulter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


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 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

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-Qaida 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-Qaida, 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.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

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-Qaida 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," 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.

    COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

  • Share:
    Vote on It:
    Average Vote:
     
    About The Author
    Ann Coulter is a columnist and author of Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault On America.
     
    TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Ann Coulter and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
    Ann
    Not up to your usual standard Ann. I never even chuckled. If you are in a serious mood, tell me something i don't know.

    Short column.
    I'm with you, Pistol. Though I did like "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" even if it didn't amount to an actual chuckle.

    OK OK
    She did establish a solid reminder. I get discouraged that these reminders of reality don't seem to have much effect on the 50% (by definition) who are left of center. Is there any room here for people who are into ideas more than epithets. Some people advocate cureless folly done and said, refuse to face reality, and in general invite me to fear for the future of this nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. Nevertheless, the vast majority are well meaning basically moral people. I think only as a last resort will any large body of voters choose sacrifice and danger until there is no other choice.

    Clinton was busy....
    ....using his "weapon of mass distraction."

    JC
    ..what's this about a weapon of misshees**ction?

    ANN IS RIGHT, AS USUAL
    Come on people, this may not be the most humorous article ever written by Ann, but you have to admit she is dead on right!

    WAG THE DOG
    As I have been getting older a lot of new terms have been coming into vogue. Among them is 'revisionist history.' At first it was used to describe such events in history as denial of the Holocaust, our involvement in Viet Nam and others. As I recall, this is a word that came out of the mouths of liberal elitist thinkers on the left. You know the type. The ones with the alphabet letters after their names. However in the past six years there has been nothing that can compare to the revisionist history of the Clinton Administration.
    As Ms. Coulter describes, this malfeascent boob like that other malfeascent boob before him, Jimmy Carter, sat on his duff and did nothing while the entire Muslim world kept taking collective s##t after collective s##t on this great nation of ours. Growing bolder and bolder these Muslim killers kept in the shadows like the cockroaches they are. The only time that Clinton did do something about these killers is when he got caught with his pants down, literally.
    He had become death. The destroyer of aspirin factories.His solution to his problems was to put a 2 million dollar missle into a two dollar tent. His malfeasence lead this nation into the darkest day of my life and the lives of many others in this great nation of ours,9/11.
    Which leads us to the greatest sham and whitewash in this country since, well, Waco. The 9/11 Commission. This sham -that's what it was- as I wrote the other day was compromised from the outset. Jamie Gorelick was included on the panel. Janet Reno was her boss. Jamie Gorelick implemented all of Janet Reno's ridiculous policies which amounted to nothing more then impediments to keep intelligence agencies from sharing information. This, bear in mind, for the preservation of human rights. Three thousand citizens of this nation dead but God forbid anyone's civil rights get violated. That should go down in the liberal handbook of such other liberal touchstones of truth like 'I'd rather see a hundred of the guilty go free rather than one innocent man go to prison.' This 'panel' was loaded with Clinton hacks who did everything they could to present his administration as well as his trained parrot, Reno, in the best possible light. They shamelessly used each and every person to cross it's paths to accomplish this. Including the much vaunted 'Jersey Girls' despite all the protestations from the left for not being treated as the 'sacred cows' they considered themselves to be. Sorry moonbats, they lost the right to their lassiez faire treatment when they started appearing on programs like 'Face the Nation' and others spouting on about what idiotic positions and courses of action this administration was taking to protect it's citizens. Offering up their 'opinions' and being fawned over by the LLMSM as though they were much traveled veterans of the diplomatic corps. Hmmmm.Do they have unnamed sources in the White House? State Department? How are they to be considered such experts in foreign policy? Because their husbands died? A lot of other wives lost their husbands that day but because they are not shills for the Democratic Party, you don't see them being paraded out in front of the cameras like these women are.
    The last total insult from this 'commission' came when they could not attach blame to either an administration that had been in office eight YEARS as opposed to one in office nine MONTHS.
    A complete and total exercise in futility. Madeline Albright.George Tenent.Sandy Berger. This fools parade sowed the seeds for our destruction. Our betrayal. Getting the knife in the back. Sorry, Albright was a key cog in the wheel of the Clinton/Carter diplomatic coup of calming down the spoiled Kim Jong Il when he started rattling his saber. So what that they gave him a nuclear reactor. At least it shut him up. Speaking of 'so what' did anyone catch Arianna Huffingtons answer to Bill O'Reilly' question as to whether or not the Kurds were being persecuted under Saddam Hussein? Whether of not they are safer today?
    Looney liberal lefty thinking Profiles in hypocrisy. Wag the dog indeed.

    Right on the mark Ann!
    And let's not forget when Clinton was asked by a reporter, what action he would take to a nuclear threat. Clinton replied, "I will do nothing until a nuclear device detonates on American soil."

    And this is the guy the demo/libs worship like a God!

    Whatever
    Let's not forget that since 1994 Republicans have been in control of the Congress and the Constitution invests war making powers in the Legislative branch. So if Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to Islamic terrorism, then so did the Republican Congress. Also, after 9/11 we had the anthrax attacks that killed five Americans and unless Ann is saying we aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq then terroists have killed far more Americans under Bush than Clinton.


    STANDTALL
    Good post! Pretty well covers all!

    Jimmy Carter
    Weapon of mass destruction??? EEWWW!!!!

    Jimmy Carter
    LOL! "weapon of mass distraction." Good one!

    RE:
    Red Tooth writes: Thursday, September, 14, 2006 12:36 AM
    Whatever
    Let's not forget that since 1994 Republicans have been in control of the Congress and the Constitution invests war making powers in the Legislative branch. So if Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to Islamic terrorism, then so did the Republican Congress. Also, after 9/11 we had the anthrax attacks that killed five Americans and unless Ann is saying we aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq then terroists have killed far more Americans under Bush than Clinton.

    -

    Can you cite the last time Congress declared war without a specific request and lobbying from the President? It doesn't work that way for good reason. The President is the CHIEF EXECUTIVE, meaning his branch executes the day to day functions of the federal government. His role as Commander in Chief gives him control over military operations, so Congress can declare us to be in a state of war with anyone they like, but without the President's support there will be no military action. That's part of the separation of powers that liberals incessantly - and almost always incorrectly - cite as a reason President Bush is not allowed to do everything he happens to have done that day.

    I do agree that almost everyone failed to sound the alarm on terrorism in the 1990s, but that doesn't excuse Clinton's inaction. The President (and his intelligence staff) is in a unique position to assess national security threats and connect the dots that Congress cannot - at least not without the President first seeing the threat coming. We elect Presidents to LEAD, particularly in times of crisis. That was also one of the intents of the Framers: a strong executive is in the best position to respond to emergencies and attacks. If there was a clandestine threat to our country, then the President has a responsibility to either take clandestine action against it or make the case for action to the public and Congress. Clinton failed to take the mounting threat seriously and connect the dots. He was so obsessed with being liked by "our betters" in Europe and the UN that he ruled out military action a priori. Only when the scoundrel thought it might divert attention from his (self-created) domestic troubles did he take any military action, feeble as it was.

    I can hardly believe that you actually think "terro[r]ists have killed far more Americans under Bush than Clinton," is an effective argument against Coulter or Bush. The Germans killed far more British under Churchill than under Chamberlain. IF I need to say more, then I'd be wasting my time on someone who will never understand, no matter what I say.


    ********************************


    Pistol writes: Wednesday, September, 13, 2006 10:18 PM
    Ann
    Not up to your usual standard Ann. I never even chuckled. If you are in a serious mood, tell me something i don't know.

    -

    I liked "doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress." It was more of an OHHH moment, but I did chuckle inside.

    I laughed
    Read it out loud next time. Use funny voices to highlite the many ironies she wove into it, like Cartman's voice or her own, for example.

    Republicans
    Republicans never made an issue about attacking Iraq during the Clinton Administration nor did they attempt to get a declaration of war against Iraq or anyone else. So if Bill Clinton was asleep at the wheel so was the Republican leadership and really the conservative movement generally. If Republicans genuinely felt our nation was imperiled due to Clinton's malfeasance and dereliction on national security matters, then why not make a political fight over a Congressional declaration of war?

    Republicans didn't care about terrorism either -- although they did care about Clinton's sexual escapades and digging up dirt on Hillary Clinton.

    However Ann's point is totally absurd -- "terrorists" are calling Americans in Iraq daily because Bush put them in harm's way.

    And the anthrax attacks did fill five Americans after 9/11 and the killer -- or killers -- remains at large and could potentially strike at any moment. Does anyone care? Doesn't seem so...


    Red Tooth--Welcome to the real world.
    You finally agree that Clinton did nothing. It takes an adult to admit you were wrong. Thanks!You tried to throw Congress under the bus too but as you know we relied on Bill for leadership. It was on his watch and he was responsible. As to his advisors, well, that's what you get when the only requirement for any White House job is to be pro abortion. No other qualifications for any job mattered to them. I think the Oakland Raiders must have the same requirement after seeing their first game.




    Red Tooth writes: Thursday, September, 14, 2006 12:36 AM
    Whatever
    Let's not forget that since 1994 Republicans have been in control of the Congress and the Constitution invests war making powers in the Legislative branch. So if Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to Islamic terrorism, then so did the Republican Congress. Also, after 9/11 we had the anthrax attacks that killed five Americans and unless Ann is saying we aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq then terroists have killed far more Americans under Bush than Clinton.


    Clinton's response to terror.
    A good friend of mine summed up Clinton's response to terror attacks as "bombing a few rock piles and knocking over some trash cans".

    My turn
    Now that I've entered the chat room I'll note that Ann’s column was about Clinton’s failure and the failure of Democrats in general to address terrorism at any level. I found it amusing that some of the commenter’s here were not amused. As if anyone cares.

    Issues of guilt
    Dems have no sense of the terror America faces. I wasn't alive in the 60's but they (dems) impress me as being alot like a band of communal living, dope smoking hippies following the Ken Kesey bus of enlightenment cross country without any desire to face reality.
    I am proud to say I did not vote for Clinton. Even at the age of 20 I had better sense than to fall for his smooth talking junk. The man is a philandering baffoon who remains an embarassment to the office of president and the American people.

    ABOUT THOSE TRASH CANS
    I bet Clinton wished Monica would have put that blue dress in one. The rest of the trash cans that weren't damaged can be filled up with the donkeys version of the Clinton years. If Janet Reno, Madeleine Albright, George Tenet, William Cohen and Slick Willy are ever seen again in the same room at the same time be sure to keep your eyes on the skies, and be on the look out for the devil with the blue dress on who just may be Hillary standing in the wings. Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views, thoughts and opinions.

    bigbelly
    grrrrrrrrrrrrrrreat to see you back on line .
    you are a real sho nuff SUPERSTAR .
    EXCELLENT ANALYSIS .
    ----------------------------------
    THE SNIPES ARE RUNNING . TALLYHO !!!
    COME ON DOWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Cynewulf, Pistol
    I also liked "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?)"

    Of course they're all friendly with each other - haven't you been paying attention to ANY news source in the last two weeks?

    Yeah, if they're all friendly with each other, then Bill Clinton has probably figured out the meanings of "is" and "alone".

    score another for Ann
    I seldom have time to read all the articles on Townhall, but Ann's are always near the top of my list.

    Red Tooth
    You said, "Let's not forget that since 1994 Republicans have been in control of the Congress and the Constitution invests war making powers in the Legislative branch. So if Bill Clinton turned a blind eye to Islamic terrorism, then so did the Republican Congress. Also, after 9/11 we had the anthrax attacks that killed five Americans and unless Ann is saying we aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq then terroists have killed far more Americans under Bush than Clinton."

    Who's in charge of the CIA? Who has cabinet meetings with the Secretary of Defense? Congress? Wrong. Any member of Congress? Wrong. Any Senator? Wrong again. The President does; it's his responsibility to watch for such things - threats to our national security, etc. Then it's up to him - as another poster said - to decide to tell Congress about it and ask them to do this or that; OR to keep it secret and order CIA agents to catch somebody, somewhere in the world, and do... whatever needs to be done.

    Anthrax?
    Let me get this straight. We don't know who was behind the anthrax event but we can still use it as an argument about international terrorism? Couldn't it just as easily have been a Clinton concubine NYT reporter?

    I like the NYT theory myself. That's the only reason they wouldn't have "outed" the source.

    Hey, I think I'm onto something here.

    X-Presdent Clinton the greatest.....
    ....the Greatest President we've ever had, according to some Dems.

    I'll agree that he's the Greatest - the Greatest Scam Artist of All Time. Who else promised "a middle class tax cut" (campaign speech, 1992), got elected, then delivered the greatest middle class Tax HIKE since World War Two?

    Who else did anything to compare with the deposit on the blue dress - and then said he didn't "have sex with that woman"?

    Who else cooked the books in the last year or so of his presidency so as to lower the unemployment rates, rate of inflation,....?

    Who else looks for any tragedy where he go and say, "I feel your pain"?

    Who else paints himself as the champion of the elderly, the reired, and then - as a lame duck - raises the taxes they pay on Social Security benefits?

    Fuzzy and anthrax
    Yeah, you might be onto something. I wouldn't put anything that's:
    (1) nasty;
    (2) sneaky; and
    (3) most of all, likely to produce something they blame Bush for
    past them.

    After Jayson Blair's antics; and (most recently) outing the domestic surveillance program, by which we WERE tracking down terrorists in our midst, as far as I'm concerned, the sterling reputation of the NYT is gone, they are no longer the "newspaper of record".

    sorry
    I meant, "most of all, likely to produce something they could blame Nush for"

    Commander in Chief
    Okay, Red Tooth, you obviously know nothing about how the government works. So here are some facts.

    The military, the CIA and the FBI and the NSA and all these organizations don't report directly to the Congress. They report to the President, who then has an obligation to share important national security information with the congress, but he still makes the decision what to share and what not to share at his own future peril.

    What is worse is that people all along the chain of command have to make decisions of what gets to the president, which is why it's so important who we elect as president because of who he'll put in important positions to make those decisions.

    So the very idea that the Republican Congress since 1994 was somehow responsible for any failure to act is simply absurd. You can't do anything about crap you don't know about.

    Now, if you can produce viable evidence that the Republican leadership in Congress, during the 1990s knew about all the Islamic radical terror plots and such, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, shut up.

    9/11 Comission Reprt is Flawed
    In other words it’s about as accurate and unbiased as any other Government report. But it’s proabbaly the most useful thing we have at this point in establishing who did or didn’t do enough of what. The problem Clinton had with the movie was that it contained scenes which never happened or were dramatically different from actual events as documented in that report. If the same happened to Bush we would be hearing the same hue and cry from the right. Also, how come the left never blamed GHB for WTC 1 even though it occured a mere month into Clinton’s term as oppeosed to Bush’s 9 months for 9/11? I thought THEY wrere supposed to be the blame everyone else crowd.

    Flagwaver
    Of course your list is correct and can be extend as you note. The the very Liberal San Francisco socialist, Nancy Peloski has given the orders for all Dem's to follow. And as she warned them, in so many words, not to cross her. The mantra that she came up with and demands that every Democrat repeat it at every opportunity is.. "We'll take America in a New Direction!" And when you see any Democrat on TV, they will include those words, somewhere in their spiel.

    It is like all brain washing techniques, repeat often so the listener
    begins to believe. However, they never explain what that "New Direction is."

    Their plan is of course is to act on the items you've laid out as well as start impeachment proceedings against Bush.

    Song Remains the Same ...
    "And let's not forget when Clinton was asked by a reporter, what action he would take to a nuclear threat. Clinton replied, 'I will do nothing until a nuclear device detonates on American soil.'"

    Gee, that sounds like what John Kerry has been saying since the 2004 election. At the Democrats are consistent!

    Porterhouse
    I agree that the 9/11 commission was nothign more than politics. Other than that, though. This is about more about who took action and who didn't. Bush1 had no opportunity if his term was nearly over to begin any large anti-terrorism campaign based on WTC1.

    Still, if Clinton did or didn't blame him. It doesn't matter. The article is about who took action and who went to the knob wash.

    Red Tooth
    I feel compelled to come back to this, because there may be people who need some education. I don't think Red Tooth can handle it.

    Let's walk through a flow chart of the imagination. NSA, CIA, or FBI or some agency gets information that something might be plotted to attack our country.

    The people in the field have to develop the background to establish whether or not the information is solid.

    Then, they have to convince their superiors that this is important enough to spend time thinking about it. To throw a monkey wrench in here, try to imagine the helter skelter going on during the morning of Sep. 11, 2001.

    So let's imagine that you can get the information that you believe is important to the level of people who can talk to the president.

    And the clock is ticking. You don't have time to sleep on it.

    The only person who can re-task the Aircraft Carriers is the president. Not a congressman. Congress would have to call a quorum session and call a vote and we could all be dead in a few minutes.

    I want the president to be someone who is willing to make the tough decisions.

    Some of us may die because of the decisions of radical islamic fundamentalists, but if I have to die, I want to believe that Americans who survive will not be slaves of an islamic state.

    Decisions
    What you people fail to take into consideration is Clinton's impressive military career. Using his experiences (dodging) led to his decisions.

    Lessons Learned
    With irrefutable factual support Ann merely sums up what any body with only part of brain already knows:
    If WJC had been less concerned with getting saliva on his knob then he wouldn't have to be so concerned with the blood on his hands now.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    Fuzzy Logic
    Clinton’s biggest mistake was believing he could hand over a burgening counter terroism initative to Bush. Can we talk inaction? Despite pleas from Clarke, Tennent and the Hart Rudman Commision, there was no Counter Terroism Task Force meeting from the time Bush took office until 9/11. Pres. Daily Briefing “Bin laden Determined to Strike U.S.” tabled while Bush watches his beloved Barney chase armadillos at Crawford. And this stunning example of lack of leadership - after being told that a plane hit WTC he proceeds with his planned phot op. This just months after he was at a G8 summit where security measures were taken against fears that a terroist would use a plane to strike the summit. Andthen after news of the second strike is whispered in his ear he stays put, frozen, staring wide-eyed in disbelief. Clinton wasn’t the greatest but this guy takes the cake.

    The anthrax was weapons-grade
    Give me a break? Remember that it was determined that the anthrax was weapons-grade and came from Fort Dietrich.

    Shortly after that came out, the story just died. Voila. But the fear-mongering remained.

    Seems to me that it would have been beneficial to truly get to the bottom of how weapons-grade anthrax got out of Fort Dietrich and mailed around.

    I do find it noteworthy that Bush, et al. were all on CIPRO several weeks before the 1st anthrax was mailed around.

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml

    Fuzzy Logic
    Thanks. I get the FUZZY logic thing a lot here. (Don't read anything into that.) I tried to address your previous post and you respond again with things that have nothing to do with what I posted.

    My take on your latest post is that Clinton didn't want to make a burgioning counter terrorism initiative because he thought Bush2 would get elected. Is that correct?

    Porterhouse
    My 11:42 question was directed at you. I am not disagreeing with EVERYTHING you say. Just a lot of it.

    hntr admin
    Might "devil in the blue pants suit" be more appropriate?

    A few details
    Bill Clinton at first denied that Sudan offered up OBL:

    "The idea that the Sudanese offered to hand him over to us is just absurd," he told CNN. "The idea that they told us when he was leaving and he was landing in the Gulf, and we could get him at another airport, is absurd."

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/11/sm.01.html

    It wasn't until he slipped up during a speech at the Long Island Association in 2002 that he ever admitted that OBL had been offered up. He was still denying that it happened when questioned by the 9-11 commission - the FIRST TIME. Only after he found out that the 9-11 commission had him on tape did he ask to testify a second time. Only then did he admit that he'd turned down the offer because they had no crime to hold OBL on.

    BUT HE LIED AGAIN.

    In October 1993, 18 U.S. servicemen involved in the U.S. humanitarian relief effort in Somalia were killed during an operation in Mogadishu. One soldier's body was dragged through the streets.

    Bin Laden was indicted in 1996 on charges of training the people involved in the attack and in a 1997 interview with CNN, bin Laden said his followers, together with local Muslims, killed those troops.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/binladen.profile/

    I'm surprised Ann let him get away with two bold faced lies.

    Ann is on Target Again! But
    Ann, you said the 9/11 Commission Report whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism.

    But was it cowardice and incompetence or could it have been because of truth in a comment I read earlier this AM from another Post: "Modern liberlism (AKA good ol' fashioned Marxism) is..."

    No Ann, I don't wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy. What I wonder about is why its taken 22 years and the truth is still not out about Anatoliy Golitsyn.

    Golitsyn is the ex-KGB officer who defected to America in 1961 and correctly predicted the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in his 1984 book NEW LIES FOR OLD. Many more of his predictions have, and continuously still "hit the nail on the head" so to speak.

    But the weak of heart need to stay away from Golitsyn's predictions of what the Russian Communists were and are up to.

    One Author wrote that Golitsyn's predictions has a 94% accuracy rate. Read this Web Post:
    http://www.shout.net/~bigred/NewLies.html

    And then for "The proof is in the pudding" be sure and read this one:
    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19793

    JOHNL
    I think your on to something. There are some people you just can't dress up!

    I was wondering when
    movwater writes: IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998

    Public Law 105-338 - 105th Congress

    I was wondering when someone would get around to posting that. If I recall correctly the democrats originally tried to dodge voting on the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243)" because they claimed the "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998" covered it. They just didn't want to go on record as having voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war, saw a lot of that from John Kerry in 2004.

    Porterhouse
    I think your comments don't hold water. First of all, ask yourself if you think the 9/11 attacks would've happened had Clinton or Gore been in office. Of course nobody knows for sure, but they weren't doing anything that would have led anyone to believe that they could've uncovered the plot. They didn't have any great work to hand over to Bush. People like Gorelick were busy reinforcing walls between intelligence communities to prevent her boss from being implicated in illegal campaign financing from foreign sources. You really shouldn't try to compare Clinton's 8 years of non-leadership with Bush's less than 9 months lapse. 9/11 made Bush a leader. I agree that he was quite ineffective up until about 24 hours after 9/11 happened. He should've listened to Richard Clarke and others and he should've been using spurs to kick the CIA into action. Government is risk averse by nature (I should know, I work for it). Clinton was happy to be criticized for doing nothing as opposed to taking the heat for doing something courageous. Bush would rather do what he thinks is right and take the heat for botched operations. The latter attitude is the mark of a real man, something sorely lacking in our country today.

    Goon
    Remember how we, the people, were ready to go into Iraq several months before Bush got congressional approval. I do. I remember thinking, "What's taking so long?" Han's group of inspectors was ineffectual and I thought if we waited any longer, Saddam would be able to move, hide, disburse, etc. anything he didn't want us to see. I remember Bush giving reason after reason to go in but never got the green light until bringing up the WMD issue because that got public opinion in agreement according to the polls. Thank makes even John Worthless Kerry go along with it, until he goes against it.

    Then it took several more months to get the military ready to go in. Saddam could have gotten his PHD between the time we should have gone in and the time we found him in his hole.

    As usual, huge dittos to your posts.

    hillary caused 9-11
    How do we know it wasn't hillary clinton who advised her husband not to take bin laden and not to respond to terrorism. She was his self-appointed "co-president" and had her face in everything that happened in the White House. If she thinks she wants to be president, we need to know what her position was after the embassy/USS Cole attacks! Could it be that she didn't want clinton to start anything because it might hurt her chances of running for president someday? We need know how she was influencing bill clinton!!!

    9/11
    The best thing that would have deterred 9/11 was if Clinton or the Congress had pushed harder or cooperated more to get the recommendations of the Hart Rudman commission enacted.

    Flojo
    That's Great! You are right. I call for an investigative commission to look into the co-prsident's actions. The timing is perfect! Can't wait for the tv movie.

    I thought it was funny
    And, Standtall, that is a great post.
    Ann Coulter Rocks!!

    Fuzzy
    An honest critical movie about Hillary's "behind the scene" control, would make a brave producer a fortune! If he/she lived long enough to complete it.

    Fuzzy
    You were talking about lack of action aginst terrorism and I gave you some great examples of Bush’s lack of action. Concerning your second post, do you think WTC 1 happened during George H Bush? My point is that unlike the right wing blaming 9/11 on Clinton, the left never blamed the first WTC bombing on George H Bush. Clinton just accepted resposibility and quietly went about the business of capturing and putting away for life all those responsible - without the fear mongering that we see today which seems to be so effective for those intent on holding on to power.

    Don't get me started.
    movwater writes: Don't forget, Carter also punished the Mid West wheat farmers, too, by refusing to allow them to sell their wheat to the Russians. The Canadian and Australian wheat farmers thought it was a Nobel Laureate-seque gesture on Carter part, as they took their Russian Letters of Credit to their banks.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Great couple posts in a row.

    More then the wheat farmers, the entire agriculture industry took it up the tail pipe, especially while grain prices tanked and interest rates doubled and tripled.

    Meanwhile Karter specifically allowed IBM to continue shipping high end computers that the Soviet Union needed for intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    Fuzzy
    The point of my second post is that Clinton DID hand Bush a couterterrorism program. 8 years vs. 8 months is hard to argue with but, this was a critcal time and all of the Clinton admin. warnings and efforts were ignored or dismantled. Terrorism was seen as a “Clinton issue”. Bushies were into Strategic Missle Defense.

    BinLaden
    I have one question to ask: With all the boming that was done in the mountains that Bin Laden was hideing in, how come we have not seen him since then on The movie stage? Did they bury him in one of his caves? If he is still alive, why hasn't he shown his face?

    Sorry that was three questions. Hope someone can give me an answer.

    flojo
    I don't think she had her face in EVERYTHING that was going on in the Whitehouse, but I bet she had her face in a lot of the same things Bill did.

    movwater
    Well, by 2003 Clarke was singing a different tune:

    Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

    "Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

    Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

    Funny?
    I like the title. I got a chuckle picturing _that_.

    OK, so now it's established from what you've all said here. Ann Coulter is supposed to be funny. Phew! I was worried there for a while, because seriously, I didn't know whether she was a closeted Nazi (after that NY Post comment right after 9/11) or a comedienne. I'm glad it's the latter. Now I know. I can read her in a different light and laugh with you instead of scratching my head wondering.

    Thank you. Seriously.

    cliffhanger:
    I told my (now ex-)wife right after 9/11 when they were hunting him, the best thing to happen to OBL from the US's point of view would be for him to just "disappear". Alive he's a symbol, dead he's a martyr. Disappeared, he's...disappeared. Then they wouldn't know if he's a symbol or a martyr.

    Would it not be ironic if
    after sending troops, airplanes and bombs and squandering billions in Kosovo keeping the muslims from being run out or killed, we end up having a shooting war in this country with the same muslims?

    Re: "Iraqi Bomb Maker" Abdul Rahman Yasi
    I stand corrected.

    Porterhouse
    What bothers me is that our government is so large that anything they do takes longer than I would like, regardless of which party is in power. Just ask the folks in New Orleans.

    Unbiased history, however, will show that Bush2 took action while Clinton did not. History being simply as a record of events.

    I am strongly conservative but I realize that we have to be skeptical of any lifelong politician's motives. Bush's included.

    I think you should be skeptical of politicians as well, regardless of party.

    Don't you agree.

    If only:
    As usual Ann hit a good solid shot. Don't really matter to me if I get a good chuckle or not,still cant' help but love the old flame thrower.

    What might have been?
    Just wondering, if Bush 41 had won re-election, might he have resumed action against Iraq around the time of, say, finding number 6 or 7 in Section 2 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998; thus, accomplishing Sections 3 through 8 and preventing the necessity of such act to ever be written?

    Instead, we had a "leader" who turned the White House into Playboy Mansion East for the next 8 years.

    One wonders how differently the future might have gone...

    Once again, Ann, you give me new points to ponder.

    Cdr Will et al
    So Republican were unaware that our embassies in Africa were attacked? Republicans were unaware of the bombing in the World Trade Center in 1993? Republicans were unaware of the attack on the US Cole?

    Everyone, read the Constitution. Republicans have controlled the branch of government responsible for declaring war and they failed to act -- why?

    These "terrorist" attacks were not secrets kept hidden by the Clinton Administration; they were broadcast all over the news. Were Republicans so fixated on Clinton's blue dress that they forgot to watch the news?

    Republicans on the Intelligence Committee has the authority to request whatever intelligence they like from the President as well as have open -- or closed -- hearings on matters pertaining to national security.

    Who said this in in 1996?

    "...he idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn't anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world; if you recall we were all worried about the possibility of Iraq coming apart, the Iranians restarting the conflict that they'd had in the eight-year bloody war with the Iranians and the Iraqis over eastern Iraq. We had concerns about the Kurds in the north, the Turks get very nervous every time we start to talk about an independent Kurdistan...Now you can say, well, you should have gone to Baghdad and gotten Saddam. I don't think so. I think if we had done that we would have been bogged down there for a very long period of time with the real possibility we might not have succeeded."

    Richard Cheney.

    So in 1996 Richard Cheney thought attacking Iraq was a dumb idea as well -- and he was right.




    Red Tooth
    Obviouly said five,(5)years before 9-11-01 and you didn't post all of his comments. So we really don't know what the Vice President was referring to. If I were to guess, Mr. Cheney was probably talking about the first Gulf War and if I have my facts straight, Congress did not authorize for the United States Milatary to invade Iraq or head to Bagdad. I believe Congress authorized the milatary to kick Suddam and his milatary out of Kuwait, which they did. You either didn't read movwaters comments or can't/won't comphrehend them. Suddam did have wmd's, he did murder hundreds of thousands of Iraq's, he did have torture chambers, he did have rape chambers and was keeping the people in his country poor. I don't need to expand any further, you get the point. The only thing you don't get, are the facts.

    Bush vs. Clinton - War on Terror
    How can we best compare the Presidencies of Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush (more concisely – liberalism vs. conservativism?) Which President/party provided the greatest level of security for America? Which President/party did the most to neutralize and defeat our sworn enemies? Which President/party has done the most to avenge the lose of American life that occurred under his command?

    The presidencies of William J. Clinton and George H.W. Bush have been at the forefront of 21st century terrorism and both administrations have been embroiled in controversy, legal issues, sensationalism, vilification, demonizing and bitter partisanship. Clinton was impeached and Bush stands accused of many crimes with many members in Congress who want to impeach him as well.

    What are the nature of the accusations, indictments and controversies that have and do surround Presidents Clinton and G.H.W. Bush?????????

    What does the nature of the political attacks against each President say about each President’s pursuits and priorities?

    Bush’s laundry list of political problems:
    Bush ignored Bin Laden and Al Qaeda threat until after 9/11
    Bush invaded Iraq to get oil
    Bush invaded Iraq to make Halliburton rich
    Bush lied about WMD in Iraq
    Bush lied about Al Qaeda being in Iraq prior to 2003
    Bush lied about Iraq seeking uranium
    Bush lied when he announced “Mission Accomplished”
    Bush has violated human rights of suspected terrorists at Abu Grahab
    Bush has/is violating human rights of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay
    Bush is operating illegal, clandestine CIA prisons housing suspected terrorists.
    Bush illegally revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent
    Bush illegally wire-tapped the phone calls of suspected terrorists
    Bush has tortured terrorists in order to extract information and intelligence.


    Clinton’s laundry list of political problems:
    Clinton was involved in Whitewater Banking Fraud scheme
    Clinton illegally fired White House Travel Staff and replaced with friends
    Clinton illegally obtained FBI files of political opponents
    Clinton had political opponents illegally audited by IRS
    Clinton had to amend prior tax returns and pay additional taxes
    Clinton sold pardons
    Clinton traded pardons for votes for Hillary
    Clinton illegally took White House property when vacating the WH in 2001.
    Clinton solicited and accepted illegal campaign contributions
    Clinton had an affair with JENNIFER FLOWERS
    Clinton had affair and/or sexually assaulted ELIZABETH WARD GRACEN
    Clinton had affair and/or used drugs with SHARLENE WILSON
    Clinton had affair and/or used drugs with SALLY PERDUE
    Clinton had affair with DOLLY KYLE BROWNING
    Clinton sexually harassed PAULA JONES
    Clinton sexually assaulted KATHLEEN WILLEY
    Clinton sexually (and brutally) assaulted JUANITA BROADDRICK
    Clinton smeared/destroyed LINDA TRIPP
    Clinton groped CHRISTY ZERCHER
    Clinton groped SANDRA ALLEN JAMES
    Clinton sexually assaulted EILEEN WELLSTONE
    Clinton sexually assaulted unnamed Oxford Student
    Clinton sexually assaulted unnamed Yale Student
    Clinton groped unnamed U. of Arkansas Student
    Clinton had sexual relations with that woman, MONICA LEWINSKY


    Seems that Bush’s problems center on whether or not he is correctly and legally executing the War on Terrorism (violating the rights of our sworn enemies.) How many Americans has Bush been accused of violating the civil rights of?

    Seems that Clinton’s problems centered on marital fidelity, inappropriate sexual relations, fraud, bribery, extortion and racketeering (violating the rights of our mothers, wives, sisters, daughters and other American citizens.) Was Clinton ever accused of being overly aggressive in combating terrorism?

    It’s worth noting that America endured more terrorist attacks under the Clinton administration than it has to date under the Bush administration.

    AT THE END OF THE DAY WHICH SET OF PROBLEMS IS MORE “PRESIDENTIAL?” BASED ON THESE POLITICAL PROBLEMS AND FALLOUT WHICH PRESIDENT HAS DONE MORE TO COMBAT TERRORISM?

    Hey Rich Son of Abraham
    When an election cycle rolls around and the GOP needs a boost in the polls what is a guaranteed fix? Get America talking/debating about the left's most favorite serial, sexual predator - Bill Clinton.

    You gotta love it, what a legacy! What are we conservatives going to do when the word "Clinton" now longer motivates the right and demoralizes the left?

    Carpet Bomb the Girlie Men
    Ann, you always make me chuckle.

    You area great writer, and I love you.

    Speaking of great writers, I have exciting news!

    You can get the full Librivox catalog as a set of .iso CD images chock full of .mp3s of Mark Twain, Aesops Fables and lots of other public domain audio books at this URL:

    librivarc.cabspace.com.

    Check it out!

    Declaration of War
    The term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution. Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War,” without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War." This clearly qualifies the current Iraq War, with an authorization for force passed by Congress as H.J. Res. 114, on October 16, 2002. Prior to that, I would put forth the question, to whom would we declare war. Wikepedia defines a "Declaration of War" as "A formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others." This prevents the declaration of war with a terrorist organization since it is not a nation. The effort to shift the blame from an ineffectual President to Congress is rather lame and displays the lack of substantive argument to support your position.
    Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
    If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
    Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
    Salutation:
    First Name:
    *
    Last Name:
    *
    Email:
    *
    Nickname:
    *
    Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
    Address 1:
    *
    Address 2:
    City:
    *
    State:
    *
    Zip:
    *
    Phone:
          
    Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
    (Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.