Monthly Archives: March 2013

BILL CLINTON, BIN LADEN, THE SUDAN AND BLIND SHEIK RAHMAN

FROM APOLLOSPEAKS' TOWNHALL ARCHIVES

2013-03-28 10:15 --BILL CLINTON, THE SUDAN, BIN LADEN AND THE BLIND SHEIK RAHMAN   

Bin Laden or Lewinsky?
 
I've been debating with lefties on HuffPo about Bill Clinton's famous statement made in a 2002 speech where in an unguarded moment he let the cat out of the bag about passing up the chance to arrest or kill Osama bin Laden (OBL). Claiming that in 1996 (the year OBL was to declare a war to the death against the US) the Sudanese government offered Clinton the terror master on a silver plate, but he declined. Why? Because he committed no crimes against the US at the time.
 
This is what Clinton said:
 
 "......Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
 
My opponents insist, as Clinton, Sandy Berger and others would later do, that Clinton misspoke or was misinterpreted and that he was never offered Bin Laden. Taking Clinton's word for it the 9/11 Commission said it couldn't find evidence of an offer. Well fine. Then why didn't Clinton have the arch-terrorist killed especially when he had the chance? Because OBL committed no crime and he would have killed an innocent man? Oh really? You will see in my reply what bunk this is; and that bin Ladin already had American blood on his hands and deserved to die .
  
My reply
  
In 1991 OBL went to Sudan (flocking there with other jihadists from around the Moslem world) because the Islamist Bashir regime was establishing an Islamic paradise of peace, Koranic justice, terrorism and genocide. By 1993 the regime was such a bad actor in the region that Clinton's State Department listed it as a state sponsor of terror and imposed hurtful sanctions on it. Wanting warm relations with Washington and the sanctions removed Bashir set out to reform his regime (or give the appearance thereof) and offered Clinton Bin Laden whose anti-US terrorist activities (known to Clinton) became too much of a liability. But the critical question is this: If Clinton (like Obama) didn't want to arrest OBL why didn't he have him killed? Because he committed no crimes against the US? Oh really?
 
http://pubrecord.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Blind-Sheikh.jpg 
The Blinded by Islamic Supremacism Sheik. 
 
Years before Bashir's offer the CIA and Justice Department knew that bin Laden was running terrorist training camps in Sudan, recruiting jihadists to hit US targets and kill Americans. Described as a dangerous "extremist financier" by the State Department and the CIA's Counterterrorism Center bin Ladin's money was behind a 1992 plot to kill US troops in Arden using terrorists from Yemen (see). Since when is financing a terror plot to kill US soldiers not a crime whether it succeeds or not? And didn't this make Bin Laden an enemy combatant at war with the US and not a common or uncommon criminal? Even worse, the FBI in 1994 knew from its investigation of the first World Trade Center bombing that the very dangerous and deadly bin Laden had funded his friend and mentor the Blind Sheik Abdel Rahman (they first met in Afghanistan) and his domestic terror operations.
 
http://search.aol.com/aol/imageDetails?s_it=imageDetails&q=IMAGE+OF+BILL+CLINTON+LETTING+BIN+LADEN+GO&img=http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XJW9PQVDL._SL500_AA300_.jpg&v_t=keyword_rollover&host=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260484&width=140&height=140&thumbUrl=http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSULrQTj62Oas8qTnpa_6PAjk4WPh7GaZly3M9_WeqQ_y2M_iocXvtJh5qScw:ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XJW9PQVDL._SL500_AA300_.jpg&b=image?imgc=&v_t=keyword_rollover&page=3&q=IMAGE+OF+BILL+CLINTON+LETTING+BIN+LADEN+GO&s_it=imageResultsBack&imgtype=&oreq=45cf31705df5408bb11ebb4afcde4f1d&imgsz=&oreq=c0f24bfb29ca4e8c83e22e52019d1452&imgHeight=300&imgWidth=300&imgTitle=Losing+Bin+Laden:+How+Bill+Clinton's+Failures+Unleashed+Global+Terror:&imgSize=20056&hostName=www.amazon.co.uk
 
OBL didn't live incognito in Sudan but out in the open running a construction business-while openly bragging about killing Americans in Somalia and elsewhere. The CIA could have easily snuffed him out had Clinton found the good sense and balls to give the order. But no. Though Bin Laden's funding of the Blind Sheik made him an accessory to mass murder, and to multiple unrealized horrific terror plots in and around New York, Clinton listening to his imbecilic Attorney General Janet Reno (instead of his secretaries of state and defense?) did nothing; and what followed will live forever in infamy: East Africa, the USS Cole and 9/11. An emboldened Bin Ladin thinking himself an invincible second Mohammed imagined he was greater and stronger in God's eyes than the US president, and that he was divinely anointed with the mission to destroy us.
 
Not wanting to be another weak-on-terror Bill Clinton, Obama (to his credit) ordered a ramp up of Bush's drone program killing al Qaida agents willy nilly wherever they're found abroad. And now Benghazigate "what does it matter" Hillary wants to be Commander in Chief. What she won't and can't run on is her husband's atrocious Bin Laden record and thousands of dead Americans on his hands.
 

AMERICA’S SO-CALLED BLOOD FOR OIL WAR, OR WHY OBAMA’S GLAD SADDAM IS GONE

 

 
 (Posted 10-13-14)
 
In 2003 when Saddam was driven from power by US forces his nuclear and WMD scientists and technicians were still on the government's payroll with the dictator waiting for the opportunity to use them. With enemy Iran developing the bomb  it is inconceivable that a vastly richer Saddam would not have secretly restarted his nuclear program making him more dangerous than ever-and more dangerous than ISIS who would not have invaded Iraq  (see).
 

FROM APOLLOSPEAKS' TOWNHALL ARCHIVES

2013-03-27 14:47 --AMERICA'S SO-CALLED BLOOD FOR OIL WAR, OR WHY OBAMA'S GLAD SADDAM IS GONE 

FRONTPAGE

The War For Oil

Myth

By  

The anti-war "Blood for Oil" crowd must have felt like fools, and Dick Cheney cheated and betrayed when George Bush gave Iraq's oil back to its people and not to his family as a gift./sarc

The "illegal," "criminal" Iraq War of "blood for oil" "deceptively masquerading" as disarming Saddam of his "nonexistent" WMDs and preventing another 9/11 or worse actually saved the Middle East and the world from this dangerous man vastly increasing his wealth-to the benefit of terrorist allies and detriment of US and regional security. For what was selling for $20 per barrel in 2003 (when the "blood for oil war" started) had doubled by 2005 and then more than doubled again to $100 in 2008 (see). What do you think Saddam would have done with all that money? Do you really wish he was still in power as Iraq's dictator with his regional ambitions and nuclear dreams (secretly building a bomb to counter Iran's program)? Does Obama wish he was still around with Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya and all the growing turmoil in the Middle East? I'm sure privately Obama is saying: 'I'm glad Saddam is gone. I'm glad for Bush's "unnecessary" war."
 
Read this excellent article that eviscerates the Blood for Oil crowd:
 

 

PEACE, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS THE PALESTINIAN WAY

FROM APOLLOSPEAKS' TOWNHALL ARCHIVES 2013-03-26 10:35 --PEACE, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS THE PALESTINIAN WAY 
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/world/

 
Obama in Jerusalem,No Surprises But Mission Accomplished

by

Washington Spectator, Special Correspondent For Middle East Affairs.

 MJRosenberg writes,

 
As I understand this for Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace after decades of conflict, bloodshed and war Israel (the guilty party) must stop its injustice toward Palestinians and respect their human rights. But what do the poor, oppressed, victimized Palestinians mean by the terms "justice," "peace" and "rights?" Do they mean what secular, Jewish progressives like Rosenberg mean? What you and I mean? What most people on this planet mean?: Israelis and Palestinians peacefully and productively living side by side in two sovereign states within secure borders. If that's what Palestinians mean by justice and peace and respect of rights then their conflict with Israel would have ended long ago.

But Palestinians don't want what you and I and Rosenberg consider justice and peace. A two state solution isn't justice, peace or right to them. For them there can be no justice in such a solution. There can be no peace.  There can be no stopping of killing, bloodshed and war. Indeed,  their idea of a just peace is so unjust, insane and extreme as to make peace impossible for a long time to come.

For the Palestinian idea of a "just peace" is inspired by a toxic book of hatred and lies riddled with anti-Semitic bigotry; a book that regards Jews as the vilest, evilest, cruelest, most unjust, peace-hating people on earth; a satanic people engaged for ages in a diabolical conspiracy and criminal war against the one true just God and his real chosen just people; who refuse to accept his absolute and final truth and make their peace with him. That book, the Koran, defines for all  time and eternity what most Palestinians mean by "justice" "rights" "peace": Israeli Jews converting to Islam turning their country into a Moslem state; or subordinating themselves to Palestinian rule and giving the land of Israel back to them-surrendering Israel in accordance with the Koran which is Islam's deed to Israel signed by God who owns everyone and everything in this life and the next. In refusing to do one of these two things Palestinians see themselves as being wronged by Israelis (Islamically wronged) violating their God given rights to ownership of Israel and control over its land and people. In other words, until Islam becomes the religion of all or most Israeli Jews, or Palestinian Islamists get control of Israel by peaceful surrender of its Jews (who accept the lie of Islamic supremacy), until then it's war and bloodshed forever as required by Allah who is merciless in punishing unbelievers and especially Jews.

In sum, for most Palestinians there is no peace with Israel outside of Islam, outside the Koran, outside of Sharia law and its unjust, tyrannical, oppressive, rights crushing rules. And until that changes, until Palestinians transcend Islamic racism, cultural imperialism and religious intolerance as inspired by the Koran, until they outgrow  the Middle Ages, come of age and enter the modern world of human rights, dignity and freedom, Islam will continue to be their ruination and stumbling block to peace-while Israel will thrive.
 
POSTSRIPT
 
Rosenberg commenting on his blog writes
 
 There were two heartening things about Obama's visit. The first was when he said in Ramallah "I think of the villages that hold peaceful protests because they understand the moral force of nonviolence. ..." An endorsement of non-violent resistance to the occupation by the President is big because he knows, as the IDF knows,that it is the one sure way to end the occupation. And the movement is growing, with strong Israeli support. (If you see the great film "Five Broken Cameras," you will see the role Israelis play in making it difficult for the IDF to "deal" with the resisters as they would like to).
 
The other good news was the reaction of the students in Jerusalem to Obama's speech. It is telling that he could never have given that speech before an American Jewish audience of the AIPAC kind. Endorse the "State of Palestine?" Talk about "justice" for Palestinians as their right? Say that Israel's survival depends on creation of a viable Palestinian state? He would have been booed off the stage.
But Israeli kids cheered. It only confirms my view that Israelis are open to reconciliation, peace and justice for Palestinians. As for the lobby hawks here, they can always find another cause to be tough guys about.

My reply

Mr. Rosenberg,
 
if "peace" and "justice" meant to Palestinians what it means to me and you the two state solution would have become reality years ago. A non-violent movement to weaken and destroy Israel will meet with failure as has all violent movements toward that end. There is only one way and one way only to peace between Israelis and Palestinians: the Anwar Sadat way. Until Israel has a courageous peace partner like Anwar Sadat who risking his life marches into Jerusalem and before the world accepts Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state within secure boarders this conflict will continue way beyond our Jewish years for generations and generations to come.

 
 

IS SATAN ACTOR A SIGN THAT OBAMA IS A PRESIDENT FROM HELL?

 

FRON APOLLOSPEAKS' TOWNHALL ARCHIVES

2013-03-19 07 --IS SATAN ACTOR A SIGN THAT OBAMA IS A PRESIDENT FROM HELL? 

 
 
WHERE'S THE RESPECT?
 
Shame on you  History Channel for using an actor to portray Satan (the Father of Lies and ruler of hell) who resembles our great, good, noble, peacemaking, prosperity-causing, post-racial, God-centered President. Unless an apology is forthcoming I'll never watch your station again./sarc