Quote:
Originally posted by creaturecat
putting national security at risk = denying a blowjob. - get serious.
|
I entirely agree. Bill Clinton’s derelictions on national security far outweighed his merely bothersome denials of fellatio.
And according to a new book, “Losing bin Laden,” by Richard Miniter, the two events are not entirely disconnected.
Clinton had 12 chances to catch bin Laden. He missed every one.
In addition, he brushed off the Sudanese when they had a chance, chose non-retaliation to the Cole attack, initially refused to believe the World Trade Center was bombed, and otherwise responded to international terrorism with an “indifference, inaction and impotence” that produced the lowest ebb of moral in anti-terrorism in history. Also, according to Miniter, the cumulative effect of his failures was, essentially, to “create” bin Laden as a powerful and influential figure.
Indeed, Clinton’s wretched excesses distracted him from these national security obligations.
Clinton also gave the back of his hand to the United Arab Emirates, who had a bead on bin Laden and were interested in a state visit in return. Clinton refused. The reason: he was too busy fundraising against Bush for the 2000 election.
In 1999, the Afghanistan Northern Alliance nearly killed bin Laden in a vehicle. The response from the Clinton Administration? A lecture on the ethics of war.
Clinton killed a CIA urgent request for more Arabic translators to work on tracking bin Laden.
Further burnishing his national security image, Clinton authorized classified technology sales to China in exchange for campaign donations, and had a favors-for-donations policy with China through various back-channel proxies.
Miniter also totally refutes the assertion that the CIA ever funded bin Laden to begin with. A “hoary myth,” he calls it, without substantiation.