Stupidity Reigns
The good news is that Rick Jenson is on vacation, the bad news is that the guy filling in for him is as smart as a bag of hair.
I listened to the first few minutes of his show and he said the following:
- Even Hillary supported going after the governments that support terrorism in the days after 9/11.
- We might not have gotten bin Laden, but we got most of the guys on the deck of cards so that’s progress.
I was going to call in, but I’m not sure if my session yesterday counted as my call for the week and I just didn’t have the energy to smack the guy around. I almost wish Matthews were filling in… 🙂
I just listened to that “bag of hair”. Talk about someone in love with his own voice.
Who is he?
“Even Hillary supported going after the governments that support terrorism in the days after 9/11.”
What did Bill Clinton do after the first attack on the World Trade Center when he was in office?
“The US had been hit for the first time by Islamist terrorists on February 26, 1993. Six people had been killed and more than 1,000 injured when a truck bomb exploded in the parking garage of the World Trade Center in NYC. Only later did authorities learn that the bombers had intended to level both of the twin towers. Bill’s reaction at the time had been muted, as his administration viewed the incident as a law-enforcement matter rather than an act of war. By spring, 1995, four Arab Islamist conspirators had been convicted, and the FBI had linked the attack to the al-Qaeda terror network. Still, when Mike Wallace noted in the 60 Minutes interview that “it cost the World Trade Center bomber. $4,000 for all of what was involved” and asked what the administration proposed to do about “terror on the cheap,” Bill mentioned only that he would “try to get the legal support we need to move against terrorism.”
Don’t get me wrong no defending Bush going into Iraq but his move on Afghanistan was correct. Clinton responded in 1993 by dropping maybe 2 or 3 Cruise Missiles on a terrorist training camp.
What did Bill Clinton do after the first attack on the World Trade Center when he was in office?
He caught the attackers and put them in jail.
rimshot!
(Did I use that term correctly?) 🙂
Pandora – for you it’s rimjob.
(let’s see if I can blockquote in a comment…)
kuro5hin.org/story/2004/7/30/154040/162
• anon // Sep 11, 2008 at 2:57 pm
What did Bill Clinton do after the first attack on the World Trade Center when he was in office?
He caught the attackers and put them in jail.
But what did he do to the master mind who Bush let escape to Pakistan? Do forget get much of this is deep-seeded way back to papa Bush!
“ Summer 1998: Clinton issues series of top secret directives to the CIA authorizing the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and several of his top lieutenants”
1998 and why couldn’t finish the job by 2000?.
Gee, Kilroy, I don’t know. Maybe because the Republicans were too busy focusing on a blow job? You seem to forget how Monicagate was all the rage. So much so that whenever Clinton tried to do ANYTHING it was called a “political distraction” from the matter (read blow job) at hand.
So maybe your question should be: What was the Republican Congress doing?
And apparently it isn’t that easy to do it, even with all of the military and enforcement resources available.
I will say this, because of the inability to get a cruise missile to the a spot identified by a high-flying drone, the drones are now armed. This is because of the Clinton Administration.
Um, yeah. I like Jenson, but that guy had me turning off the radio after 5 minutes.
But anyway, here’s the actual taped quote by Slick Willie himself, on 15 Feb 2002:
CLINTON: “Well, it’s interesting now, you know, that I would be asked that question because, at the time, a lot of people thought I was too obsessed with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
And when I bombed his training camp and tried to kill him and his high command in 1998 after the African embassy bombings, some people criticized me for doing it. We just barely missed him by a couple of hours.
I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there. I think we were ratted out.
We also bombed a chemical facility in Sudan where we were criticized, even in this country, for overreaching. But in the trial in New York City of the al-Qaeda people who bombed the African embassy, they testified in the trial that the Sudanese facility was, in fact, a part of their attempt to stockpile chemical weapons.
So we tried to be quite aggressive with them. We got – uh – well, 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. ”
And that’s what happens when you treat terrorism as a purely law enforcement issue.
Not quite law enforcement, though — what law enforcement gets trumped and then tries to kill the guy on his home ground? Even in Clinton’s words here he tried to get bin Laden at a training camp, which may be the kind of law enforcement you might get in North Korea, for example.
And Clinton got dissed even for trying to assassinate bin Laden. Which, I will point out, is more effort than BushCo has been putting towards the bin Laden file recently, yes?
Hmmm. I am a little torn on enforcing thought crimes. There are plenty of crazies out there that want to do people harm, but we don’t arrest them or bomb the shit out of them.
Obviously, Clinton did try to hit him militarily.
But suppose that tomorrow Pakistan said that they had taken bin Laden into custody, but refused to turn him over. Instead, they put him under house arrest like the nuke proliferation scientist. Should we take military action to extract or kill bin Laden?
Oh, and when you call it “The War on Terror” you succeed? Hmmm… which cell are we holding bin Laden in? I forget.
suppose that tomorrow Pakistan said that they had taken bin Laden into custody, but refused to turn him over. Instead, they put him under house arrest like the nuke proliferation scientist.
I’m not so sure that hasn’t actually happened already.
And let’s remember that even BushCo himself wasn’t telling folks that capturing the head guy was not a priority. His priority? Capturing the street dealers and corner guys (Islamic terrorist version) which sorta sounds like The Wire to me.
pandora // Sep 11, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“Gee, Kilroy, I don’t know. Maybe because the Republicans were too busy focusing on a blow job?”
Such language ! You have it backwards, Republicans were building BJ’s (aka BJ warehouse) and Clinton was getting the BJs from WhoreMonica.
Bush was a cluster-fuck by attacking Iraq which expanded the war against the terrorist aka foreign insurgents in Afghanistan and now Iraq.
Bottom-line we can spread blame all around for sorry ass foreign policies going back to the 50’s with in Iran and radar stations in Turkey re: Cuba Missile Crisis
Bus is the biggest screw up and got way in over his head and maybe a good blow job would have kept him content so that he wouldn’t be blowing up babies.
Ask Charlie Copeland isn’t he an extension of the Bush administration?
“And Clinton got dissed even for trying to assassinate bin Laden. Which, I will point out, is more effort than BushCo has been putting towards the bin Laden file recently, yes?”
Dam let’s get it on 500 million bounty for Bin Laden! This woold help save us 5 billion
“Gee, Kilroy, I don’t know. Maybe because the Republicans were too busy focusing on a blow job?”
So it’s the REPUBLICANS fault that Clinton couldn’t manage to assassinate Bin Laden?
Bin Laden is dead, has been since Dec. 2004. Bhutto said so on David Frost in England before her assasination….but he makes a good boogeyman for both parties. Bin Laden has to have kidney dialysis every two days, think he has a hook up in some cave.
What the hell are we doing in Afganistan?
mike w. //
“So it’s the REPUBLICANS fault that Clinton couldn’t manage to assassinate Bin Laden?”
Clinton didn’t declare war ! Bush did !
Clinton actually tried to take out bin Laden. Tell me… what has Bush done?
On the topic at hand… How do we get Selander back? I tuned in again, but had to turn it off before my ears bled.
“Not quite law enforcement, though — what law enforcement gets trumped and then tries to kill the guy on his home ground?”
Okay Cass, but I had tried to highlight the “no basis to hold him” bit, but no HTML tags here…
Point is, it all depends on what the meaning of “clear and present danger” is.
Let me get this straight, Geek — you’re writing at THIS site and you’re complaining about another political commentator being STUPID??
LOL ….
Where has Bush been…where is Binladen, and why did the FBI take him off the FBI most wanted….they don’t want him, if they had him there would no longer be a real reason to be in Afganistan! I love these republicans “we got most of al ciaeda:…how do you know? How do you know how many of them there are?
War on Terrorism is another reason to keep the dumbest down americans fighting for worldwide big oil.
If the Bush illegal invasion of Iraq was a hoax, and Bin Laden cant be found, where exactly is this so called War on Terrorism. Are we going to continue killing millions of muslims…is every muslim a terrorist? This is a christian war against Islam and those Islamic countries just happen to have oil. When are Obama and McCain going to start talking about the real issues? Lipstick on a pig, and stupid one liners shouldnt win an election.
Once again, Bill Clinton had the chance (more than once mind you) to take out OBL! However, he did not due to the fact that he was hunting with a prince from the UAE. He valued foreign oil more than he did the safety of American lives!
G Rex, revisit the timelime of Clinton’s remarks — he couldn’t hold him in Sudan(1996), but then he tried to assassinate him back in Afghanistan (1998). Or maybe you need to explain to me what kind of law enforcement is assassination.
Once again, Bill Clinton had the chance (more than once mind you) to take out OBL
yawn…..So clinton was wrong and Bush was wrong we agree then.
Bush hasn’t captured bin Laden, despite having a good chance at Tora Bora. Bush also declined to take out Zarqawi in Iraq because it might take out one of his rationales for war with Iraq.
Also, what did Reagan do when the U.S. was attacked in Beirut? He withdrew and attacked Grenada instead.
Back to the original post if only for a second. My job generally interferes with radio listening, but I have to say that from what I read here, my overwhelming question is why any of you listen to him in the first place?
Opposition research?
Masochism?
I generally spend less time listening to shows that just piss me off… Maybe that’s me.
I caught about five minutes of the WDEL show this afternoon and then punched my CD player — poor CD player took the abuse that should have been showered on “hairbag” whatever his name is.
I only listened for 15 minutes or so, but after two callers that didn’t call him on his BS I switched to music. I knew that Jenson wasn’t on, so I figured that we had a better than 80% chance that we’d get a better host… wrong again.
I listen occasionally to Steve Laramour (guest host) because he was on every once in awhile during the Off-shore wind debate and was so woefully uninformed and ignorant of any facts while so gawdawful willing to make statements and draw conclusions that had no basis in reality whatsoever that he became a caricature of all that is wrong with talk radio if you chose to take it seriously. He is, amusingly and frustratingly biased to an extreme that makes for some hilariously foolish opinions on his part.
A juxtaposition of comedic and insulting ridiculousness.