Clinton, The First NeoCon

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Bill Clinton seems to get blamed by this Neocon administration for many things, but most of all for “losing bin Laden.” The ugly truth is that, in this case, they are probably right. Clinton’s team probably had good information on Osama’s whereabouts most of the time, since they were playing on the same team for most of Clinton’s two terms. It is becoming clear from the accumulating evidence that Bill Clinton resurrected Ronald Reagan’s Afghan strategy of using Islamist guerillas as his own covert foreign policy in Europe and other intransigent hot spots that seemed to be immune to normal diplomacy. Clinton’s foolish toying with Islamist killers is probably the spark that ignited the international jihad against America.

Those of us who are diehard “Bush haters,” like to blame Bush senior for creating Al Qaida, when he abandoned Afghanistan. The problem is, even though Bush did abandon the Afghans, it fell to the next misled president to breathe life into Al Qaida. According to Gen. Hameed Gul (former head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence-ISI- during the war against the Soviets), when Vice President George H. W. Bush became president in 1989, he threatened to “clip ISI’s wings.” (Gul now serves as an adviser to Pakistan’s extremist religious political parties. He may also be the source of the Al Qaida rumors that it was the Israeli Mossad, not bin Laden, that carried-out the 9/11 attacks, as well as the idea of creating an Islamic Caliphate, beginning with Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics.) After the withdrawal of the Soviets on February 15, 1989, Bush began to make good on that threat. According to author George Crile, in Charlie’s War, on September 30, 1991, the end of the fiscal year, the flow officially stopped (except for $200 million [matched by the Saudis] hidden within the defense authorizations bill for 1992). After the US abandoned Afghanistan, to attack Saddam Hussein, the ISI was left alone to manage the Afghan tribal bloodbath and civil war. Soon after the liberation of Kabul, their man, Hezb-i-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (long the main recipient of CIA weaponry) started the civil war, by firing rockets at Kabul. (The ISI later created the Taliban regime and installed them in power in 1996.)

Yes indeedy




I hear people talk about Bill Clinton as if he were some sort of saint. Fact of the matter is simply this, if Clinton would have been more concerned about security issues of this country, rather than his personal pursuits and selling us out to China, we wouldn't be facing the problems that we are currently.

It's amazing to me that while our government was focusing on "Lewinsky Gate," Mr. Clinton was having some pretty underhanded dealings with the Chinese.


Hidden deep within an array of complex illegal foreign contributions to President Bill Clinton and the Democratic National Committee may lie a Red Chinese intelligence penetration into the highest levels of the U.S. government and America’s financial institutions.
What most in the U.S. press are lazily portraying as "campaign contribution abuse," is beginning to look more sinister and dangerous to the security of the United States. Only a handful of journalists have explored the possibility of a Chinese "economic-intelligence" penetration into the White House. New York Times columnist William Safire pointedly warned in a Jan. 2 column, "You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to recognize that China needs not only to learn trade secrets, but also to discover - perhaps even influence - U.S. government trade policy and negotiating positions that directly affect the $35 billion balance-of-trade surplus essential to the growth of China's military and economic power."
Where was the outrage?

Where was the outrage about this? Are we, as a society,so consumed by the personal lives of others that we miss important things that are occurring right under our proverbial noses?

I am sure that most of the members here won't even respond. They don't know what to say when someone presents information about someone they love. We'll see.







posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The A to Z Guide of Clinton Scandals
Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Cattlegate and now Indonesiagate . . . there seems to be more gates in the Clinton White House than on the barns of America.

So just in case you've lost track of the scandals that have hit this current White House, The Post's Deborah Orin and Thomas Galvin have pieced together your cut-out-and-keep A to Z guide of Clinton scandals . . from Arkansas to Zippers.



[edit on 7/14/2007 by DarkStormCrow]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
[edit per moderator request}

[edit on 7/14/2007 by DarkStormCrow]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
WOW!!!!
Well, I knew that there was quite a chequered past, but I didn't realize it was that extensive.

What is amazing to me is that there are some people who want to place another Clinton in the White House. Really? Do people really want to place someone in office who probably should be imprisoned for murder while her husband was in office? Uh, not me.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Thats pretty much the short list for an in depth view go toArchitecture of American Political Power

and read the last 3 chapters
The Clinton Disgrace
The Clinton Stonewall
The Clinton Mafia

and so as not to be partisan

Bush Scandals List



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
The world was also at peace, we had all our freedoms, things were going good for all Americans,

The reason we are in this mess started when GEORGE W BUSH became president- THE WAR PRESIDENT- and he masterminded along with Dickey the 9/11 plot to make him THE WAR TIME PRESIDENT.

Give me CLINTON anyday. True, he was no saint. No president has ever been. Compared to this administration, i would love to have him back as MY president and so wouldnt a lot of people who like peace and freedom.

I dont care what is said.

All presidents are crooked, but some are just plain EVIL, like the present one.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   


The world was also at peace, we had all our freedoms, things were going good for all Americans,


Desert Fox, Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bosnia I dont think that was peaceful

I havent lost any freedoms you only loose freedom when you dont claim them.

Except for all the Unemployed Soldiers forced out of the Military because Clinton was gutting it. Which is why our Military is suffering during wartime now.





The reason we are in this mess started when GEORGE W BUSH became president- THE WAR PRESIDENT- and he masterminded along with Dickey the 9/11 plot to make him THE WAR TIME PRESIDENT.


You have to subscribe to the Conspiracy theory for that to be true. Bush when elected was more of an Isolationist than anything I can remember when the talk around Europe was all about worrying if the United States was gonna become isolationist again. Also he was firmly behind an independant Palastinian State, so if you want to know the real losers in the WOT look at the Palastinians.

Most of the members in charge of the Intell services on 9/11 were Clinton appointees because democrats were obstructing nominations left and right. So for the Conspiracy Theory to hold true Bill Clinton and his Intell appointees would have to be involved because you dont plan 9/11 in 8 months.


All Politicians are worthless they become politicians because they cant find an honest job.


I posted some Bush Scandal too so its not a partisan issue for me.

Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Mr. Bill "New World Order" Clinton




posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
president clinton was constantly attacked and bad mouth during his 2 terms by some very powerful people. the investigations that led to lawinski were totaly unfounded and all we got was a huge bill paid for by the us tax payer and a discovery that his intern and he had a good time while the republicans were forcing the government to strike. those same individuals pulled goarge bush up out of the curb and polished him up to be a good puppet they can control in the big house. Now im guessing these folks had a plan for bin laddin far before clinton was in office and probably plan to use him durring daddy bush's second term that never came thanks to hobnobbin bill. do you really think these groups of un known power and manipulation would let billy eliminate there pawn mr. binny. i dont think so. the very little that clinton tried to kill the guy should have worked but for some reason bin ladin chose to not be where the bombs and killers landed. is he psychic or did he have assistance? How can an old man with all his assets frozen, cutoff from the world in a dessert be more able to carry out a succesful attack then a president with gps and smart bombs and an arsenal of solders. he must be getting help from somewhere. If clinton ever did what bush has done durring his term "like wire tap" he would have had a fire storm of hell after him. But those political witch hunters arn't talking now. "IF" something worse happens in america it seems that bush has plans to see to it to stay on as president a little longer then usual. that sounds pretty scary to me. "NEW WORLD ORDER!" scary.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Spot on! So many politicians hold Neo-con beliefs. Being a Neo-conservative isn't a Republican thing. Ron Paul made a speech called "Neoconned", this is from a thread I started a long time ago:



1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.


I hope sooner or later that people can wake up and realize that political parties don't really matter when it comes to the ruling elite.

P.S. He made this speech on the floor of the House of Representatives.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrRviewer
the republicans were forcing the government to strike. those same individuals pulled goarge bush up out of the curb and polished him up to be a good puppet they can control in the big house.


You think Bush is doing the will of the Republicans,eh... If you honestly believe that, then you are honestly lost.

Nothing Bush has done in his second term is even remotely close to what a true conservative Republican would do. Our national borders are still wide open. He hasn't been aggressive in Iraq at all. We are still looking for bin Laden. I can go on and on about things that are not very reminiscent of a Republican administration at all.

[edit on 17-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Clinton was one of the best presidents the United states has had in a very long time.

Why people are chosing to focus on someone who's left office, while the current leader is RAPING your country astounds me.

The 90's was a PEACETIME period for the United States,
Somalia, Bosnia and all the other skirmishes were minute, and relativley minor, especially when you compare the ILLEGIAL War the the current leader has led your country into.

You think China WOULDNT of interjected itself into the US affairs no matter who was in power?
How about the Israeli's? lets blame there interjection into the US on clinton too.


It's amazing to me that while our government was focusing on "Lewinsky Gate," Mr. Clinton was having some pretty underhanded dealings with the Chinese.


Secondly, if a blow job is impeachment worthy, then by jee's, by jingo by crikey an illegial war should be also.
Lewinski was the elite/neo-cons attempt at destroying credability in the democrats ensuring a smooth entrance come the next election.
The Neo-cons pushed, proded and blackmailed Clinton into taking the same path that bush has chosen now, he was a stronger and more decent man to ignore them and face his deamons.

Sure, clinton is as curropt as any politican does, but it astounds me as to why people are still trying to de-face this man, when he led your country through one of its most prosperous and influential periods.

The world loved Bill Clinton, he was one of your best ambassadors and statesman.
People should wisen up and tackle the REAL issues, like your current leader.

Because I can assure you, for every thing Bill Clinton did that wasnt favourable for America, George bush has done 1000x times worse...
and the real kick in the teeth, is that narrow minded people are still focusing on a man, who's left office while allowing the real criminals to destroy your country.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Most of the members in charge of the Intell services on 9/11 were Clinton appointees because democrats were obstructing nominations left and right. So for the Conspiracy Theory to hold true Bill Clinton and his Intell appointees would have to be involved because you dont plan 9/11 in 8 months.


That's so true, most people blame Bush for 911 etc but fail to see that it was the result of an intelligence failure under Clinton. Although, Bush probably didn't respond to the threat very well.

Also, a lot of the worlds problems are actually caused by US-Sino relations eg North Korea, Taiwan, possibly Iran, some African countries, the missile shield. I personally believe that America invaded Iraq to stop China from securing its oil, the same way they did with Zimbabwe and Venezuela. China has a habit of befriending the wests enemys. Despite this, Clinton still thought that it was a great idea to supply them with (super hi-tech) weapons, after he was "bribed" anyway.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Clinton was one of the best presidents the United states has had in a very long time.




Based on what? What did he do that was so great? I personally don't think we have had a president that has been worth a damn in the last 20 years.

Do not even say that he improved the economy. Clinton's economy rode the coat tails of the Reagan era.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cthulwho
I personally believe that America invaded Iraq to stop China from securing its oil, the same way they did with Zimbabwe and Venezuela.


That's what I tend to think as well... Like I have said before, if a country like China ever got its foothold in the Middle East, we'd all be in trouble.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
For all of faults of Bush at least we havent had A Ruby Ridge, or a Waco, or a Elian Gonzales situation.

I always wondered though for all the discussion of a 9/11 cover up why no calls for investigations into Oklahoma City and the investigation into the John Doe #2 who it is rumored was an Iraqi intell agent . Why did Bill Clinton personally stop this investigation?



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
For all of faults of Bush at least we havent had A Ruby Ridge, or a Waco, or a Elian Gonzales situation.




Fortunately. Although, I do think we are due for another Waco type incident. That sort of thing is usually pretty cyclical, about every 15-20 years. I am waiting to see how our "great" government reacts to the next scenario. The whole Waco incident was very unfortunate.

As far as the Elian Gonzalez thing goes, just another example of the government over stepping its boundaries.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Bush or Clinton, Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, it doesn't matter to me, as long as the President does a good job. President Bush has not.

I don't see the point of debating the actions of a previous president.

I will not support the actions of the President, just because Clinton did the same thing.

Clinton is not president anymore, if he was, I wouldn't support him anymore then I support President Bush.

The problem is, he's not.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by Alien42]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I think if anyone wants to try and claim that Clinton was the 1st to try and 'use' radical Islamists then they are kidding themselves.

I heard a little remark a while ago about the difference between the Rep hawks and the Dem hawks
(it might not be quite 100% so in every instance but it seems pretty fair and true to me).

They're like 2 sides to the same coin; the Rep hawks will just rove around the world directly 'projecting' power (ie having wars) whenever they feel the need whilst the Dem hawks get others to act as their proxies to do it for them.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I think if anyone wants to try and claim that Clinton was the 1st to try and 'use' radical Islamists then they are kidding themselves.



Well, first of all, you have to know what "neo-con" means before you can really state that.

"Neo-con" means, literally, "new conservative," which is kind of ironic given the fact that they are not conservative at all. They are just another method that socialist ideology has infiltrated this country. However,I'll digress on that.

Secondly, "neo-cons" agenda isn't only to fight a war against terrorism, but to globalize and rid the world of any sovereignty, which by the way, has also been the liberal agenda for quite some time now. So, to say that "Neo-cons" are conservative in any faculty is really a misrepresentation.





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum