Bill Clinton Tells Sky News on 9/10/01: “I Could Have Killed Osama bin Laden but Didn’t” … Guess What Took Place the Very Next Day?
WHAT DID BILL CLINTON SAY JUST ONE DAY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 …
The day before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, former President Bill Clinton spoke in Australia to about 30 business leaders during a lunch and stated on having passed on a chance to kill Osama bin Laden. A tape of Clinton’s comments were presented to Australia’s “Sky News” channel.
“And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,” the former president reportedly says on the tape, to laughs. “I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”
Just a reminder to Bill Clinton, you were the President of the United States and supposed to protect the lives of Americans, not worry about how the world would feel about you had you taken out Bin Laden with possible collateral damage.
Hmm, He would have had to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan? You mean the one with a population of 1,151,100? So what would you have had to do again Mr. President? BTW, Clinton did not just have one chance to kill Osama Bin Laden, he had many.
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
Also, that fall, the Predator captured even more extraordinary pictures — a tall figure in flowing white robes. Many intelligence analysts believed then and now it is bin Laden.
Chicago Blacks Call Barack Obama: “Worst President Ever” and Epic Rant Rant on Illegals From Houston Black Woman Bernadette Lancelin, “Why Can’t They Go Back?”
The death of “Hope & Change” for Black America … Have Black finally turned on Barack Obama and figured out that they’ve been played?
After six disastrous years of the Barack Obama Presidency, the only individuals that truly still back “the worst president” since WWII have been Blacks and liberals. Black Americans may finally be getting a clue and come to the understand that Obama cares little about their plight. Blacks voted for Obama 95% – 4% in 2008 and 93% – 6% in 2012; however, conditions for blacks under the Obama administration have become worse, not better. In 2008, black unemployment was at 10.1%. In July 2014, the BLS had black unemployment at 10.7%. This is more than double that of Whites. So what happened to that “Hope and Change” that Obama promised? It is even worse for teenage blacks and college graduates. Then there are the “killing fields” of Chicago that Obama has simply ignored.
In the wake of the illegal immigration humanitarian crisis on the US-Mexican border and the so called help that Barack Obama wants to do by throwing billions of dollars at, it would appear that Black America is finally pissed at this president for all of his double speak and failed promises. Has black America figured out that Obama and Democrats care more about Hispanics that they do blacks? What did they expect when they vote as one for one candidate and one party? Their vote is expected, not valued. Legal Insurrection refers to it as, Clash of the Titan special interest groups. Are Hispanics the new black?
BELOW ARE MUST SEE VIDEOS:
It is about time some one in the Black community ripped Obama a new one for his actions. As reported at the Western Journal, Bernadette Lancelin, a Houston resident, is furious that while her kids have gone without any help from anyone and have had nothing for years, illegals pouring into the country on a daily basis have their every need attended to. She does not mince words.
It’s not right,” Lancelin said. “Now billions of dollars want to be borrowed from the White House to help feed and house them. What about the [expletive deleted] kids here? In our neighborhood, in our country? Not just in this neighborhood but in our country!”
“All these kids: really? Why can’t they go back? I’m sorry that their parents are in poor living conditions or surroundings or whatever’s going on,” she continued. “I don’t care. I care about what’s going on right here, in my own back yard, my neighborhood.”
“Am I the only one in this community that’s out here that watches the news every [expletive deleted] morning? Oh my God! I feel alone right now in this, and I’m very saddened by it.”
Bernadette Lancelin, Houston Black Woman EPIC Rant on Illegals – “Why Can’t They Go Back?”
Chicago Resident: Obama Will Go Down as Worst President Ever
Check out the Chicago – South-side residents ripping Barack Obama a new one in that he cares more about illegals coming into the United States than legal residents in the inner city of Chicago. From the Rebel Pundit, one resident states, “He will probably go down as the worst president ever!”
“With the president setting aside all these funds for immigrants and forsaken African-American community and African-American families, I think that’s a disgrace. And Barack is from the heart of 55th in the City of Chicago… He will probably go down as the worst president ever elected. Bill Clinton was the African-American president.”
Another compared the current state of Black-American life to that during slavery, saying, “Today, if you look at the time that we were brought here as slaves 400 years ago, we got the same results today.”
The disgrace of the Obama years. All those promises, all those votes and the black plight has been made worse.
Hypocrisy Hillary … Wow, if Hillary Clinton can’t keep composed on liberal NPR, how is she going to handle questions as a presidential candidate or will the MSM just give her a pass like Obama?
Get ready for Hillary Clinton’s favorable ratings to drop even more as America listens to Hillary Clinton and suddenly remembers that the Clinton era gave us the words, parsing and “Clintonesque”. Neither an endearing quality. In what can only be described as another disastrous interview, Hillary Clinton snaps at the radio host Terry Gross on NPR for pressing her on her gay marriage record. Note to Hillary, an NPR interview is supposed to be a liberal softball. More at Hot Air.
CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress were making.”
Defensive, Testy Gay Marriage Interview
In an interview this afternoon on NPR, Hillary Clinton gets testy and defensive about her and her husband’s gay marriage record.
After 6 minutes of questioning, Clinton attacks host Terry Gross for pressing her on whether she changed her mind on gay marriage or she publicly stated something she had always believed.
GROSS: “So that’s one for you changed your mind?”
CLINTON: You know I really, I have to say, I think you being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”
GROSS: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand-”
CLINTON: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify.
During the interview, Clinton also attacks gay marriage opponents who “believe they have a direct line to the divine” and claims that “not that many” people supported gay marriage when her husband signed DOMA into law.
Daily Commentary – Friday, May 23, 2014 – MIL to Chelsea Clinton Looses Her Congressional Primary Bid
- Marjorie Margolies lost to state Rep. Brendan Boyle even though the Clinton’s campaigned for her
VP Joe Biden Takes Shot at Clintons in SC … Unraveling of Middle Class Financial Security Began in “the Later Years of the Clinton Administration,” Not Under GWB
Is Biden going to run for Democrat nominee for president in 2016?
Vice President Joe Biden speaking at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, SC took a swipe at the Clinton’s and did the unthinkable for a Democrat, did not blame George W. Bush. Biden said to the group in the key primary state of South Carolina, the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush.
Vice President Joe Biden gave a closed-door speech Friday to South Carolina Democrats that included a shot at the Clintons.
Biden, a potential 2016 candidate, said the unraveling of middle-class financial security began in “the later years of the Clinton administration,” not under George W. Bush, CNN reported Saturday.
Speaking for more than thirty minutes at the VIP Capital City Club event in Columbia, S.C., he addressed the prominant group of attendees in the key presidential primary state.
In recent months, the vice president has focused on revving up liberals on issues of income inequality, as he prepares for a possible run against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though many Democrats don’t think he’d run against her.
“He said we have some of the most productive workers in the world, but corporations are more concerned about their stockholders than they are about their employees,” one attendee said. “He talked about how the fruits of labor go to stockholders, rather than to the people who are producing it. That the people making the money in this country are the corporations.”
Another attendee described it as “a stem-winding, almost revival-type speech.”
After All These Years Monica Lewinsky Writes About Her Affair with President Bill Clinton, “Sure, My Boss Took Advantage of Me, …” (Update: Lynne Cheney Ponders Hillary Clinton’s Involvement in Realease of Article)
Just curious, if some one is taken advantage of, can it really be consensual?
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Monica Lewinsky writes for the first time about her affair with President Bill Clinton … “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” Lewinsky says that she regrets what happened between herself and President Clinton, but insists it was consensual. However, she also pens that Bill Clinton also took advantage of her … ““Sure, my boss took advantage of me.” Which begs the question, how can something really be consensual when there is a position of authority and that individual takes advantage of it?
It’s rather comical to read responses from the MSM like CNN, Stop judging Monica Lewinsky, stating “they could learn a few things from Monica Lewinsky,” when they were at the top of the list who Lewinsky references when her abuse came in the aftermath that were able to brand her.
Monica Lewinsky writes in Vanity Fair for the first time about her affair with President Clinton: “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” She also says: “I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened.”
After 10 years of virtual silence (“So silent, in fact,” she writes, “that the buzz in some circles has been that the Clintons must have paid me off; why else would I have refrained from speaking out? I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth”), Lewinsky, 40, says it is time to stop “tiptoeing around my past—and other people’s futures. I am determined to have a different ending to my story. I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past. (What this will cost me, I will soon find out.)”
Maintaining that her affair with Clinton was one between two consenting adults, Lewinsky writes that it was the public humiliation she suffered in the wake of the scandal that permanently altered the direction of her life: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. . . . The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.”
Karl in particular cited Lewinsky’s reaction to the Diane Blair papers, first reported by The Washington Free Beacon. Hillary Clinton, according to Blair’s documents, referred to the former White House intern as a “narcissistic loony tune” and partially blamed herself for the affair. Lewinsky wrote she found Hillary Clinton’s impulse to blame the “woman” for President Clinton’s transgressions “troubling”
Of course we all remember Bubba and his infamous statement of I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, not a single time. So in the end, Monica Lewinsky was branded and Bill Clinton is looked upon as the elder statesman of the Democrat party.
EXIT QUESTION: Who finds this a bit too convenient coming out this far away from a potential 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run in of all magazines, Vanity Fair? Why do I think this article got Hillary’s blessing before it was released to print?
With Hillary Clinton almost assuredly running for president in 2016, Monica Lewinsky‘s Vanity Fair piece today set off a lot of people’s conspiratorial alarm bells, with some suspicion anti-Clinton forces might have been behind it. But on The O’Reilly Factor tonight, Lynne Cheney suggested it might have actually been pushed by Clinton’s team themselves.
“I really wonder if this isn’t an effort on the Clintons’ part to get that story out of the way,” Lynne Cheney said during an interview on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night. Would Vanity Fair publish anything of Monica Lewinsky that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t want in Vanity Fair?”
Guest host Laura Ingraham responded that the theory “makes perfect sense, and I’m really mad I didn’t think of it first.”
Cheney said that releasing the story in 2014 would allow Clinton to run for president and say the story is “old news” once the 2016 presidential campaign kicks into full gear.
Bill Clinton Back in His Element at Charity Gala … Poses for Picture with Two Hookers, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl, From the Famed Nevada Bunny Ranch Brothel
Hillary Clinton must be so proud of what she hopes is her future “First Man” … Tabloids and Late Night Comedy Shows are begging, even praying that Hillary wins in 2016 for the endless Bubba material!
You just can’t make this stuff up. Former President Bill Clinton is back in the tabloids after TMZ gets a hold of a picture of the former prez and two women at a gala charity event for Unite4Humanity. Seems innocent enough, right? Well, not when Slick Willie is involved. It turns out that the two women were prostitutes at the famed Nevada Bunny Ranch brothel, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl. I guess it all depends on how you define selfie.
I did not take a picture with those two women, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl, I never told anyone to take a picture, not a single time
Slick Willie probably had no clue … but the women Bill posed with at an L.A. charity event Thursday night are two star hookers at the famed Nevada Bunny Ranch brothel.
The brunette goes by Ava Adora and the blonde goes by Barbie Girl. According to her bio on the BR website, the blonde is very flexible and specializes in de-virginizing. The brunette “knows how to please a variety of both men and women.”
We have no idea how they got in to the star-studded Unite4Humanity charity gala — which honored Clinton along with several other philanthropic celebs like Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese — but we can take a wild guess why they showed.
Hillary Clinton was asked for her opinion of Bill’s latest pic, at least it wasn’t with porn stars this time.
The Hillary Papers … Archive of ‘Closest Friend’ Paints Portrait of Hillary Clinton as Ruthless First Lady
THE HILLARY PAPERS … Hillary Clinton as Ruthless First Lady, Imagine that?
Hillary Clinton is the overwhelming odds on favorite to be the Democrat presidential nominee for the 2016 presidential election, so when it comes to the Hillary Papers, What difference, at this point, does it make? Maybe this might be of some relevance … her early support for single-payer, despite later denials, is directly relevant to the current Obamacare debacle that will be an issue in the 2016 election. How is she going to be able to run from Obamacare when she had Hillary Healthcare?
If many think today that Barack Obama cannot be trusted, what would they think of Hillary Clinton who has a political motivation for everything that she does?
On May 12, 1992, Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake, top pollsters for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, issued a confidential memo. The memo’s subject was “Research on Hillary Clinton.”
Voters admired the strength of the Arkansas first couple, the pollsters wrote. However, “they also fear that only someone too politically ambitious, too strong, and too ruthless could survive such controversy so well.”
Their conclusion: “What voters find slick in Bill Clinton, they find ruthless in Hillary.”
The full memo is one of many previously unpublished documents contained in the archive of one of Hillary Clinton’s best friends and advisers, documents that portray the former first lady, secretary of State, and potential 2016 presidential candidate as a strong, ambitious, and ruthless Democratic operative.
The papers of Diane Blair, a political science professor Hillary Clinton described as her “closest friend” before Blair’s death in 2000, record years of candid conversations with the Clintons on issues ranging from single-payer health care to Monica Lewinsky.
The question remains for 2016, does Hillary have too much political baggage in her past and a lack of accomplishments to be president? Please tell me that America has learned from just electing someone for being the first?
Hillary Clinton’s Hit List: She Kept a File of Sinners and Saints … A Special Circle of Clinton Hell Reserved for People Who Endorsed Obama over Hillary
So Democrats, are you on Hillary’s Hit List?
This morning The Politico writes about Hillary Clinton’s hit list. Who would possibly believe that some one so warm, kind and compassionate like Hillary Clinton could have a “hit list” for paybacks against individuals who abandoned her in favor of Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination in the run up to the 2008 presidential election and thus devastating her life-long political aspirations of becoming president? Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. According to the Politico, those that stabbed the Clinton’s in the back after all the fundraising and political favors. Individuals were rated on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 was considered Hilary’s “SH*T” list. Interestingly enough, then, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who would succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, was among those who received a “7″. The list also contained, the late and former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
For Hillary it is all about 2016 and her ambition to be president at all cost.
As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines—standard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. “We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didn’t,” a member of Hillary’s campaign team said, “and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didn’t endorse us, those who understandably didn’t endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her … that burned her.”
For Hillary, whose loss was of course not the end of her political career, the spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare, an improvement on what old-school politicians called a “favor file.” It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision—including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors—so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.
Their spreadsheet formalized the deep knowledge of those involved in building it. Like so many of the Clinton help, Balderston and Elrod were walking favor files. They remembered nearly every bit of assistance the Clintons had given and every slight made against them. Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favors that had been done for them, then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons—as if it all had happened just a few hours before. The data project ensured that the acts of the sinners and saints would never be forgotten.
There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).
Yet even a 7 didn’t seem strong enough to quantify the betrayal of some onetime allies.
When the Clintons sat in judgment, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in 2006, as had Obama. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a Meet the Press debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) in October 2006. “He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him. VIDEO”
The book by Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen is called “HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.”
UPDATE I: I could not agree more than with Jammie Wearing Fool who says that this jit list most likely goes back decades. Amen brother. An excel spreadsheet? More likely a Tera-byte hard drive of enemies.
WAPO OP-ED: End Presidential Term Limits … Let’s Have a King Again Instead … We Should Have Senate and House Term Limits
End presidential term limits, are you insane? We should implement US House and Senate term limits as well.
In what might be one of the most foolishly thought out premise, NYU history professor Jonathan Zimmerman inked a WAPO oped titled “End presidential term limits,” suggesting that the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms of office should be repealed as a way to assuring a more effective presidency and protecting democracy from a leader without fear of voters’ wrath. Why is it so important now, because Barack Obama is president? Hell, it’s not like he follows the US Constitution now, watch him run for a third term anyhow and call those oppose racists.
Sorry, but if our countries first president, George Washington, thought multiple terms was a bad thing, that is good enough for me. As it was Washington had to be talked into a second term. Ending term limits was wrong when it was discussed by Republicans during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, it was wrong when Democrats brought it up with Bill Clinton and it is still wrong with Barack Obama. The office of the President is bigger than any one man, that includes Obama. There is a reason why America fought a War of Independence against King George and it was not to replace one tyrant with another.
In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”
I’ve been thinking about Kilgore’s comments as I watch President Obama, whose approval rating has dipped to 37 percent in CBS News polling — the lowest ever for him — during the troubled rollout of his health-care reform. Many of Obama’s fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have.
Or consider the reaction to the Iran nuclear deal. Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?
Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.
Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?
Nothing to fear eh, what would you call the approval rating in the 30′s and the panic that Democrats are presently experiencing? Also, Zimmerman says, “If he [Obama] chooses, he could simply ignore their will.” Just curious, when did Barack Obama or Democrats ever care about the will of the People?
That being said, not only should the 22nd Amendment not be repealed, there should be term limits for Senators and House members as well. As a matter of fact there should be a limit as to how many years that some one can serve in over-all political life. These people need to understand who they work for and the laws they pass will eventually effect them too. That does not happen in today’s politics.