Coulter: I did not have s.e.x. with that nomad, Osama bin Laden

[Snowden]

I did not have s.e.x. with that nomad, Osama bin Laden
By Ann Coulter

It's just like old times. Bill Clinton delivers an impassioned speech, and within 24 hours the Web is bristling with documentation, establishing that nearly every sentence was a lie.

The glassy-eyed Clinton cultists are insisting their idol's on-air breakdown during a "Fox News Sunday" interview with Chris Wallace was a calculated performance, which is a bit like describing Hurricane Katrina as a "planned demolition." Like an Osama tape, they claim he was sending a signal to Democrats to show them how to treat Republicans. Listen up, Democrats: Let's energize the undecideds by throwing a hissy fit on national television!

The Clintonian plan for action apparently entails inventing lunatic conspiracy theories, telling lots of lies, shouting, sneering, interrupting, and telling your interlocutor, "(Y)ou've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever" -- all for asking a simple question. To wit: "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaida out of business when you were president?" The only thing Clinton forgot to say to Wallace was, "You'd better put some ice on that."

Let me be the first to welcome Chris Wallace to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! If the son of Mike Wallace is a member, can Chelsea be far behind?

According to Wallace, Clinton's aide, Jay Carson, demanded that the interview be stopped a few minutes into Clinton's tantrum -- just before the part where he threw the lamp at Wallace. The last time Clinton got that red in the face, the encounter ended with a stained dress. Even Muslims thought Clinton overreacted. But the Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers tell us this was a masterfully planned set-piece by their leader.

I also think Jessica Savitch's slurred, incoherent broadcast on "NBC Nightly News" in October 1983 was intentional. Others say it was drug-addled breakdown that ended her career, but obviously Savitch intended to speak in garbled gibberish on air as a brilliantly executed prelude to her death in a ditch weeks later.

And when Stephen Colbert did a routine at the White House Correspondents Dinner that bombed, I think he planned it that way.

Then there was Capt. Joseph Hazelwood's meticulously planned off-loading of 11 million gallons of crude oil off the Exxon Valdez.

Clinton shouted so many lies during his televised meltdown, only the World Wide Web can capture them all. These are just a few.

Clinton yelled at Wallace: "What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

This is so crazy it's worthy of an Air America caller. Clinton has consistently misrepresented the presidential directive about political assassinations. Clinton did not order bin Laden assassinated. He did not even lift the ban on intelligence agencies attempting to assassinate bin Laden.

What he did was lift the ban on political assassinations -- provided that assassinating bin Laden was not the purpose of the mission. So if U.S. forces were engaged in an operation to capture bin Laden, but accidentally killed him, they would not be court-martialed.

Clinton said, "All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much -- same people." As proof, he cites his humiliating withdrawal from Somalia, claiming, "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it."

He added, as if it mattered, "There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 'Black Hawk down.'"

In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton's transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander "nation-building" exercise -- something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.

Democrats long to see American mothers weeping for their sons lost in a foreign war, but only if the mission serves absolutely no national security objectives of the United States. If we are building a democracy in a country while also making America safer -- such as in Iraq -- Democrats oppose it with every fiber of their being.

When Clinton's "nation-building" in Somalia led to the brutal killing of 18 Americans, some of whose corpses were then dragged through the streets, Clinton did what the Democrats are currently demanding we do in Iraq: He cut and ran.

Republicans didn't like that either, and it had nothing to do with whether it was al-Qaida we were running from. It could have been Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, al-Dawa or the Viet Cong. We ran, and the terrorists noticed.

Osama bin Laden told "ABC News" in 1998 that America's humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

If this is the message that Clinton is hoping to telegraph to the American people, I hope the voters are listening.


Townhall.com::I did not have s.e.x. with that nomad, Osama bin Laden::By Ann Coulter

[tnkr111]

Coulter has the same problem many talk show hosts have, you know the ones who are selling advertising space to stay on AM radio...it is called logical conclusions based on solid facts.

Case in point, Somalia, 1993. There has been little objective analysis of what really happened or what the end results were. Sure the pieces are known, but rarely are they ever strung together coherently, and when they are the NeoCons dismiss it as creative storytelling with the facts. The simple reality is that AQ and UBL had nothing to do with Somalia. The furor in Washington clamoring for an immediate pullout got their attention, and the eventual pullout (in the spring of 1994) did embolden them. Blame Clinton all you want, but public opinion showed a lack of stomach for US Casualties- especially on a mission that was undefined and a poor use of our military (thank President Bush 41), and in a place few cared about. Clinton was not nation building, sure you can extrapolate that was the goal, but TF Ranger had one purpose- capture Mohammed Farah Aideed (as punishment for his militia attacking and killing Pakistani Peacekeepers under a UN flag), and get out of Dodge. The feeding of the Somalis was the mission given to him by George H.W. Bush.

The world is a nicer place when objective analysis of fact is employed to evaluate it.

[tnkr111]

I will give you this, Clinton was no friend of the military, he deployed us to 40+ missions with no clear military purpose- rather the purpose was humanitarian. Not a bad thing, it is a great way to spread goodwill across the world, and the military is frankly the only organization that is (1) commanded by the Government, and (2) equipped to do the things being asked....but, you have to ask yourself, is it a wise use?

But I still stand by my assertion that he is being judged by conclusions reached not on the merit of the facts, but by people who arrive at their conclusions out of pure unabashed hatred for the man..kind of like the far left wing nutjobs who lambaste Bush as a an unintelligent chimp, and purely hate him for no reason other than he does share their utopian view of the world.

[Caldric]

I can agree with some of that. Actually I have never liked Coulter's "liberal" use of so-called facts.

Also I disagree with her "brutal killing of 18 Americans". I think she is twisting what most of us would know to be a battle, she tries to make it sound like an atrocity. We did lose those men but they fought and killed hundreds perhaps thousand or more militia or whatever they were. They were not puppies being kicked in a sack. I think everyone in the higher echelon of our government between 1993 and 2001 failed the American people it happens to be that Clinton was in charge during the vast majority of that time. Sure they busted the first bombers of the WTC but they stopped way short of killing the "head" of terrorism that attacked us for a decade almost leading up to 9/11.

I don't think Somalia would have went down the same road if Bush was in charge in 1993/94. I only say that because I do not think he expected to lose the election and expected to continue his mission in Somalia which was not much different at the time then any other humanitarian mission the US was engaged in during the 80's 90's. It just happened to blow into a full scale battle. I think the changing of command confused the mission and slushed it up a bit.

I also do not think there are as many Neocons as the democrats and radical left want people to believe. Neocon is simply hardline left who sought a different path, which includes globalization on a huge scale, interventionism, open borders, free trade at any cost and strategic use of the military or we might say military interventionism.

Most republicans are not Neoconservative at all, in fact the vast majority may not even be able to define it past its weak catch phrase which is misleading. It is really not New Conservative but dare I say new world Internationalist? Such as the Trotsky ideals or world interventionism only in a new package. The fact that they attached themselves to the republican party does not make them traditional or even standard conservatives. Clinton is misleading and playing political grab the arse with his cute slander. Reagan administration muffled the few neoconservative members and pushed them out, the majority of republicans are Reaganist in belief and not neoconservative. Clinton is a smart guy he knows this yet he lies just like most of them from all parties. He is trying to smear the entire political party in one swoop, "Vote Republican Vote Neo-Conservative", which is nonsense. It is all politics as usual and using our military loses and degrading their successes is what the left is all about right now, when their mouths move on the subject you can almost see the picture of them crossing their fingers to hide the lie.

[tnkr111]

Couple of things, congratulations on your recognition of what Neoconservatism is. My issue with it lies in one simple and glaring manifestation seemingly shared by all of its adherents- unabashed hubris, a staunch unwillingness to consider viewpoints different than theirs, both combined with a staid refusal to admit being wrong. I disagree with your assessment of the numbers of Neocons, in the last 6 years even the mainstream of the *****lican party have been drinking the Neocon Kool aid (to its detriment, I used ot consider myself a centrist Republican)- my entire family is a great example of this. Check out PNAC's website. Clicky, read their Statement of Principles, and scroll to the bottom and take a gander who their signatories are. I am not trying to discredit them, but browse the website, and then think about the last 6 years and ask yourself how successful this little known PAC has been getting itself in the government and influencing it.

And yes, the Repubs are not all Neocons, but guess who is pulling the reigns right now? And yes, President Clinton's word association of the two was brilliant, let's hope it worked.

As for this:

I don't think Somalia would have went down the same road if Bush was in charge in 1993/94. I only say that because I do not think he expected to lose the election and expected to continue his mission in Somalia which was not much different at the time then any other humanitarian mission the US was engaged in during the 80's 90's. It just happened to blow into a full scale battle. I think the changing of command confused the mission and slushed it up a bit.

Bold mine- Operation Restore Hope, the mission to feed the Somalis began on December 3, 1992. The election was held 30 days prior on November 3, I know it was the first time I could legally vote for President. Sorry, but Bush (41) left that UXO in the incoming Chief Executive's lap. Read up on Somalia, TFR was deployed as a response to the Habr Gidr militia killing 24 Pakistani "blue helmets" there under the guise of ORH, and they were deployed independent of the UN op that the original deployment spearheaded. This gave them freedom of maneuver they would not have had as part of the UN mission, and allowed them to undertake aggressive, offensive action when necessary. Clearly there were issues with TFR, they did not have proper support assets- fires, etc.. But in the end it was a product of a flaming football handed to the incoming President by a lame duck.

[Caldric]

To start with I was wrong about the Somalia mission I was thinking it started directly after or at the end of the Gulf War I was not aware it was late 1992 I should have checked instead of going off memory. However my understanding of the mission is that when the Marines were in country there were not nearly as many problems. Their mission was suppose to end by mid-Jan 1993. The Marines were pulled out in March 93?


PANC I am aware of and disagree with most of it but not all. The point I wanted to make was the main stream republican members are not even close to NeoCon. Bush and his administration have done most things against a true strong conservative movement. Their lack of concern for spending, borders, protectionism for US economic interest are not conservative.

[tnkr111]

Originally Posted by Caldric

...the main stream republican members are not even close to NeoCon. Bush and his administration have done most things against a true strong conservative movement. Their lack of concern for spending, borders, protectionism for US economic interest are not conservative.

Bold and snip mine. I agree with the emboldened part fully. And I think you were correct in 2000-2002, the problem is today that things like the detainee abuse and warrantless wiretaps, acceptable in the political and ideological framework of PNAC but abhorrent to most Americans, including Republicans, have become divisive political and campaign issues- guess who now go along with this crap, yep most Republicans, if not voters, the people they'll vote for this fall.