Another reply from me to Bushie relative-Use for talking points if you

[noahmijo]

want.

He wrote to me about how Clinton was guilty of selling chinese nuclear secrets and how Sudan offered the US bin Laden.

This was written while I was listening to the band "Coheed and Cambria" I highly recommend 'em if you dig Rush and Progressive Metal

I said:

Actually the Chinese story is another example of Republican LIES.

Clinton NEVER sold Nuclear Secrets to the Chinese. It’s another shameful example of Republicans trying to smear him. The Nuclear Secrets theft actually occurred in the Reagan years and was discovered during the Clinton years.

If Clinton was complacent in doing this why was the suspect indicted and charged? Why did China at the time express outrage at Clinton for accusing them of such crimes?

If The Clinton administration was guilty of anything it was allowing this guy to maintain his security clearance-but the ridiculous myth that the administration was profiting from this has been debunked over and over again.

Here are some articles on this.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/09/china.spy.02/ - 1
http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/02/china.espionage/index.html

As for the Sudan issue. That’s another false charge against the Clinton administration.

There are two versions of this. The CIA for one DENIED that ever an offer existed. The other version, the one I believe, is that the offer came from a man known as Mansoor Ijaz who was a private AMERICAN businessman who contacted the White House saying he had knowledge of where bin Laden was and that in return for lifting of the sanctions of Sudan..

One problem: It is against United States foreign policy to conduct such negotiations with private businessman and non National Officials. Mansoor was NOT speaking on behalf of the Sudanese government therefore his so called offers of help could not be followed by action. At this time and still to this day Mansoor was nothing but a wealthy private American businessman-NOT a Sudanese High Official.

Here’s another point to consider. What was bin Laden to America at the time of this offer? What were his crimes to America? Oh yes I do remember the WTC bombings of February 1993-but unfortunately most Americans don’t understand that this was NOT the work of bin Laden. This was in fact the work of a Kuwaiti man named Ramzi Yousef and his uncle Khalid Mohammed and approx 6 other conspirators who were later imprisoned (unfortunately Yousef is currently serving time while unfortunately Khalid was extradited to Jordan where he was acquitted.

Now back to the Sudan issue. The fact is at the time of the “offer” bin Laden had not committed any crimes against America. That bombing of the embassy occurred AFTER the Mansoor offer. August 7, 1998 to be exact. Mansoor claims he tried to broker the deal in 1996.

See when you put a timeline together and get the facts in order all of a sudden these false republican talking points fall flat on their faces.

Saudia Arabia’s Royal Family did in fact state they didn’t want to hold bin Laden due to the powder keg that he was. The Royal Family see is a band of alcoholic, cigar smoking, porn loving scumbags. Well those things I just stated are not what make them scumbags it’s the fact that they like to behead women for wearing make-up. But anyway they refused to hold bin Laden for the same reasons-he hadn’t done anything to legally hold him for on behalf of the US. Couple this with the fact that the citizens of SA largely sympathized with Bin Laden’s cause therefore put yourself in that position; hold a man for a country that your people hate and despise under NO charges or evidence or reason. You wouldn’t do it and neither did they.

The “legal” aspect refers to the above as at the time there was no crimes committed by bin Laden no charges to be filed against Al-Queda on behalf of American interests. Also it should be noted that assassins became illegal to US foreign policy under Reagan-a policy I don’t necessarily disagree with given what the CIA has done to governments around the world from Iran to Guatemala. Clinton actually did try to work around Executive Order 12333 of 1981 by having the CIA conduct the raids using Afghani forces ordering that bin Laden must be taken alive.

The history of the rise of the Taliban from the mujahadeen forces who fought the Soviets is a very long and dense history but is fantastically summed up in that book I was talk about called “Ghost Wars”

BTW Mansoor Ijaz’s efforts to buke the Clinton Administration have served him well as he now works for Fox News as a terrorist analyst.

What I don’t get is all this rage over the blowjob. Look it was stupid at best to lie about this, however how is that this infuriates more than the fact that these people spent $60 million dollars pursuing this case in legal fees? $3 million dollars was spent investigating the cause of 9/11.

Where are the priorities of the so called “adults who are in charge”?

Also the fact that since DAY ONE when Clinton was elected Republicans from Arkansas to the top of the hill were looking to nail Clinton on SOMETHING ANYTHING he embodied everything they hated, he did what they failed to do. It was even said that getting him on some sort of sexual charges was the first and foremost way they wanted to screw him.

Also how many lives did his lie about the blowjob cost? How much damage to our economy and our dominant position in the world cost us?

Bush continues to lie everyday about the current Iraq War. You want to talk about profiting from wars and secret deals that profited those in power and screwed the rest of us how taking the country into war that has resulted into nothing but creating a breeding ground for terrorists? Bin Laden continues to receive Christmas Presents ALL YEAR LONG thanks to BUSH AND CHENEY and the gang of Neo-Cons who support them. By lying to the American public this administration was able to get his war which removed the one non-Islamic fundamentalist nation in that region, AN ENEMY OF BIN LADEN’S, yup in 1990 Bin Laden said and this is a direct quote “I want to fight Saddam an infidel I want to wage guerrilla war on Iraq” following the Kuwaiti invasion.

So we got an expensive war costing now 2093 GI deaths for nothing, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, over 16,000 wounded GI’s, trade deficits the lowest in history, Think Clinton is China’s best friend? China owns America thanks to this war and the mounting deficits due to tax cuts for the top 5% while trying to wage two wars, and for what? Today in Iraq an Islamic Republic is being built on the back of a Civil War that has been being fought for over 1500 years and was under control-albeit violently under control by Saddam’s tyranny. (Much to the ignorant of Americans this is largely why Saddam was so brutal-he had Islamic Fundamentalists who hated him and didn’t fear death and he had an internal civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites to quell)

Is it as bad as lying about a blowjob yet?

Earlier I stated the Clinton Administration’s mistake was allowing Chee to maintain his security clearance which was quickly stripped along with his indictment after these charges of espionage came to light.

Does Karl Rove still have his security clearance despite being investigated for TREASON? Does Scooter? Does Cheney? I’ll have to ask my dad about this but as far as I know when you’re under investigation and you hold a position in the federal government that entitles you to certain upper level clearances they are immediately revoked until you are proven clean.

Why didn’t Richard Cheney follow up or take any meetings after he received a letter in 2000 from Ahmad Shou Massoud-Leader of the Northern Alliance and the worst enemy Al-Queda and The Taliban ever faced (Massoud had been fighting the Taliban since the Russians left Afghanistan) when he recommended that the administration assist the Northern Alliance because they were fighting those who harbored bin Laden?

After the 9/11 attacks is finally when the focus on the Northern Alliance finally came into clear view. Oh and Clinton did attempt to work with Massoud despite the talking heads of Rush and Micheal Savage accusing Clinton of doing businesses with a small time opium dealer (the man did in fact deal the drug as a means of sponsoring his war against the Taliban) but of course never mentioning that they were the ones on the front line fighting the Taliban and their sponsor bin Laden. I personally wish he had kept it up instead of caving into pressure of the right wing media and their thuggish sponsors. Massoud was actually murdered on September 10, 2001 by a Taliban assassin.

I’m barely even scratching the surface with all of this, but the fact of the matter is it’s clear that the neo-conservative side is not the side to be on if you value safety and liberty. Speaking of being conservative what exactly are conservatives even conserving today? Our freedoms? Our safety? Our nation’s wealth? The environment? Most importantly our nation’s principles? The main thing that separates me from those on the right and on the bush side is that I don’t think it’s all as simple as black and white. While I lavish praise on Clinton for his efforts there are plenty of items not relating to terrorism that I slap him on (NAFTA being #1) but when it comes to terrorism if only the current administration heeded the warnings and took the Gore report on Al-Queda more seriously maybe we wouldn’t be living in these dark Orwellian times that I believe we’re living in now.

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same way in any country."
-- Hermann Goering

[gordianot]

1. Excellent information but your answer is too well researched.

In order for a Bushie to understand it you must reduce it into a much smaller manageable form. Let's say a slogan or at most a 20 second sound bite. Then Bushies might understand it. When you present them with factual information, logical arguments, or highlight glaring inconsistencies, the immediate response is to change the subject to a non argument. Such as "What did they find on Monica's dress?".

I have given up trying to convince my Bushie relatives (mostly my wifes). Instead I insult them at every opportunity. One reason why I intend to digest my Thanksgiving dinner in peace this year.