You know I have been struck by the apparent necessity for humans to have some disaster looming before them or they just aren’t happy.

Our society is rapidly devolving into an amoral, sybaritic, Narcisstic, fear mongering, conspiracy addictted mess. 

We have somehow come to the bizarre conclusion that we are the most important thing in Creation and that we have the power to control the universe.  Not only that, but that we should take it as our sworn obligation to exercise that control.

We have left God behind us, intent on instituting our will on the universe rather than His.

The latest craze is this asteroid which may or may not be going to strike Earth in 2036.  Now we are being called to expend huge sums of money to intercept and deflect this asteroid [again which may or may not be going to strike the Earth] “while there is still time.” 

Sounds like another case of Global Warming to me. 

The real question for me is…if Algore is right and we only have 8 years, 342 days, and 10 or so hours until we are all destroyed by Global Warming, why should we worry about this Asteroid?

How is that logical?  I mean, we already know that as was pointed out by Greg Strange that Global Warming is so absolutely certain, that Ellen Goodman compairs GW deniers to Holicaust deniers.  So why should we worry about an Asteroid which is going to strike the Earth 20 years after we are all dead?

I mean, I’m cool with that…err..maybe “cool” isn’t the best choice of words…I’m okay with that.

See you in the next life…Oh wait, I got it maybe the Roswellian aliens will swoop in and take some of us off planet so that we will survive.  I better go check out some of those conspiracy websites.   WE might be saved afterall.

Hmm, maybe God’s doing a little target practice…ya think?
 
Got Tin-foil?

First, I have read the heavily redacted, investigation by the DHS investigators, top to bottom. There is real reason to believe that these two Border Patrol Agents deserve some sort of disciplinary action. Compean in his own words stated:

“I shot about 10 or 11 rounds. At this time Agent Ramos was already standing next to me. He took a shot and we saw the alien climbing out of the [Rio Grande] river. We holstered our weapons and walked back to the levee. When we were on the levee, I picked up the brass I had seen. Someone asked if we had hit him. I answered no, I don’t think so…I did not report the shooting because I didn’t think anything had happened to the guy. I was afraid I was going to get into trouble. The rounds I picked up, I threw them in the ditch where we were at on the same day right after I picked them up…My intent was to kill the alien because I thought he had a gun but I never really saw for certain that he had a gun.”

It is obvious that Compean knew that he had not followed procedures and chose to attempt to conceal the shooting.. While I don’t condone that kind of behavior, I don’t believe that it is all that unusual. Most people try to hide their screw ups from the boss. I also don’t know exactly what proper procedures are, because for some reason the report redacts all policies for: Pursuit, Non-deadly force, Deadly force, Firearms, and even Proper conduct with aliens policies.

Both men were found Not-guilty of Count 1 - Assault with Intent to Commit Murder, and Aiding and Abetting.

Ramos was found guilty of: 

1. Count 2 – Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, and Aiding and Abetting. 
2. Count 3- Assault with Serious Bodily Injury, and Aiding and Abetting. 
3. Count 4 – Discharge of a Firearm in Commission of a Crime of Violence. 
4. Count 8 – Tampering with an Official Proceeding. 
5. Count 9 – Tampering with an Official Proceeding. 
6. Count 12 – Deprivation of Right under Color of Law.

Compean was found guilty of:

1. Count 2 – Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and Aiding and Abetting. 
2. Count 3 – Assault with Serious Bodily Injury, and Aiding and Abetting. 
3. Count 5 – Tampering with an Official Proceeding. 
4. Count 7 – Tampering with an Official Proceeding. 
5. Count 8 – Tampering with an Official Proceeding. 
6. Count 10 – Tampering with an Official Proceeding. 
7. Count 11 – Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.

The report also states:

“Relating to counts 11 and 12, the jury answered yes to two questions, which in effect enhanced these counts under the federal sentencing guidelines, allowing for the possibility of a life sentence. The questions were:

A. “Does the jury unanimously find that the acts of (Jose Alonso Compean, relating to count#11, and Ignacio Ramos, relating to Count # 12) resulted in the injury of A.A.-D (Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila) or the acts of (Jose Alonso Compean; Ignacio Ramos) included the use, attempted use or threatened use of a dangerous weapon?”

B. Does the jury unamimously find that the acts of (Jose Alonso Compean, relating to count # 11 and Ignacio Ramos, relating to Count # 12) constituted an attempt to kill O.A.-D.?”

Alright, we know from Compean’s own statement that his intent was to kill the suspect because he believed he had a gun, so “B” was a no brainer. We also know that firearms are “dangerous weapon[s], so that makes “A” a given also. But somebody please tell me how an illegal alien transporting 743 lbs. of marijuana derives any “Rights under Color of Law.”

How does any of this rate an 11 or 12 year sentence. I would be in agreement with some sort of disciplinary action for violating policy, up to and including termination, but what this report describes is a couple of Border Patrol Agents (BPA’s) attempting to stop a criminal from successfully committing a crime. In no way do I see anything in this report that would justify prison time for these two agents.

Of the three agents who testified against Ramos and Compean, two have been fired and the third quit just before being fired. They were fired because they changed their stories about what happened several times. Of particular concern is the fact that they changed their stories once they were given immunity from prosecution.

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) stated:

“When you give deals to witnesses like immunity, the government usually gets the testimony (it wants). This case is a perfect example.”

For those of you who are unfamiliar with him, Ted Poe was one of the most feared judges in Houston. He was known as a no-nonsense, tough as nails, judge who often came up with inventive methods of punishing offenders that provided a strong deterrent for returning to his courtroom. Instead of fines and jail time which often don’t deter criminal behavior, Judge Poe required people convicted of DUI/DWI to wear sandwich boards saying “I drove while under the influence,” for a week at a time. He could aptly be described as “hardcore,” or a “tough nut.” Certainly he is not one of those “bleeding heart” Liberal judges that one so often hears about. Houstonians used to refer to Judge Poe as “the Hangin’ Judge.” So when he criticizes a conviction, Americans would do well to listen and President Bush should know this. Judge Poe is quoted as saying:

“I’ve known and liked George W. Bush for a long time and I agree with him on everything-except government spending.”

The more information that comes to light, the more this case smells. The conviction came about as the result of testimony from a known drug smuggler with reputed connections to a Mexican drug cartel and that of the three BPA’s who admitted altering their accounts of events.

Exculpatory information was excluded from the defenses presentation directly linking Aldrete-Davila to the drugs (his cell phone was found in the cab of the truck). This information directly contradicts U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton who repeatedly claimed that he had no evidence that would allow them to track Adrete-Davila down and prosecute him.

Even more suspicious is the fact that Osvaldo Adrete-Davila (O.A-D) was given a DHS border pass which would allow him to freely cross the border unaccosted by customs agents. How many trips O.A-D made is unknown, but he was indicted for another 1000 lb. load of dope in October of 2005.

The DHS officer (Special Agent Christopher Sanchez) who was charged with “handling” O.A-D, reportedly took him home with him and also took the bullet fragment which was allegedly removed from the suspects buttocks. My understanding of standard policy in handling evidence is that this evidence becomes tainted. Why did Mr. Sanchez feel the need to take the recovered bullet fragment home with him?

Another piece of the story which needs to be told is that US Attorney Sutton apparently lied to the jury as to how the Feds identified Osvaldo Adrete-Davila. Sutton apparently concocted the whole story of how a Mexican lawyer contacted him when O.A-D turned up injured. It turns out that Agent Sanchez found out about O.A-D. from another BPA, Rene Sanchez who grew up with Adrete-Davila in San Ysidro, Mexico. They have remained life-long friends and their mothers are close friends. It was Rene Sanchez who called the DHS Office of Inspector General and talked to Christopher Sanchez.

I’m telling you this whole thing stinks. If former Judge Ted Poe doesn’t like the way this thing has gone, that’s good enough for me to begin to really seriously question the entire process.

References used to write this series are:

1. Human Events, Poe vs. Lampson, June 21, 2004 
2. DailyBulletin, Border agents who testified against convicted co-workers will be fired, 2/10/07. 
3. WorldNetDaily, Drug smuggler left cell phone in van, February 10, 2007 
4. WorldNetDaily, Author of DHS border-agent report lied to Congress, February 07, 2007 
5. WorldNetDaily, Congressman: Feds stonewalling on border agents, February 11, 2007 
6. NationalReviewOnline, In the Border Patrol Case, the Best Defense Is a Good Offense, February 9, 2007. 
7. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation on Ignacio Ramos & Jose Compean, et al., issued in November 2006, released to public February 07, 2007. 
8. WorldNetDaily, Border-agent investigator had tie to smuggler, February 9, 2007. 
9. WorldNetDaily, Feds ‘knew smuggler’ in Border Patrol case, January 30, 2007

Both Ramos and Compean have been accused and convicted based on five major claims by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of El Paso and the DHS investigators.

1. Ramos and Compean admitted in questioning that they knew that drug smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was unarmed at the time they shot him. Both men deny they ever made that admission or that they knew he was unarmed.
2. The men confessed that they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting. 
3. Ramos and Compean stated that day that they wanted to shoot a Mexican. 
4. The agents were belligerent to investigators. Boy, now that’s a crime worthy of a 20 year sentence by itself. 
5. The two agents destroyed evidence and lied about the incident.

The report released yesterday calls all of these claims into serious question. It appears that there was an agenda behind this investigation. One has to wonder if perhaps money isn’t involved in this whole sordid affair. Have DHS officials been paid off or are they just incompetent? Was the U.S. Attorney from El Paso seeking to send a message to other Border Control Agents with this prosecution/persecution, or was money involved in his efforts as well? It appears that these and alot of other questions will be answered in the near future.

Dianne Feinstein is calling for and Chairman Patrick Leahy has agreed to conduct an investigation into this case. It appears the at least one investigation will be conducted in the House as well.

Dana Rohrbacher issued a warning to the President following the assault on Ramos by inmates Saturday stating,

“I tell you, Mr. President, if these men – especially after this assault – are murdered in prison, if one of them lose their lives, there’s going to be some sort of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill.”

This President’s obsession and that of his administration with kowtowing to the backers of illegal immigration is the biggest disgrace of his term. He is willfully ignoring a potentially deadly threat from terrorists and the real damage these illegal aliens are doing to our society and our economy.

He has willfully and knowingly refused to make any substantive move to curb illegal immigration without attaching some sort of amnesty provision, virtually rendering any such enforcement effort pointless. I am a supporter of President Bush on many fronts, but he has been absolutely negligent in his response to this continuing and growing problem and the actions of his DHS have been excessive, abusive, and only partially successful.

This President had better listen to his constituents on this issue or he may find himself facing worse than a Democrat led impeachment movement. Back in March of 2005 when I began this blog, I almost stated that I would call for the impeachment of President Bush if a single terrorist attack occurred due to his negligent attitude concerning illegal immigration. I backed off because I still hoped that he would come to his senses on this vital issue. He has not, so I now make that statement.

Like Rohrbacher, I too will call for impeachment if either of these two eventualities occurs.

Mr. President, get off you behind and do something about the border and release these two wrongly convicted heroes!

Why is it that people get so upset over firearm associated deaths and yet are so accepting of the over half again as many deaths caused by motor vehicles? Both are unnecessary. Both are a senseless waste of life. Both are tragic in their consequences. But somehow in this society, we have come to accept vehicular deaths as a routine part of our existence, yet (the far fewer) firearm deaths are somehow beyond the pale.

In 2004 there were 11,250 homicides caused by someone shooting someone else, and there were 16,603 suicidal deaths by firearms, but in the same period, 43,947 people were killed in vehicular accidents. Looks like to me we need to spend more time worrying about teaching people how to drive than about whether or not they have a firearm-“assault-rifle” or single fire BB gun. Why don’t they go after the reckless drivers, the speeders, the stop sign runners, the red light runners as avidly as they do the gun-owners? Why don’t they propose draconian traffic laws like they do firearm laws?

Though the folks at Brady and the other looney-bin organizations are obsessed by firearms, perhaps they should spend a little time examining the following table constructed from the CDC’s most current data relating all causes of death to the number of deaths by firearms.

Relationship of Firearms to All Deaths 2003-2004

The first thing that pops out is that a person has a smaller chance of being murdered by a firearm (11,250) than they do of being accidentally poisoned (19,250), dying from a fall (18,536), or even of taking their own life by some means other than a firearm (15,044). The fact is, the likelihood of being killed by someone using a firearm is one of the least probable life-threatening events.

Funny how you never hear that from the Brady Campaign. Is it possible that the concerns of those who seek to take our inherent right to gun ownership extend beyond saving people’s lives? Like all other Leftist causes the Gun Control Movement is about one thing, “control.” Control of others lies at the very heart of attempts by Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Sarah Brady and their Liberal friends to take away the fundamental right of the people to protect their families and their property. Liberals don’t trust their fellow citizens; they only trust themselves and government (provided they control it).

Those on the Left want to control your speech; for them “freedom of speech” applies only to their “politically correct” agenda and vocabulary. They want to control your thoughts; “hate crimes” are the same as other crimes except that, somehow, what you were thinking at the time you committed the crime makes it worse (I always thought that crime passionnel was a mitigating circumstance. Of course, as anger or hatred is a part of almost every murder or assault, such a law is an absurdity. They want to control your behavior; buckle your seatbelt; bicyclers wear your helmets, smokers-don’t light up, (oh and the latest craze) men sit to urinate, don’t stand (it’s a symbol of male dominance).

Firearm data is hyped by the anti-gun people in order to scare those who are less informed into voting against their own interests. A perfect example of hyping is the report, linked to at the “Common Sense, about kids and guns” website. At Pediatrics (the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics), they present what appears to be an alarming statistic, an estimated 1.69 Million children and youths below the age of 18 live in a household in which there is a loaded unlocked gun. Wow, 1.69 Million, that’s a lot of kids at risk; better pass another law.

First, there is no information as to: where these “loaded and unlocked” firearms are being kept (are they out of reach or hidden?), whether or not the children have been properly raised/trained in firearm safety, or exactly how many of the deaths which occur each year happen as a result of those who live in these 1.69 Million homes.

If the numbers on the Brady website are to be believed-and they are rarely so without some caution, but let’s be generous-in the year 2002, 1,830 young people were murdered by a hand gun and another 838 committed suicide. In the same Brady “fact sheet” we are told:

Each year from 1993 to 1997, gun murders were committed by 1,621 killers under the age of 18.

I am assuming that what is meant by this poorly worded “fact” is there were an average of 1,621 murder committed by youths under 18 using a firearm. We’re getting closer, but we just can’t seem to get a handle on how many of those youths in homes where there is a “loaded and unlocked” firearm, are involved in these shootings. Note that the above statistic only states that murders were committed, not murders of youths, so these numbers include all murders committed by youths under 18.

Researching further, the Pediatrics report also states the following:

“Approximately 90% of fatal firearm incidents involving children occur within the home, and according to a study of children and youth aged 0 to 14 years by Wintemute et al⁸, 40% of firearm incidents involve a firearm stored in the room in which the shooting occurs. Miller et al, found that twice as many firearm deaths among children and youth <18 years old occur in states with the highest proportion of people living in households with loaded firearms.”

Again no crime data is provided, so there is no way of knowing if those same households are in high crime areas, or in relatively low crime areas. Using those numbers, the end result for 2002 is 2,401 total deaths possibly caused by those unsecured, loaded pistols. These numbers are of course maximized, and are estimates taken from a large study, but by my calculations, that means that no more than 14 youths living in those houses out of every 10,000 has been killed by a firearm or 0.14%.

Not to seem cold blooded, but if guns represent as monstrous a threat as Brady suggests, wouldn’t we have seen wholesale slaughter out there? The way the Brady Campaign and the rest of the gun control advocates hype the numbers, wouldn’t the expectation be for the numbers to be closer to 14% than to 0.14%? And yes, even 14 deaths per 10,000 are 14 too many, but that is a side issue. The real issue here is gun-owner responsibility, and on that, the NRA is way ahead of the curve.

Burrowing down even further takes one into the realm in which words like racist begin to be thrown about by the race pimps, because the Pediatrics report further refines those numbers:

“From 1999 to 2002, firearms were responsible for 18% of injury deaths for Caucasian teens ages 13-19 in the United States, 51% of deaths for African-American teens, 32% of Hispanic teens, 17% of Native American/Alaska Native teens, and 20% of Asian/Pacific Islander teens.”

Now I don’t know the demographics for the general hunting population or for the NRA membership, but I suspect that the bulk of these deaths of youths caused by “loaded, unlocked” guns occurred among the demographic populations in which firearms training and education is very rare, opportunities for children to become accustomed to firearms (except through threat) is limited, and parental supervision is less than optimum.

The whole point is that before we begin tossing around anti-constitutional ideas like “reasonable gun laws,” perhaps we should first examine the data to find the real source of the problem. Using bad data or incomplete data to bolster their causes is a favorite pastime of Liberals. It makes them sound more knowledgeable and authoritative than they actually are.

Meanwhile, following the 2006 election results, I’m buying all the high capacity magazines and “assault rifles” (read “ugly guns”) I can.

Long live the American Republic!

Where is the Liberal Outrage? Where Is President George W. Bush?

By Will Malven

If you have not seen the FoxNews presentation of Obsession, you absolutely must watch the 12 minute excerpt. Obsession the Movie is the most complete and detailed revelation on the threat that the Global Islamic Jihad poses to America today.  This is not Western propaganda, this is a full blown production which differentiates between the Jihadists who are a genuine threat to us all, and the real Muslim Religion.  The Fox program will be re-broadcast at 10:00PM EST tonight, but clicking on the above link and watching the short film will awaken you to the threat.  Oh yeah, you will never see this on the Paleo-media stations, they have a vested interest in suppressing the information.

This is the most thoroughly documented exposé to be released on the aims, the techniques, and the indoctrination of children by the worlds new Nazis.  Their goal is nothing less than the complete annihilation of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism, and all other religious and irreligious movements throughout the world.  They are not interested in “peaceful co-existence” they are only interested in the supremacy of Islam.

Today’s Democrat Party leaders, those who deny the existence and  size of the threat are the modern day equivalents of Neville Chamberlain, with one major exception, Neville Chamberlain finally realized and acknowledged the grave error he had made. Democrats will never do so.

Unlike Michael Moore’s corrupt and dishonest propaganda film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” “Obsession” is a genuine documentary.  Those on the Left have already begun attacking the film and Fox News programming about it as an attempt to frighten the American voters into supporting the Republicans.  Unfortunately for Democrats, there is a difference between attempting to frighten people, as in claiming that President Bush is “eavesdropping” on the American people, or that President Bush is taking away our Constitutional rights (statements which are patently and demonstrably untrue) and the simple act of telling the truth about a threat which, if Americans and the rest of the Western World don’t wake up, will end us up in another World War.

The pictures of Lebanese, Palestinian, and Saudi children giving stiff-armed salutes exactly like those of the Hitler Youth of 70 years ago are truly haunting.  The rants of the Radical Mullahs like Hassan Nasrallah, are eerie echoes of the speeches of Adolph Hitler and other Nazi leaders.  There is no room for co-existence in their voices, only hatred and intolerance.

The really sad part of the Democrat’s policy of appeasement is that those who will be the first to be killed by a Radical Islamic Caliphate will be the nonbelievers.  Those who demand a secular state will be the number one target.

This is not about fear. I am not “afraid” of these people, but I am fully aware of what they will do should they not be stopped now.  There is an old saying, forewarned is forearmed. This documentary is a wake-up call and we all should be “forewarned” by this production and what we can see occurring in the various Islamic states.

We ignore this threat at the risk of our own lives, but even more so at the risk of our children’s freedom.  Radical Islam will take our Constitution and use it for toilet paper.  They are not interested in “freedom,” only obedience to God, as they understand him to be.  There is no middle ground. It is precisely as President Bush stated five long years ago and as the Democrats seem incapable of comprehending:

“Either you’re for us, or you’re against us…We’ve got nations around the world willing to join us in cutting off the money of the evil ones. Our attitude is, if they can’t fund evil deeds, they’re not going to be able to affect freedom. And so we’re talking to countries and banks and financial institutions, and saying either you’re with us, or against us: cut off their money…I promise you this: I will enforce the doctrine that says that if you house a terrorist, you’re just as guilty as the terrorists themselves. 

Actions speak louder than words, and for all their protestations to the contrary, for all of their indignation at being questioned about their patriotism, the actions of today’s Democrat Party have been those of enemy enablers, not those of patriots. For Democrats, I have this to say, to strongly argue your point of view requires conviction; to continue to argue when you know you are wrong requires real determination.

In this case, you are dead wrong.

September 25, 2006

In a highly predictable, carefully pre-planned “spontaneous” explosion of self-righteous indignation, a smug Bill Clinton unloaded on FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace yesterday. With a pitiful display of lip-biting, finger-pointing, nostril flaring, lying reminiscent of his famous statement that he “did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” the blue haired, red-faced, beady-eyed, “Bubba 1” (his Secret Service nickname)could hardly contain himself as he awaited Chris Wallace’s first question about his administration’s record on fighting terrorism. When it came, Clinton pounced unleashing a carefully rehearsed verbal attack like those which so typified his entire administration when reacting to any criticism.

The Clinton’s have made their careers by attacking anyone who questioned their policies or criticized their behavior, so there should be no surprise at this “outburst” of carefully orchestrated anger. The only people gullible enough to believe that this outrageous display was a “spontaneous” response to Wallace’s interrogation are those who have always been foolish enough to believe Clinton’s lies. It reeks of the same “spontaneity” that Lloyd Bentsen exhibited in his carefully planned attack against Dan Quayle in the 1992 Vice-Presidential debate. The Clinton machine raised personal attack and smear from a rarely used negative campaign tactic to the major art form of Democrat politics.

Gennifer Flowers was subjected to the full bore Clinton attack machine when she made her 12 year affair with then Governor Bill Clinton public and came forward with tapes substantiating her claim. Under Hillary’s direction, James “the Lizard” Carville and George “Staphlycoccus” Stephanopoulos engaged in a smear attack against Ms. Flowers, accusing her of lying to the court and of doctoring the highly compromising tapes which she had of Bill Clinton discussing the intimate details of their relationship.

Then there was Paula Jones who was immediately labeled “trailer trash” by James Carville. Of course Carville should have known what trailer trash truly was because he was working for the iconic trailer trash couple in Bill and Hillary. Their behavior from the beginning of his campaign for Governor to his groping of women in the White House to their looting of the White House art and furniture collection following President Bush’s election to office was exemplary of “trailer trash.”

Let us also not forget Linda Tripp who was immediately attacked as betraying a friend and whose physical appearance was the primary subject of large scale attacks by the Clinton machine and the various Friends of Bill (FOB) in the press and among the Hollywood “Elite.” Other victims of the FOB attack machine included long time supporter and friend Katherine Willey and Democrat campaign worker Juanita Broaddrick whose rape accusations, had they been made against a Republican politician would have been the cause celebre of the feminist movement, but because those claims came against Bubba, were denigrated, ignored, and glossed over by the members of NOW and the entire feminist movement.

Other examples of the Clinton attack machine include the 900 FBI files used in the preparation of an “enemies list,” and of course the use of the IRS in investigating political organizations which expressed opposition to Clinton policies. Those on the Left are fond of portraying Karl Rove as this Machiavellian master of political dirty tricks, personal attack and character assassination. Even Bill himself couldn’t resist bringing the “Demon” Karl Rove into the conversation. Whatever Karl Rove has done and his greatest sin is using Democrat’s own words to skewer them, he has always been a piker compared to the Clinton attack machine.

The lies spewing from the mouth of our former Commander in Chief were legion. The sad truth about Bill Clinton is that if his lips are moving then it’s a good bet he is lying. He believes in no higher authority than himself. He is not just a sociopath, he is the definitive sociopath, and Hillary is his moral twin. “Wealth and Power at any cost” is their creed and Machiavelli’s The Prince is their bible. His claim that those who are now accusing that he didn’t do enough to pursue Osama Bin Laden were saying that he was “obsessed” with Bin Laden is a complete re-write of history. The Republicans were fully on board with Bill Clinton at the time and very little criticism was launched at him by the Republican leadership. The “Wag the Dog” references were made by his friends in the press.

Bill Clinton suffers from mythomania and it is pathological. He has an overwhelming compulsion to build himself up with lies and distortions. It doesn’t matter that the sources he cites belie his claims, he believes his lies to be the absolute truth. He has told himself these lies so often that they have become his truth. He has a paranoiac’s need for enemies against whom he can rail and whom he can accuse of causing his difficulties. It is this pathological need for enemies and the need for justification of his actions which is most revealing of his personality.

Bill Clinton knows deep down inside that he failed miserably as a President, both morally and in defending the nation and this guilt consumes him. The guilt is not that he failed the American people, as I said he is a sociopath and recognizes no higher need than to serve himself, the guilt is over the fact that he failed to live up to his own self-image. He believes himself to be the greatest man ever to be elected to the White House and as such his failure to succeed against Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, his failure to capture Bin Laden when Sudan offered to surrender him, eats him up. He knows he failed and so he needs enemies on which to blame his failures-neocons, the FBI, the CIA, Republicans, all are legitimate targets for his ire as he seeks justification for his abject failures.

Bill Clinton’s lies were numerous and unabashed and the information refuting his claims is voluminous. Bill Clinton chides us to read Richard Clark’s book Against All Enemies, implying that we will find the truth about Bubba’s conduct in it and he is correct. The truth of Clark’s book is that it completely contradicts what the former President claimed Sunday. Clark also gave a background briefing to Jim Angle or FOX News in August of 2002 in which he directly contradicts Bill Clinton’s claims of having an existing plan to combat Al Qaeda which his administration passed on to the incoming Bush Administration.

Look for more and more individuals like Michael Scheuer, a retired 22 year veteran CIA analyst and well known critic of the Bush Administration, to come forward and contradict what the former President claimed yesterday. Scheuer claimed in an interview today that Bill Clinton was given 7 or 8 opportunities to get Bin Laden and refused to pull the trigger every time. That is exactly the opposite of what the mendacious former President stated.

The Democrats are desperate to re-write history and salvage the tainted legacies of both Jimmy Carter, and Bubba Clinton, and both former Presidents are doing their best to help them, but certainly in this case Bill Clinton, as was so common in his administration, has fumbled the ball. His tirade Sunday was more like a child throwing a temper tantrum than a reasoned defense of his [non] efforts to fight terrorism during his presidency.

Bill Clinton never aspired to be President of the United States out of some chimerical noble calling to serve the people. What inspired Bill Clinton then and still inspires his aspirations is ego. For Bill Clinton Sunday’s performance was not about the nation, it was not about the Republicans, it was not even about Chris Wallace; it was all about Bill.

It always has been.

The Washington Post published an article, Clinton Administration Officials Assail ABC’s ‘The Path to 9/11'. In that article they say the following: 

“Top officials of the Clinton administration have launched a preemptive strike against an ABC-TV “docudrama,” slated to air Sunday and Monday, that they say includes made-up scenes depicting them as undermining attempts to kill Osama bin Laden. Former secretary of state Madeleine K.

 Albright called one scene involving her “false and defamatory.” Former national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger said the film “flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions.” And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: “It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.”” 

Later the Post says: 

“The Sept. 11 commission found no evidence that the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal played a role in the August 1998 missile strike” 

Well of course the 9/11 [C]Omission found no evidence of that, it was a concerted effort to provide cover for the Clinton Administration.  The Commission was a white wash of events during the Clinton Administration.  Those of us who were watching events back then couldn’t help but notice the way Clinton’s attacks against Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden exactly coincided with domestic events concerning the investigation into the Clinton administration and the revelation of Clinton’s liaisons with Monica Lewinsky.  There can be little doubt why those attacks were executed and why at least in one case, an aspirin factory was struck by mistake.  Distraction can lead to mistakes.

President Clinton and the members of his Keystone Kops administration can protest all they want, but we do know certain facts. President Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter in February of 1996 when the Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden, with his entourage including Ayman Zawahiri, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (who is now serving a life sentence for his involvement in the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya), Wadih El-Hage and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel (both of whom are also suspected in the embassy bombings), and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to “baby-sit” him–monitoring all his activities and associates; the offer was ignored by the Clinton administration. The data that the Sudanese government had accrued on bin Laden’s network was ignored when offered 4 (yes that’s FOUR) times. Mansoor Ijaz in an article posted in the LA Times December 5, 2001, Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize said the following: 

“Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan’s religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton[emphasis added]; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan’s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.” 

Finally, a second opportunity to apprehend Bin Laden was squandered by the Clinton administration when in July 2000–three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen a proposal was brought to White House that would have landed Bin Laden in our hands. Again Mr. Ijaz states:

“The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden’s extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family–Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton’s failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger’s assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.” 

So perhaps the specifics of the incidents have been doctored for dramatic purposes, but the fact remains that Bill “Bubba One” Clinton, Sandy “Burglar” Berger and Madeleine “Halfbright” Fulbright, either through negligence or incompetence failed to move when information and a known enemy, both vital to our national security interests, were made available to them by some of their own operatives. These are facts, documented by Mansoor Ijaz who was no Conservative Republican political hack, but a strong supporter of President Clinton. In fact, because of his growing contributions to the Democratic Party and his connections in the Middle East, he was singled out in 1994 by the Democratic National Committee which had by then recognised that he was more than just a source of funds.

Ever the liar, Clinton’s protests fail to have the ring of truth. No America, Clintonian incompetence was more than just a dramatic interpretation, it was a fact.