Bill Clinton could have prevented 9-11

Loading

Bill Clinton traded 3000 Americans and the World Trade Center for 300 Afghans

He could have prevented it all:

An audio tape of Bill Clinton released on Wednesday confirmed longstanding reports that he ‘could have killed’ Osama bin Laden but decided not to because he was concerned about civilian casualties in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The audio recording, made with Clinton’s permission by former president of Australia’s Liberal Party Michael Kroger and released to Sky News by Kroger, reveals Clinton telling the former Australian politician and more than two dozen Australian businessman about the missed opportunity during a visit to Australia several months after the end of his presidency.

The conversation eerily took place the day before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks masterminded by bin Laden.

‘Osama bin Laden — he’s a very smart guy. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him, and I nearly got him once,’ Clinton can be heard saying in the recording.

‘I nearly got him. And I could have gotten, 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,’ Clinton said. ‘And so I didn’t do it.’

Kandahar is the spiritual home of the Taliban, and it became the physical home of bin Laden during Clinton’s second term as president. Bin Laden was believed to be living at a compound in Kandahar called Tarnak Farms at the time.

Clinton’s account of the abandoned bin Laden mission matches up with a 2004 NBC News report that showed the Clinton administration had eyes on bin Laden in the 2000 and in a 2005 book that claimed Clinton once has the chance to take out bin Laden but didn’t.

During the 9/11 investigation NBC obtained a secret, CIA video of Tarnak Farms taken by Predator drones in the fall of 2000. The images in the video are difficult to make out to the untrained eye, but an intelligence analyst for NBC said the video shows a man roughly the same height as bin Laden in white robes walking around the compound protected by guards.

The NBC report indicated that all intelligence suggested the man in the video was bin Laden and questioned why the government didn’t kill him at that time.

‘We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,’ retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the Bush administration, told NBC.

They held this recording for thirteen years to protect Clinton. Had it been Bush….

Much more at Daily Mail

It has been claimed that Clinton had at least ten opportunities to kill Bin Laden and refused them all. Now you know that is certainly true. Didn’t get Bin Laden but he did nail Monica.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Clinton:

I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan

REALLY???

To hit one man by hitting one building back then was easy.
We had laser targeting systems and smart missiles back then.
When was Clinton’s heart surgery?
After 2001.
Maybe he was drunk, high or suffering O2 insufficiency to his brain from his heart problem.
Or he might just have been doing the hyperbola thing.

The book Dereliction of Duty later proved that Clinton had SEVERAL opportunities to get Osama and refused to do so every time.

A retired Air Force officer said the same thing in his book about Clinton. He was the officer who was tasked with carrying the ‘Football’ during much of the Clinton Presidency. It was called ‘Dereliction of Duty, written by LTC Robert Patterson.

Only he said it happened at least three times and Clinton dithered each time.

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Usama Bin Laden unit, recalls that bin Laden had gone from his home in southern Kandahar to Kandahar city to meet with Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders. He said bin Laden stayed too late and ended up staying the night in a wing of the governor’s palace.

We had an asset that put him in that room, escorted him there and reported to us where he was. The attack would have occurred in the middle of the night and it would have killed no one but Taliban people and Usama bin Laden and his crew,” said Scheuer.

He recalled that on that day in 1998, he was at the White House while then-CIA Director George Tenet met with Clinton about a potential strike against bin Laden.

“When Tenet came out, he didn’t say a word. But when we got back in the car, he told us that they had decided not to shoot because they were
afraid some of the shrapnel from the cruise missiles would have hit a mosque that was nearby and that the Muslim world would rise up and attack Americans,” he said.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/01/ex-head-cia-bin-laden-unit-new-clinton-tape-hes-monumental-liar

Hindsight is 20/20…..

I neither blame Clinton nor Bush for the events of 9/11 transpiring. However, for those critics who like to level blame on Bush for 9/11 happening on his watch, this buttresses the counter aguments regarding the metastasizing threat and planning of 9/11 happening during the Clinton years.

I still have Dereliction of Duty on a bookshelf. Also have Scheuer’s book on bin Laden.

During the 9/11 investigation NBC obtained a secret, CIA video of Tarnak Farms taken by Predator drones in the fall of 2000. The images in the video are difficult to make out to the untrained eye, but an intelligence analyst for NBC said the video shows a man roughly the same height as bin Laden in white robes walking around the compound protected by guards.

The NBC report indicated that all intelligence suggested the man in the video was bin Laden and questioned why the government didn’t kill him at that time.

There was an incident where we did get the wrong man because of a video showing a man “roughly the same height as bin Laden”. Unfortunate chap.

200 children have been killed in Obama drone strikes.

Clinton lost the “football” for over 6 months. It was at some babe’s house in Maryland when discovered by the USSS.
Billy is a liar. Look carefully at his facial expressions, especially the eyes-he is lying. Facial expressions, the eyes, lips and nose show an congruence .
It is easy to claim he could have killed this man 14 + years later.
Scumbag is seeding his closet, homosexual (gay) wife. It was no secret amongst the USSS, PD that when bill brought a girl to the wipe house she would have to sleep with hillary.

While the left always wants to play up Bush’s failure to heed the “warnings” he got about the coming of 9/11, I find it very difficult to believe that the outgoing Clinton administration made a really strong case for that if they had passed on at least 4 (latest count, after this audio came out is 10) dead-bang opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden. Clinton passed on them because he could not make the case in a court of law.

Like Obama’s obsession with living the high life on the taxpayer nickel, Clinton’s obsession was his pecker. They were both derelict.

It would be nice to be able to make all of our decisions with perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of each alternative, wouldn’t it?

The fact of the matter is that while Clinton was trying to focus on bin Laden, republicans were totally focused on their effort to destroy the President of the United States by exposing a sexual indiscretion involving a consenting adult. Maybe they should reconsider that decision.

@Greg:

Riiiight. Clinton’s failure to get bin Laden despite multiple opportunities was.the fault of republicans’ efforts to get Clinton for perjuring himself.

Funny how Clinton suddenly grew a pair of balls enough to attack an aspirin factory (or was it a baby formula factory?) as a political distraction right before the Senate was supposed to vote on removing him after the House impeached him…..

@Greg:

The fact of the matter is that while Clinton was trying to focus on bin Laden, republicans were totally focused on their effort to destroy the President of the United States by exposing a sexual indiscretion involving a consenting adult. Maybe they should reconsider that decision.

So let me see if I have this right, Greggie: Bill Clinton knew that Osama bin Laden was a large enough threat to our national security that ObL needed to be taken out, but did not take him out because of Monica Lewinski? Perhaps you can point me to the law that allows Congressmen to order strikes on a foreign land?

Clinton was battling his image as a play boy and was derelict in his duty to protect the United States. He refused ObL when ObL was offered to him, on a silver platter, I may add, by the Saudis.

The truth of the matter is that Clinton had ObL in the crosshairs, but turned him down because ObL was walking with a Saudi prince. Clinton sacrificed almost 3,000 American lives for a few goat herders. That is the truth of it and no amount of spin on your part can change that history.

@Greg: Maybe the president should have been spending his time being president instead of having a consenting affair. There are leaders who do not have to look back on Monday morning because they did the right thing when they had the opportunity. Clinton and Obama are not one of those leaders!

@retire05, #10:

So let me see if I have this right, Greggie: Bill Clinton knew that Osama bin Laden was a large enough threat to our national security that ObL needed to be taken out, but did not take him out because of Monica Lewinski?

No, as usual, you haven’t got it right.

The article says that he didn’t take the shot at bin Laden in Kandahar because of the likelihood of a high number of civilian casualties. That was in December 1998, almost 3 years before 9/11. Clinton had ordered missile attacks on al Qaeda training camps in August 1998. The Zhawar Kili al-Badr camp was targeted specifically to attempt to kill bin Laden.

It was nitwit republicans who were totally focused on the Monica Lewinsky affair, to the exclusion of all other other matters. I remember accusations on FOX News that the attack had only been launched in an effort to distract attention from the Lewinsky investigation.

Lewinsky shouldn’t have mattered. Nobody should have given a damn about Clinton’s sexual indiscretion, other than the parties involved. It was only of consequences because it was made to be. The nation was damaged by the investigation, not by Clinton’s error. It was turned into a national embarrassment. It was a distraction from far more important matters.

Clinton’s conversation was the day before 9/11. I’m guessing half of the GOP still didn’t know or care who bin Laden was, even at that point.

@Greg:

The article says that he didn’t take the shot at bin Laden in Kandahar because of the likelihood of a high number of civilian casualties.

I know. So that only proves that Clinton was more worried about collateral damage (and the killing of a Saudi prince who visited ObL’s compound often to falcon hunt with ObL) of a bunch of goat herders than he did about the national security of the American people. Thank you for pointing that out.

It was nitwit republicans who were totally focused on the Monica Lewinsky affair, to the exclusion of all other other matters.

I don’t care if the Republicans were focused on hot dogs and potato chips. Making sure that the American people are secure is the job of the President. Or do you think there is another reason the President is called the Commander in Chief?

Nobody should have given a damn about Clinton’s sexual indiscretion, other than the parties involved.

I don’t want you coming into my house and bumping uglies with your flavor of the day. And in case you haven’t noticed, the White House is called the “peoples” house. That would be because we pay for it, Greggie, and the least we can expect from any president is that he at least show some respect for what we pay for. Clinton is a moral degenerate. And that apparently hasn’t changed.

But then, if I were married to Hillary, well……………………………………..

Greggie,

“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.”

Clinton quote.

But a couple of problems with that statement; bin Laden was not directly in Kandahar. He was at Tarnak Farms, outside of Kandahar. And Kandahar is the second largest city in Afghanistan, over 400,000 strong at the time of Clinton’s chance to get bin Laden. Since when is a population of over 400,000 considered a “little town?”

@Greg:

Because it doesn’t matter if a President perjures himself over something so inconsequential as an extramarital affair, because of course he told the truth about everything, right?

To leftists, lies are perfectly fine just as long as the leftist agenda keeps moving forward.

@retire05, #13:

That would be because we pay for it, Greggie, and the least we can expect from any president is that he at least show some respect for what we pay for.

The disrespect came when republicans shoved what should have been a private, personal matter into everyone’s faces. Clinton didn’t do that. They did. That was the point when I first felt genuine contempt for the GOP. In my opinion, they’ve done nothing since to redeem themselves. They would repeat the entire exercise in an instant if they could find any basis for doing so. The party is infested with sanctimonious hypocrites. They think their moral superiority somehow gives them the right to judge and control other people’s personal behaviors.

@Greg:

The disrespect came when republicans shoved what should have been a private, personal matter into everyone’s faces.

Presidents don’t have private lives, Greggie. They are public servants (you do know what the word “public” means, don’t you?) and they know that when they run for office. Every aspect of their lives is not only public, but the whole world is watching them. Remember Camelot? The entire Kennedy clan put on a show, Jack with his adorable children and beautiful wife that he adored? Except it was a farce. JFK, like Clinton, was a womanizing leech. If Clinton wanted a private life, he should have never run for the highest office of the land.

They think their moral superiority somehow gives them the right to judge and control other people’s personal behaviors.

Society sets the moral standards, Greggie. Not politicians. And the nation, much to your chagrin, I’m sure, is still a moral society for the most part. But the big difference is that when Republicans act immorally, other Republicans don’t circle the wagons like Democrats do.

The problem with you Marxists is that you believe your own hype. You don’t allow for any opinion other than your own. If someone dares dissent, they are labeled by your ilk. Free speech? Only when it is your free speech. Immoral behavior? Unacceptable in a Republican, standard operating procedure for a Democrat.

I noticed you didn’t try to deny that Kandahar is not a “little town.” Best to stop digging when you find yourself in a hole.

Presidents don’t have private lives, Greggie.

Human beings behave as human beings, presidents included. The fact that a person has attained a high station doesn’t change that. There are details in the lives of everyone that aren’t public knowledge, and have no need to be.

As much as you might want to, I’m not going to argue with you about what Clinton meant by “destroying a little town called Kandahar.” The relevant fact was that Clinton’s analysts had predicted that an attack on bin Laden’s quarters there would have resulted in the deaths of 200 to 300 civilians. We weren’t at war either with or in Afghanistan. Killing 200 or 300 innocent people on the off chance of killing Osama bin Laden or any criminal or terrorist along with them would be an extremely difficult thing to morally justify—particularly 3 years before 9/11.

@Greg:
200 or 300 people?
How?
The only collateral damage might have been shrapnel into a Mosque.
And it was the MIDDLE of the NIGHT!
There is no living quarters inside a Mosque (it would render it unclean to even pass gas in there!)
There are 5 prayers BUT they all occur during the DAYLIGHT hours by order of the Koran!
So, Bill was talking out of his ass.
And he’s been called on it royally.

Lets not forget that Clinton was offered Osama THREE separate times, but he refused to take Osama. I forget who had him, but it was clear that Clinton did not want Osama. Was Osama a secret donor to Clinton?

Ask for the names of current hollywood stars, producers, and current members of congress, including the pres. who support Hamas. Oh did bill and hillary’s name appear on that list?

@Greg:

Human beings behave as human beings, presidents included. The fact that a person has attained a high station doesn’t change that.

I see; you’re saying that a man who used his intellect to reach the highest office in our land, and became the world’s most powerful man, was a slave to “human behavior?” Morals and responsibility be damned, right? Clinton was simply controlled by his physical urges, not his intellect. Wow! Greggie. That doesn’t say much for Bill Clinton.

The relevant fact was that Clinton’s analysts had predicted that an attack on bin Laden’s quarters there would have resulted in the deaths of 200 to 300 civilians.

And who exactly were those 200 to 300 civilians? Oh, wait, they were terrorists or terrorists in training. Karnak Farms was a training facility for terrorists. But golly gee, what a compassionate man Bill Clinton was in sparing their lives, right? But the children, you say? Nevermind that they have now grown into adult terrorists, just like their fathers and mothers who were at Karnak Farms. Hell, no, you don’t want to talk about that part of it, do you?

Again, I pity you, Greggie. You have so thoroughly bought into the progressive Kool-Aid that you are beyond redemption.

@retire05: It isn’t that Greg drank the Kool-Aid that is at issue here. It is that someone had to tell him to drink it since he has no original thought.

@Greg:

Wow…what a massive act of transference wrapped in a gigantic lack of self-awareness.

You want to forget Clinton staring into the TV camera, forcefully jabbing his finger to emphasize each word as he lied, “I did NOT. HAVE. SEXUAL. RELATIONS. with that…WOMAN….Ms. Lewinski….” feigning his sanctimonious outrage while knowing full well he was lying. You leftists want to believe this is the only thing Clinton lied about during his entire term – hypocritically giving Clinton (both of them) a pass when they stated Saddam had WMDs a pass, but insisting Bush lied when he said the same thing.
If the sordid affair with a woman young enough to be his daughter was so inconsequential, why did he lie so vehemently about it? Why should any of the other Clinton lies about his numerous scandals be believed? Whitewater…the Rose Law firm billing records….Juanita Broadrick’s claim of being brutally raped…Kathleen Willey’s claims of being molested and harassed by Clinton…the FBI surveillance reports on members of Congress…the porky Sandy Berger stuffing official government records about pre-9/11 intelligence into his socks and stealing them to avoid their coming to light in the investigation…the rifling through Vince Foster’s office by Clinton operatives after his death before investigators were allowed to inspect…and those are the ones I remember just off the top of my head.

Clinton is as untrustworthy, if not moreso, than Obama. You can blather your misplaced disdain about a sexual pecadillo all you want, but it does nothing to erase the pattern of deceit inherent in Clinton’s actions, nor do anything to garner any respect for such a scurrilous character whose lack of foresight arguably set the stage for 9/11. It was another Clinton apparatachik, Jamie Gorelick, who placed the legal wall of separation between the CIA and the FBI that the 9/11 investigation found largely to blame for the failure to prevent the 9/11 attack.

But Clinton did order Tomahawk missiles to hit that baby formula factory right after the house voted to impeach him….

You want to forget Clinton staring into the TV camera, forcefully jabbing his finger to emphasize each word as he lied, “I did NOT. HAVE. SEXUAL. RELATIONS. with that…WOMAN….Ms. Lewinski….” feigning his sanctimonious outrage while knowing full well he was lying.

How exactly would you expect the average person put in front of a television camera and questioned about their extramarital sexual activities to respond?

It was unfortunate choice of responses. Clinton should have told the investigative committee that details of his sexual life were none of their damn business, and then invited them to go f-ck themselves. As decorously as possible, of course, so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities. His error was not giving them the answer they truly deserved. It allowed them to entrap him.

@Greg:

Clinton should have told the investigative committee that details of his sexual life were none of their damn business, and then invited them to go f-ck themselves.

Not withstanding the fact that you are so ignorant that you don’t understand that the President of the United States should (note: I said should, not does) represent the very best of all of us, and that includes in the moral arena, you want to ignore the national security aspect of what Clinton did.

Many a king has lost his kingdom, and oft his head, over an illicit affair with a woman not his wife. Presidents are no different. One only has to look at someone who was touted as the future first Hispanic POTUS, Henry Cisneros. Brilliant, both intellectually and politically, Cisneros’ pillow talk destroyed his political career. The security risks are ten times higher with a president.

I realize that you have no morals, and apply no moral standards to Democrats (a Socialist goal from the git-go) but at least think of the national security issues involved with a President having an affair with a low level intern who was not even a person of importance. Or is that the goal of you Frankfurt Marxists as I suspect?

@Greg:

The president is not supposed to be an “average person”. You ignore, as I expected you to given your posting history, the central point of Clinton’s inherent dishonesty. The security risk mentioned by retire is just the icing on the cake of Clinton’s lack of integrity. It is pathetic to blame republicans for entrapment, as if they forced Clinton to engage in a lurid affair with Lewinski ( and however many others) and then to lie about it- in court AND on TV to all Americans. Can you not see that someone willing to go to such ardent lengths to deceive the country about something as straightforward as having an illicit sexual liaison is going to be completely untrustworthy in anything else they say, and that the judgment of someone who would engage in such a sexual dalliance is questionable at best, and very dangerously inept for a Commander in Chief? This is the man who burned to death over 60 people at the Branch Davidian compound, and who refused the request of his commanders on the ground in Somalia for American armored units that led to the Blackhawk down event. This is the man who pardoned the FALN terrorists in NY to help his wife get elected in classic carpetbagger fashion in NY state.

Republicans were intent on destroying Clinton by any means possible, exactly as they are now intent on destroying Obama by any means possible. Then as now, they were investigating anything and everything that might enable them to achieve that end, but proving nothing. What they finally stooped to using says as much or more about them as it does about the guy they were trying to destroy. Their entire motivation was political and self-serving, and remains political and self-serving. Today we’ve got a continuation of the same b.s. In between, when they had control of both Congress and the White House, they gave us a $2 trillion dollar war financed with borrowed money and a near collapse of the entire economy. Presently they show every indication that they’ve learned absolutely nothing from the results. I have no desire to find out what they’d do if given free rein again.

If they stuck to a single message concerning fiscal responsibility and advocated a balanced approach to achieving it that was genuinely focused on the well-being of the middle and working classes, I would be far more likely to listen.

@Greg:

Do you think both parties have to agree to go to war before war can be started?

Or is that another one of the dozens of questions I have asked you that won’t be answered?

It takes an act of Congress to issue a formal declaration of war. The President can take certain actions in accordance with the War Powers Act. The President also as legal basis for taking action in some instances owing to treaty obligations. As you know, the issue isn’t really one of uniformity of opinion along partisan lines.

@Greg:

So if Japan declared war on us, which they did, but Congress did not declare war on Japan, there would have been no war?

@Greg:

Republicans were intent on destroying Clinton by any means possible, exactly as they are now intent on destroying Obama by any means possible.

You seem to conveniently disregard the facts of the situation. The Clinton’s were under investigation for the many shady deals they were in the middle of. Horn-dog Bill was also being sued for sexual harassment by several different women. In the midst of all that corruption, the Lewinsky affair was exposed. This eventually led to President Horn-Dog to testify before a Grand Jury about that affair, as it related to the many other sexual harassment and sexual assault accusations. It was then and there that Randy Bill opted to lie to the Grand Jury, under oath, and set the stage for his impeachment.

He was impeached for lying before a Grand Jury. The Republicans didn’t cause it… Bubba did.

Perhaps he was too preoccupied with all the trouble he had caused himself to make the decisions he was supposed to be making (compelling him to later lie about why he ignored the opportunities) but this was the fault of no one but himself. He should have been able to wait until his term was over to cheat on Hillary again. But all the problems was of his own making.

@Greg:

Where to begin with your claptrap revisionist history and nonsensical interpretation of events?

You complain about a 2 trillion dollar war debt, while ignoring the 7 trillion Obama has added since coming to office. Not to mention the pattern of decreasing annual deficits that occured during Bush’s two terms, while the war was ramping up….until the dems took control of congress and tripled the deficit their first year in control of the budget, then almost tripling the deficit again when Obama took office.

You also conveniently forget the “dissent is patriotic” mantra of the dems as they went out of their way to obstruct and defame Bush as you whine about republicans opposing Obama’s marxist schemes. The left put out a movie about Bush being assasinated while he was president, and regularly compared him to Hitler. So spare us the sanctimonious garbage about republicans opposing Clinton and Obama’s leftist corruption (but I repeat myself) and trying to destroy them. We believe Obama is not only terribly wrong, but also criminal, and we have every right to resist his anti-American agenda, and to call him, Clinton, and every other leftist out for their wrongdoings.

The fact that Sheila Jackson Lee is either too stupid and/or dishonest to remember she co-authored articles of impeachment against Bush, while claiming last week that the dems never tried to impeach him clearly demonstrates yet again that leftists are too dishonest and/or incompetent to ever be entrusted with political power.

@Greg:

Riiiiiiiight….because the only “balanced approach” you leftist will ever consider is raising taxes and increasing the debt with even greater wasteful government spending. Because paying one sixth of our citizens off with foodstamps with money taken from the people who produce jobs has been so good for the poor and middle class…..

Greg is an idiot.

@Greg: Understand I’m not using the term “idiot” simply as invective. I find you to be an idiot in the classical sense of the word. In short, I find your opinions to be in bad judgement of public and political matters, which is why I encourage you to read/learn/experience more and post/talk less. You are either an active Dem Party member volunteering to troll, and thus help squash sensible public opinion, or you really have become a disciple of a dated and historically ignorant political movement. Either way, you’re polluting the airwaves.

From wikipedia:

An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs.[6] Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education.[6] In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). “Idiot” originally referred to “layman, person lacking professional skill”, “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. “Idiots” were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term “idiot” shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are “stupid”.

I find you posts to be idiotic in the true sense of the term. While I’m not sure I’d call you “mentally impaired”, you do suffer from cognitive distortions so deep, that your incessant babble here at FA is tolerated as if you were mentally handicapped. You can play at seeming to write rational material, but at it’s heart, it’s simply childish sentiment and covertly violent.

Arguing with Greg is meaningless. He’s either willfully writing blatantly incorrect information, or truly ignorant. Not sure which, but one thing’s for sure:

Greg is an idiot.

@DrJohn:

:

Hey, Jesse Ventura said Bush brought the Towers down…..

*Scratches head*……okay….and….?…?

@Nathan Blue, #36:

I find you posts to be idiotic in the true sense of the term. While I’m not sure I’d call you “mentally impaired”, you do suffer from cognitive distortions so deep, that your incessant babble here at FA is tolerated as if you were mentally handicapped. You can play at seeming to write rational material, but at it’s heart, it’s simply childish sentiment and covertly violent.

If you find my posts idiotic, perhaps you should simply refrain from reading them and stop worrying about them. Better still, people could stop making slanderous generalizations and telling outright lies about anyone who doesn’t happen to share their own political views. Then those who such generalizations and lies are calculated to offend wouldn’t feel a need to say anything at all.

I’m not sure copying and pasting our little invective compositions to multiple threads is good form.

billy is a whore dog and the current pres is completely gay. A friend has pictures of him dry humping a party goer in a bar in Chi-7 months before her ran for office and had to move back in with his slut wife who screwed her way to the top of her law firm. Hillary is a closet dike, she is in insult to the gay community.

@Greg: I do think it’s good form, because now I know you read them.

You contribute nothing to the conversation but pretend you do. Don’t feign “offense”; you regularly bring lies and generalizations calculated to offend to a blog (and it’s readers) that don’t share your political views, aiming to annoy rather than actually make things better.