Britcoin Faucets: Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher-Discussing 9/11 in 2001

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 after the Clinton national security team warned the Bush Administration about Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden before the Bush team came into office, is like blaming the Pittsburgh Steelers for the lack of success that the Cleveland Browns have had in the last twenty years. “Hey, if only the Steelers hadn’t been so good and beat us over and over, maybe the we the Browns wouldn’t have had lost so much. It’s all Pittsburgh’s fault for our lack of success.” The Clinton Administration went after Osama Bin Laden, at least since 1996 when Al-Qaeda attacked one of our ships in the Middle East. America was at peace when the Clinton Administration came into power in 1993 and we were still at peace when they left office in January, 2001. The economy was still booming and the Bush’s inherited a budget surplus of two-hundred-billion-dollars and twenty-three-million net jobs.

Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was focused on trying to jump start the economy was starting to slow and worrying about what to do with the record budget surplus they just inherited and thinking they could be allies with Vladimir Putin’s Russia and education reform. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, wasn’t a huge priority for them. It wasn’t until 9/11 that they became neoconservative defense hawks, thinking that our civil liberties and constitutional rights, might be threatening our national security. And coming up with indefinite detention without arrest, the Patriot Act, that spies on who Americans associate with and what we read even. Where we could become potential suspects and even detained, for what we might read or who we might know. The Bush Administration, didn’t have much of a national security or foreign policy, pre-911. The so-called War on Terror, wasn’t part of our national language yet.

Did Bill Clinton eliminate Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as President, of course not. But to say they weren’t paying attention to him and not trying to do that when they actually tried to assassinate him both in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, is nonsense. George W. Bush and company, obviously didn’t eliminate Osama and Al-Qaeda as well. But President Barack Obama, had Osama assassinated in his third year in office in 2011. And the Obama Administration has come damn close to eliminating Al-Qaeda the last eight years. And have destroyed a lot of ISIS in Syria and Iraq in the last two years. George W. Bush, obviously didn’t create Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda either, but they got off to a late start to the threat of that organization. Especially since the previous administration were already going after them. And that the Clinton national security team warned the incoming Bush Administration about the threat in late 2000. According to Clinton counter-terrorism director Richard Clark.

Read Full Post »

C-SPAN: Christopher Hitchens: On Bill Clinton (1993)

Source:C-SPAN– British-American Socialist writer Christopher Hitchens, on C-SPAN in 1993.

Source:The New Democrat

“Christopher Hitchens Interview For the Sake of Argument”

From Hitch Archive

“Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Buchanan spoke on current events in Washington politics, including the performance of the Clinton administration to date, and the reaction of Western countries toward the civil war in Bosnia. The correspondents responded to callers’ comments criticizing the Clinton administration. Credit to C-SPAN.”

Source:C-SPAN– Left-Wing political writer Christopher Hitchens, on CSPAN in 1993.

From C-SPAN

“Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Buchanan spoke on current events in Washington politics, including the performance of the Clinton administration to date, and the reaction of Western countries toward the civil war in Bosnia. The correspondents responded to callers’ comments criticizing the Clinton administration.”

Source:C-SPAN– Pat Buchanan and Chris Hitchens on CSPAN, in 1993.

From C-SPAN

This is certainly an interesting combo to have Chris Hitchens and Pat Buchanan, on the same show.

Hitchens, a self-described Democratic Socialist and Pat Buchanan, would be what’s called today an Alt-Rightist: someone who tends to be against free trade, multiculturalism, non-European immigration and perhaps immigration in general. Anti-internationalism when it comes to foreign policy and not believing that America should be involved in other countries human rights crisis’s and civil wars.

And then you have Socialist Chris Hitchens, who believes that the big central government, should decide what people need to live well. And that the central government should be responsible for a lot of those services. But tends to break away from Socialists when it came to foreign policy and did believe America and Europe, could play a positive role in seeing that people who live under authoritarian regimes, can break away from authoritarianism and even use military force to break those authoritarian regimes.

Hitchens was in favor of America and Europe, being involved in the Balkans in the 1990s. Buchanan was against that. They weren’t two men that even though one was clearly on the Left, Far-Left even and the other was on the Far-Right, that you could assume that either would automatically take a certain position on a certain issue.

Read Full Post »

Celebrity Universe: Video: Politically Incorrect From 2002: Communism and The Vietnam War

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

The Vietnam War was an obvious mistake at least looking back it lets say 40-45 years later, but the U.S. Government knew it was an obvious mistake by 1967-68. They knew the war was lost by then and continued to fight it anyway because Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon wanted to look tough and not be the first American president to lose a war. You don’t fight other people’s wars in places you are not prepared to fight in that your own people aren’t prepared to fight in. Especially when the people there that you’re supposed to be fighting for won’t fight for themselves. A huge lesson from the Vietnam War.

As far as communism, if communism is as Whoopie Goldberg described it about people acting together for the betterment of the country under the direction of their government and not an authoritarian ideology similar to Islamism, then how is communism different from socialism. Because that is what socialism is about that if you have a lot of individualism and individual freedom some people will do very well and others won’t for whatever the reasons. But if you put a lot of the resources all into one big collectivist pot managed by the central government, then everyone will thrive. Because no one will have too much or not enough.

Read Full Post »