Well, Well, Well
I ran across an interesting little story yesterday. While rumors about the subject have circulated, good documentation has been hard to come by for nearly 13 years.
Until now.
Clinton on Sept. 10, 2001: I could have killed bin Laden but ‘I didn’t’
Gee. That’s . . . interesting. Looks like Richard Miniter was right all along regarding those claims he made in Losing bin Laden, doesn’t it?
Don’t simply take my word for it; recorded audio of the admission exists. Listen to Clinton’s admission yourself if you like. It’s found at about 5:34 in the video clip found here.
Clinton made the admission in a speech he gave to a group of Australian business leaders. The date of that speech? September 10, 2001.
Yeah.
This kind of crap happens when a nation’s leadership persists in treating acts of war as a “law enforcement matter”. Or when a nation elects someone President who is nothing but a naive but charismatic charlatan who’s clueless about most everything except giving speeches and chasing tail.
Or in Clinton’s case – when both are true simultaneously.
And spare me that, “But Bush has been POTUS for months when 9/11 happened!” bullsh!t. There’s no way in hell anyone can fix 8 years of abject mismanagement and neglect in barely 7 1/2 months. That’s particularly true when those running the show previously screw things up as badly as Clinton and his cronies did.
So, all of you libidiots out there who’ve had your head up your 4th point of contact for years, and who kept blaming Bush for 9/11? How about you just go grab a big honking cup of STFU now. And keep yer yaps shut about 9/11 – permanently. (Especially you, idiot who comments here as vietnam war protestor.)
While you’re keeping that yap shut, how about you chew on this to occupy your mouth instead: your “sainted hero” Billy-boi admitted he could have prevented 9/11. He also admitted he consciously decided not to do that.
And chew on this, too: a President’s job is to make those hard decisions when are necessary to protect this nation. A President who refuses to do that because “someone might get killed” is not fit to hold the office.
Category: Foreign Policy, Historical, Terror War
Yeah, ‘ol “Blowjob Willie” only cared about his next party, fundraiser, or blowjob just like B. Hussein 0bama only really cares about his next golf game, vacation, or fundraiser!
Excellent piece, Hondo!
Excellent commentary Hondo. I like it when you take the gloves off.
“A little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan” WTF? This guy is a joke. I am so sick of Rhodes Scholars and Law Review Presidents that are nothing more than ego and mouth w/ no substance.
To Clinton this was a cute little anecdote to show how morally superior he could be, in between blowjobs. 10 hours later, shit got real.
And Clinton, I will have to think long and hard on whether you are any better than UBL, but it’s hard for me to be real objective you worthless fuck.
Well, I kind of figured that out already, Hondo, but you beat me to it.
But in regard to cleaning up someone else’s messes, which I have done plenty of where I worked, about how long does anyone think it will take to clean up the messes made by the current lack of administration? (I’m being nice here. It’s early.)
Whoever gets the job next either makes it worse than it already is, prolonging the mess, or butts heads with Congress over fixing it.
And here’s a reason. The work programs like CCC, WPA and PWA were winding down by the time WWII involved the US. The rush to rebuild the Fleet and put armaments, armored vehicles, and warplanes on the tarmac, never mind the rest of the logistics, created more jobs and increased innovation. The Great Depression becamse a memory.
We’re still in a recession and the prospect of inflation increasing is real. The possibility of another crash is also very real. We still have high unemployment, with an increasing welfare burden added to it. There seems to be no end to it. And no, another Big War is not the answer.
Personally, I give it about 14 years to recover and straighten up the mess, and maybe 20, if you must know. Anyone else?
I’m so tired of hearing about the “recession.” A wise man once said “When the guy next door loses his job, that’s a recession. When you lose your job, that’s a depression.” I spent part of this afternoon driving past the empty and derelict Bethlehem Steel plant. Let’s call it what it is: a depression.
This was also cited in the 9/11 commission report. On more than one occassion, intelligence had a place and a time for UBL’s presence. The operations to kill/capture were not green-lighted because of the fear of friendly casualties.
EODMAN: yes, the 9/11 commission cited prior opportunities to nail bin Laden. But if I recall correctly, they weren’t particularly specific. And I don’t believe they included evidence that the POTUS had ever refused to give the OK. I could be wrong.
Miniter was much more specific in his book – which I’ve seen repeatedly deprecated by libidiots and Clintoon (intentional misspelling) apologists as being based on wishful thinking. But as I recall, even he didn’t have anything directly tying Clintoon to the decision not to nail bin Laden.
Well, now we have proof that that Clintoon did have the chance – on at least one occasion – to nail bin Laden well before 9/11, thus preventing roughly 3,000 American war dead. And we have his admission that he failed to do so because he felt the lives of foreigners were more important than protecting his nation.
Wonderful leadership.
I recall clearly being berated for suggesting he refused to pull the trigger. Many of us were…
President Bush may not be responsible for the sneak attacks on the morning of Tuesday 11 September 2001, BUT – – –
He used that excuse to rapidly implement the draconian unconstitutional tyranny which plagues us to this very day, i.e., the “U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act”, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, AND daring to openly boast that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
Who, in their right mind, can ever trust anyone in the Republican Party ever again?
Statements and/or legislation by Republicans and Democrats are both nothing more or less than “the pot calling the kettle, black”, just the “same ol’, same ol'” perpetuation of the status quo.
“Looks like Richard Miniter was right all along regarding those claims he made in Losing bin Laden, doesn’t it?”
Except that Miniter specifically said “if people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.”
I don’t defend Clinton on this, nor do I blame Bush for 9/11. But if you believe Miniter’s source regarding Clinton’s failure to kill Osama bin Laden then you would have to believe that same source who later claimed that Bush brokered a deal with Pakistan’s dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, at the end of the war in Afghanistan. Mansoor Ijaz (the source and a Clinton political supporter) said that the United States agreed not to capture or kill bin Laden in order to avoid causing further unrest in the Muslim world. Unfortunately he was probably full of it both times since we know for a fact that President Bush refused the Taliban offer to hand Osama bin Laden over to a third party nation for trial because, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty”.
I think it is a little misleading to suggest that “Billy-boi admitted he could have prevented 9/11. He also admitted he consciously decided not to do that”. He clearly stated that he did not do so because it would have caused the collateral death of 300 innocents. AQ believe that innocent bystander deaths are acceptable because they will receive their appropriate heavenly reward. I am sure you are not suggesting that an American POTUS should follow that standard.
OSC(SW) Retired: actually, the Minitier quote you reference appears to be accurate. Per Clintoon, it wasn’t Berger who made the decision not to “pull the trigger” – it was the POTUS.
Either that, or Clintoon was dissembling yet again when he was bragging to those Austrailian businessmen. You choose.
Won’t comment on the bin Laden deal claim you make above – other than to say that I don’t seem to remember that claim in Losing bin Laden. (Don’t have my copy with me at present, so I can’t double check at present.) I’ll also observe that it’s not uncommon for a source to be credible regarding one incident – but not credible regarding a second, different incident.
As for the last claim: be real. History demonstrates the truth of the last statement.
Clintoon abdicated his duty as POTUS to protect his nation because he was unable to stomach the possibility of some casualties due to collateral damage. He knew bin Laden had formally declared war on the US in 1996. He knew bin Laden was behind the US embassy bombings in east Africa. He knew bin Laden was behind the USS Cole bombing.
In short, he knew damn well bin Laden was an enemy of America, and was actively waging war against us through his al Qaeda network. And yet, he was still unwilling to treat bin Laden as what he was: a legitimate military target worth attacking, even if collateral damage casualties might result.
Because of his reluctance to accept collateral damage casualties, he decided not to take out bin Laden when he had the chance – depending on who you believe maybe 3 different times. The eventual result was 9/11, which occurred the day after Clintoon bragged about how moral he was in not nailing bin Laden because of the potential cost in foreign civilian casualties. The result was 10X as many US deaths.
Clintoon’s culpability seems pretty damn clear to me. But what do I know.
The second claim by Ijaz was in an interview with The Guardian. But since it does not fit with your view it must not be credible /boggle.
But let me get this straight. Are you saying that you believe the U.S. is justified in killing hundreds of innocent civilians (presumably foreigners) in order to kill terrorist leaders to prevent future acts of terrorism?
Isn’t the purposeful or even unintended killing of innocents with foresight, the core definition of terrorism? Why in the name of all that is American would you suggest that the POTUS, regardless of party affiliation, has an obligation to order such a thing?
Clinton didn’t radicalize Osama bin Laden, so laying culpability for 9/11 at his feet is a stretch. At worst his inaction was probably contributory, but his retribution strike in 1998 was probably a much bigger contributor. Let’s not foget that GW Bush essentially ignored the ObL threat until it happened. Rice demoted Clarke and then Bush refused to meet with him until April 2001, and then the entire cabinet ignored his warnings. And then 4 months later Bush was specifically briefed that ObL wanted to retaliate due to the 1998 missile strikes, but chose not to act.
Don’t get me wrong I am not blaming Bush, but there is more than enough blame to spread around. I simply thinking paining Bill Clinton as the single man responsible for 9/11 is silly and that the death of 300 innocent civilians is unacceptable. Hindsight is 20/20, and it would have been wonderful to prevent those 3000 American deaths, but it in no way justifies retributory attacks that kill innocents. Otherwise we are just as bad as the terrorists and I didn’t spend 22 years serving my nation to just flush the moral high ground down the toilet.
“Isn’t the purposeful or even unintended killing of innocents with foresight, the core definition of terrorism?”
Respectfully sir, I don’t think that is the core definition. To believe so, one would have to agree that we are/were terrorists for the fire bombing of Tokyo, the bombing of German cities (Dresden for example), and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Afghanistan knew we wanted UBL and they chose to harbor him. Regardless of what “small town” he was in, I believe the President had the right to target him and not be labeled a terrorist. As to the rest, I agree hindsight is 20/20.
OSC(SW) Retired: that would be a NEGATIVE.
What follows is the accepted definition of terrorism.
Unintentional damage and deaths to nonmilitary facilities and noncombatants resulting from military operations against legitimate military targets is termed collateral damage. Collateral damage has been a part of war since the first organized war between prehistoric human tribes. While it can be minimized, collateral damage cannot be avoided – particularly when opposing an enemy who intentionally locates their assets among a largely noncombatant population or in civilian facilities.
Collateral damage is always a consideration when determining whether or not to execute military operations. However, if the military benefit from the operation outweigh the expected damage, the proper decision is to execute.
As leader of al Qaeda, bin Laden declared al Qaeda to be at war with America in 1996. His organization perpetrated various acts of war against US personnel and facilities after that 1996 declaration, including the east African embassy bombing and the USS Cole bombing.
As their #1 guy, bin Laden was a legitimate military target. And as he elected to locate himself among a noncombatant civilian population, engaging him perforce required the risk of extensive collateral damage. The culpability for that damage rests with bin Laden for locating himself among that noncombatatant population.
There is a significant difference between collateral damage when you are targeting an adversaries troops and infrastructure and when you are targeting a non state actor in a sovereign nation, surrounded by people who may not know he is even there.
Why don’t we take this shit house law all the way to its logical conclusion. If a non state actor can declare war and have war declared up them and thus become subject to the conventions and rules of war, then 9/11 wasn’t an act of terror either. Of course that is nonsense. It was an act of terror and so would be the deliberate killing of innocents who might not know they have a terrorist in their midst.
OSC: under the proper circumstances, nonstate actors can be legitimate military targets. Ever hear of an organization called the Viet Cong? Or FARC? Or Sendero Luminoso?
Also, pray tell: just what “military target” was engaged at the WTC? Wait, I’ll save you the trouble. There wasn’t one.
Further: the Geneva Conventions do not and never have prohibited military operations that are expected to cause collateral damage and/or civilian casualties incidental to an attack on a legitimate military target. Rather, they forbid intentional targeting of noncombatatant civilian populations and facilities in the absence of military benefit associated with such an attack. Example: shelling a building – even a church, mosque, school, or hospital – which the enemy is using as a base or fighting position is permissible, irrespective of the fact that civilians are located there. It is not permissible if the enemy is not using that location for military purposes. And using a location as a commander’s residence or office constitutes using a location for a military purpose.
If you’re going to argue the point, at least do so logically and after analyzing the situation thoroughly.
In other words – sometimes shit happens. If “innocent” civilians are damaged during legitimate military operations, sux to be them.
Too often, playing by the rules is a one-sided endeavor with the side playing by the rules suffering the most. IMO, if civilians are willing to accept the fact that bad guys are in their misdt and do nothing about it, and if the bad guys are willing to put their own civilians at risk by being cowards and hiding within the population – tough البراز
The principle of proportionality requires that you balance the military advantage to be gained against the anticipated collateral damage; the greater the military advantage, the greater the acceptable level of collateral damage. OBL was an important enough target that Clinton should have had the stomach for civilian casualties. Granted that I’m looking at this with 20-20 hindsight, but it would have been a small price to pay in order to get OBL.Even with the facts known at the time, he was a BIG fish that would have justified the likelihood of civilian casualties.
That is exactly the point. Yes, we would all much prefer that no non-combatants were ever caught in the cross fire, but that is not ever realistic.
Could we crunch some numbers here, please? How many thousands of lives could have been saved, both military and civilian, had Clinton taken out UBL when he had that option? Using Code Pink’s numbers it would be hundreds of thousands, right? Every drop of that blood is on Clinton’s hands.
You ask me to argue logically and then compare FARC, Shining Path and Viet Cong to AQ…./smdh I can’t believe that you fail to see the difference between three entities that are or were tied to independence movements and an organization whose stated objective is to terrorize North Americans.
RE: WTC as a military target. Exactly my point. It was not one for a couple reasons. Primarily it has no military value, and second, it was not attacked by a military or even by an ANSA with a military objective. It was attacked by a terrorist organization. The stated objective was “to kill North Americans” in ObL’s words.
Your entire argument hinges on the logical fallacy that if Clinton had done X, AQ could not have done Y. The illogic is multiplied by your insistence that the 300 collateral deaths is justified by the future 3000 deaths. Your argument completely ignores that in 1998 attacks by AQ and ObL had killed exactly 12 (TWELVE) Americans. It wasn’t quite a war yet, regardless of Clinton’s over the top response of firing $75,000,000.00 worth of missiles and ObL’s pronouncements.
Terrorists are defined by their tactics, not by their cause. Terrorists are usually fanatics. All fanatics are dangerous.
Come on – this is not complicated. There is no nuance.
OSC: and precisely which recognized nations do FARC and Sendero Luminoso represent? I’ll answer that for you: none. Both are largely terrorist organizations that are despised by the local population. Ditto the Viet Cong. They were not widely beloved in South Vietnam; often terrorized portions of the South Vietnamese population; and and did not cause the fall of the Saigon government. The North Vietnamese conquered the south with an invasion of conventional forces (including massed armor) in 1975, and ruled it afterwards. Indeed, most Viet Cong leaders were marginalized or forced out after the conquest was complete. In short: FARC, Sendero Luminoso, and the Viet Cong are broadly similar to al Qaeda in that they were all effectively terrorist organizations. And on top of that, al Qaeda appears to have aspirations of reestablishing an Islamic Caliphate as well. So all are equally deserving of a US military response should they attack US interests, personnel, or territory. If you’re going to argue using historical examples, you should probably do some homework to get your facts straight first. Prevents rather elementary errors. Now that your arguments above regarding those alleged “independence movements” being distinctly different from al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have been shown to be invalid, let’s look at the rest of your comments. You apparently missed my point entirely, or attempted – badly – to side-step it. My point is that non-state actors are legitimate targets of war when they make war on state actors. So far, you’ve not addressed that issue. Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1996. It attacked US targets in 1998 (east Africa) and 2000 (USS Cole). Each attack killed US citizens and damaged US property. By your logic, the US should have waited until responding – presumably until we saw something like 9/11 before responding. Your apparent reason is that we should have waited because we had yet to be “truly attacked” (or some other similarly absurd statement). Such a position is ridiculous, for at least two reasons. First: US embassies and US warships are in fact considered US sovereign territory. Thus,… Read more »
Not much to really respond to and space is getting tight. FARC et al aren’t representative of a recognized nation, they are part of an independence movement within a nation. Yes they are also terrorists, but they are not exporting their terror abroad like AQ. I would not characterize their stated objective of jihad as a nationalistic objective.
Then you devolve into setting up a few straw men and another false dichotomy.
I never said the U.S. should have waited for anything. I suggested that the action taken should be proportionate to the offense and threat. Killing a few hundred civilians to get at a single target is not proportional by any stretch of the imagination.
There is no minimum of course and I have never suggested there was, just one more straw man. I spent a lot of years practicing and making ROE recommendations and decisions. Thanks for you expert opinion though.
My argument has exactly nothing in common with Chamberlain’s. That straw man knocked itself over before you even had a chance to take a swipe at it.
OSC: I thought about again proving you wrong by writing a longish response detailing FARC’s activities outside Columbia (Google “Rodrigo Granda”, “Simon Trinidad”, “FARC El Salvador” and “FARC illegal drugs”). I also thought about discussing how the purpose of physical jihad is the expansion of the Islamic state. And of explaining – again – how failure to respond to terrorist attacks below a certain threshold is a lesser version of what Chamberlain famously did at Munich in 1938 (it’s called “appeasement”).
Then I realized that you are intent on remaining closed-minded regarding terrorism, its various movements and manifestations, its aims, and the allowable and advisable responses to terrorist activities and organizations. In short: I realized you’re unwilling to listen – or perhaps, to learn – and I’d be wasting my time.
Perhaps that’s due to your politics; perhaps it’s inability on your part to grasp the relevant concepts. Doesn’t matter.
When the person with whom one is talking is both ignorant on a subject and unwilling (or unable) to learn, further discussion is pointless. I’ll take Father John Majeski’s advice (Proverbs 14:7).
Since today is officially R Day and that pesky thing called the UCMJ no longer applies I’ll add to what Hondo said: “A President’s job is to make those hard decisions when are necessary to protect this nation. A President who refuses to do that because “someone might get killed” is not fit to hold the office.” When has the current President/CINC may ANY of the hard choices? He has bumbled and managed to skirt from crisis to crisis without having actually managed or lead in ANY of them. Fast and Furious? NODDA Obamacare? He can’t even manage to get his administration to put together a web page for crying out loud. He has constantly changed the law by executive order, delaying parts when it benefits him, and changing his story when it is no longer convenient. He’s LIED to the American people, when he knew costs would go up and people could lose access to their doctors. Benghazi? Did nothing and left an Ambassador hanging in the wind, which lead to his being killed by terrorists. IRS? “No sign of corruption what so ever.” Which by now we all know now to be FALSE and this administration continues to stall, delay, and obstruct any meaningful investigation. VA? I’ve fired the VA Sec what more to you want… The Border Crisis? Was caused by his lawless attempt to circumvent Congress and the rule of law and yet he still has done NOTHING. Even when Governors started to take matters into their own hands the most he did was send a small group to “study” the situation. Ukraine? Okay he has finally did impose some sanctions, but as usual more than a few years too late and more than a few dollars short. Israel? He has continually thrown them to the wolves. The more time goes on the more it becomes apparent that maybe the reason he hasn’t acted is because he’s incompetent, is in over his head, and in reality doesn’t know what hell he’s doing or what he should do. An honorable person by now would have realized that… Read more »
We’re a lot cheaper than a shrink. Quit holding back…
Happy R day! Thanks for spending your adult life protecting my 1’st Amendment rights among others. I wish you many more years to enjoy them, now that you can in full. Have a great day and a great weekend.
Well said Isnala
I shudder to think how bad the military must be now. I know what it was like under Carter but this is ten times as bad as Carter ever was.
It will take an entire generation to clean up the messes this man left and if we don’t get this illegal immigration stopped we will NOT have enough conservative voters left in the US to fix it.
These idiots have destroyed so much and refuse to accept any blame for any of it. It makes me sick to my stomach to see it.
We have to continue to fight back here by calling and writing our Congress critters weekly to get them to stand up to his dumb ass.
And I know that the country club RINO’s are at least half the problem, I only hope that there are enough conservative libertarians in the upcoming elections to at least start to fix the mess.
About all I can do is to vote, call and pray. And I will be doing that.
I grew up in an “Army Town” during my childhood years, and you could see the drop in morale, etc. during the Jimmeh Kahtuh years. My dad was a Judge during part of that era, and liaisons from that post would consult with him on Soldiers having to appear in front of him asking “What can we do to help him salvage his career?”. During the Reagan era, the same ones would ask what he or she was convicted of, and the response afterward was “OK, their Army career is over with.”. I did my AD Army time in the early nineties, and I ETS’ed because I couldn’t stand having then-President Clinton and her husband Bill at the helm, and I heard stories of Senior NCO’s and Officers delaying their retirements to avoid having “Blowjob Willie’s” signature on their paper!
Thanks all. And again sorry hono for hijacking a small portion of the thred.
Congrats, Isnala.
It’s ironic, isn’t it? This past week was the start in 1974 of the investigations into Watergate with the resulting resignation by Richard Nixon. And now we have one Congressional investigation after another in to corruption in another administration.
Are we ever going to have anyone in that office who is NOT a crook?
Enjoy your retirement!
Hondo, thank you. It is easier for Clinton/Obama to call acts of war, law enforcement issues because the general public understands law enforcement issues. They immediately think of the police. It lets these losers off the hook to do anything substantial except pawn it off to the DoJ, HLS, FBI, etc, instead of calling the DoD after a joint session of congress and saying, “this is war”.
Killing bin Laden wouldn’t have done much, as the OP was planned/executed by KSM. Bin Laden merely gave approval.
The hunt and killing of Bin Laden was a huge waste of blood and treasure. Nature of irregular warfare. Killing the leader means nothing.
If you want to charge Clinton with being complicit in the 9/11 attack, then blame him, along with a few other Presidents, for the reasons given for the attack. Support for Israel. Sanctions against Iraq, and plain meddling in the Middle East amongst a host of other given reasons.
Without the backing of bin Laden’s organization – and funding – KSM could have done precisely diddly-squat. Remove bin Laden in 1998 or 1999, and al Qaeda is set back years or dissolves. IMO it’s the latter, and 9/11 never happens.
Because Clintoon was out of his depth and refused to act when he had the chance – we’ll never know. Instead, we get to look at a memorial instead of the WTC.
Killing bin Laden wouldn’t have taken away his money, or his organization.
I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t a douche, but 9/11 probably still would have occured.
Do not underestimate bin Laden’s role as a unifying factor, organizer, and leader re: al Qaeda. Nor his ability as a fundraiser due to his Saudi family and business connections. Also, do not underestimate his moral authority due to his large role in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.
Remove bin Laden, and al Qaeda’s funding dramatically declines. The leadership also splinters, as bin Laden was very likely the only one among al Qaeda’s leadership with sufficient background and authority to command respect of all. IMO, during the 1990s he was very likely al Qaeda’s sole indispensable asset.
During that period, removing bin Laden removes much of al Qaeda’s money, as well as the major force bringing about its unity. Do that in 1998, and it’s many years before 9/11 happens – if al Qaeda doesn’t splinter, as the Palestinians did post-Arafat (and arguably even before). And if al Qaeda splinters into multiple competing factions 9/11 never happens.
The latter is my guess as to what would have happened. As I said, due to Clintoon’s unwillingness to pull the trigger when he had the chance, we’ll never know if I’m correct or not.
If I might toss a piece of meat onto the plate. KSM was Pakistani and UBL was Saudi. Most (all?) of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi. Without UBL, could KSM have kept them in the fight?
Right Hondo, in those years OBL still had access to piles of cash on hand from family and friends. 9-11 and AQ might have died on the vine or at least AQ would have been localized like the The Muslim Brotherhood.
Worst of it all though is Clinton had numerous chances at OBL without causing blood shed.
What the FUCK is this *I* could have killed him bullshit???? That crap pisses me off the most. NO you couldn’t have. You would have shat yourself if you had been in the same room as him. No you could have instructed the Military to do it – people who put their lives on the line day in and day out – not your Monica Lewinsky fornicating self – hanging around and dipping cigars in twats instead.
Disgusting,
There I was, no shit.
Up to my knees in smoke grenade pins, the air acrid with the smell of old MILES gear batteries, pop rocks, and death. I knew this mission had come from the highest levels – higher than the red Spetsnaz “bray” on my head. I had Bin Laden in my sights lit by the reflection of the coveted NDSM that I had received simply preparing for this mission. Was my week at a commercial Russian military style adventure camp sufficient preparation for this responsibility. I could only hope so.
The sweat kept working its way down my face from the excess water weight I carried that day (water retention issues, not from being overweight…it’s a gland problem). The moment was here – it was just me, my “bray”, my ladies panties to relax me, and my rain soaked My Buddy doll named Chuck Norris. The radio crackled just I slipped my fingers around the handle of my trusty entrenching tool named “trigger”. Then I heard the words I’ll never forget
“Faker 6, Faker 6, this is White house Big Bubba…abort, abort, abort… or we won’t save any chocolate Yoohoo for you”
I knew right then I could make my story complete by claiming to have punched out an officer but I had only survived 3 conflicts at that time. I needed eight. I slid out of the hide site on the crest of a hill backlit by the sun. My 58 days of grueling basic combat training service had served me well. But it was time to come home…and participate in ITAR violations and non-existent terrorist hostage negotiations. I also knew that some warm sprinkled donuts awaiting me in Jamaica on the pale thighs of a cop killer whose death benefit would pay my bills and vacation travel.
Only Beslan awaited me. I’d tell you more but it’s all classified.
sincerely
John “Faker 6” Giduck
You need to invite me on your next adventure. Sounds like a load of fun.
well…sounds like a load, anyway
Interesting post. The positive thing about Clinton being inept is he didn’t fuck up the economy much. Family leave act and NAFTA were hardly good for business but other than those two blisters he stayed out of the way. Nobody wants Biden in office not even the Dem’s. During the Bush Sr. administration the Marine Security Guards had orders that if anything happened to Bush..Shoot Quayle. (only a joke of course). I am sure some Dem’s feel the same about Biden. History is odd and full of speculation. No Daily – No Kennedy. What would have Nixon done with the Bay of Pigs and Castro? No Kennedy – No McNamara. What would have Lemey done in Oct of 62 with Nixon in office? No Kennedy – No Johnson. Does Goldwater go to Nam? If he did would he have picked a leader that wasn’t a pussy. Do we have a Carter without Watergate? I could go on and on but this is my point. Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, and Obama are all seen as weak appeasing leaders on the world stage. The consequence of that should be obvious. Ukraine, not enough room on this forum to express. I wake up next to a woman that spent the first 21 years of her life in Ukraine. We just flew her mother back there this past Wednesday. It is a complex issue. The internal issues have little to do with Pro Western/Russian loyalties. Gaza. Where even to begin. I wish it was as simple as stopping 1.500 missiles from being launched into Israel. Building a wall and separating Palestinians in Gaza will not work any more than the same policy did in North Ireland, Vietnam, Korea, Berlin or Yemen. This modern Ideal of proportional warfare and fear of civilian casualties is not working. In WWII we killed an estimated 100,000 civilians in one evening. No not the use of nuclear bombs, just Incendiary Bombs. We burned them to death. Men, women, and children. War should not be a proportional calculation of equity. That policy can only lead to stalemate. The price the enemy… Read more »
“The price the enemy pays for waging war against us should be so horrific the mere notion of doing it again becomes unthinkable to them. In doing so, civilians will most assuredly die in mass.”
Notice how the Germans and Japanese are still our friends (most of the time).
Wow!!!Color me confused. I thought that 9/11 was all Pres. Bush’s fault.
Who knew????