So let me get this straight…
Under President Clinton’s watch between 1993 and 1997, the following terrorist attacks took place by Islamic fundamentalists and/or al-Qaeda.
- February 26, 1993 – World Trade Center bombing in NYC
- November 13, 1995 – US Military Complex bombing Saudi Arabia
- June 25, 1996 – Khobar Towers bombings in Saudi Arabia
And in the face of the growing threat to America by the Islamists, the Clinton Administration naturally began spying on Diana, Princess of Wales.
An official British report into the 1997 car crash that killed Princess Diana will say the U.S. Secret Service was bugging her phone on the night of her death, according to the London newspaper the Observer.
The official report into the Paris crash by former Metropolitan Police chief John Stevens will be published Thursday.
Of course!
Hey, maybe I’m ignoring the 9/11 Commission’s conclusion that America suffered a “lack of imagination” before the September 11th attacks. I guess a very wise person in the Clinton White House felt the danger of a Perfume Dirty Bomb was the real threat to America at the time. Maybe it was Sandy “Sticky Fingers” Berger?
And so much for the faux Democrat outrage on warrantless wiretapping. Clinton had apparently reverted back to the J. Edgar Hoover days!
Meantime, Osama bin Laden plotted to kill 3,000 Americans for years before 2001.
**UPDATE** – National Security Agency denies Diana spying.
The National Security Agency is working on a statement that will deny eavesdropping on Princess Diana, a U.S. intelligence official tells CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.
An official British report into the crash that killed Princess Diana concluded that a U.S. intelligence agency was bugging Diana’s phone without the approval of its British counterpart on the night of her death, according to British newspaper reports.
Well, that’s all fine and good for the NSA… but the original British reports say “US Secret Service.” WTF is going on here?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bruce, this latest and likely incredible insight comes from the same sort of sources within the Brit Intel appartus that gave us the kernels of the now discredited and infamously overblown Downing Street Memo.
Of course the NSA is going to deny that SlickWilly or his cover-up agents were listening in on Lady Di… but let’s see if SlickWilly’s DirtyTricks group issues a similar denial –I hear they’re mostly working for the Evita 2008 Tour.
Plus it just doesn’t seem credible that SlickWilly would have done it because: 1) Lady Di didn’t have big hair; 2) she didn’t live in a trailer park; and 3) she had already been stuck with a sleazebag adultering husband so it’s questionable she’d find SlickWilly anything more than “same old, same old”.
Of course, for a President who took his marriage fidelity lessons from Jack Kennedy, what can one expect?
What’s absurd about this is that the Clinton administration was eavesdropping on her calls because she wanted to marry a millionaire — demonstrating that liberals are more scared of successful people than they are savages that cut off people’s heads with swords.
Rightwing-
Clinton wasn’t a-scared of millionaires… he PARDONED them! 🙂
IF the Secret Service did it… The least crazy theories as to motive for the Clintons ordering it (which they would have had to) are:
(1) That they were concerned over the political potential of Diana-and-the-American-billionaire (not millionaire). He was rumored to have Presidential ambitions (however pathetic). Diana had publicly fantasized about becoming America’s First Lady through her connection to him. In other words: They could have been a threat to Hillary.
(2) That they were doing a favor for someone British: perhaps British Intelligence, perhaps Tony Blair, perhaps the Royal family.
(3) That either Diana, or the billionaire, were suspected of some strange connection to counterfeiting (which is the Secret Service’s purview, in addition to protecting the President).
No matter what the motive, it would show (if it is true, again) that the Clintons had no qualms about warrantless wiretaps.
Michigan Matt!
That’s hysterical that you say BJ BIll wouldn’t go for Diana because she didn’t have big hair and didn’t live in a trailer park, but you know BJ would go for anything with a pulse and he never had a princess before. BTW, what do you call that thing he is married to?
“3,000 Americans”
That isn’t the number of Americans that died. That isn’t even the number of total people who died. If you are going to BRANDISH and USE the deaths of the people on September 11, 2001 to make some kind of point, you should probably get the correct number of Americans, which is smaller than the total number of people who died.
Don’t treat them as “3000”; have some respect for those who actually died.
“Well, that’s all fine and good for the NSA… but the original British reports say “US Secret Service.” WTF is going on here?”
Are you saying that you don’t believe what our nation’s agency spokespeople are saying? Are you sure, really sure, that you are a patriot?
Will Americans 50 years from now look back at the 8 Clinton years as like the roaring 20’s? A time when people were carefree and only thought of themselves. A time where serious issues were ignored and challenges kicked down the road. A short time after the “roaring 20’s ” came WW2 and over 8 million Jews and other minorities slaughtered like they were mer cattle.
jimmy writes with fake outrage: “Don’t treat them as “3000”; have some respect for those who actually died.”
Coming from you, jimmy, that is a hoot. You really have no shame given how glib you’ll use the deaths of 9-11 and the WOT to further your own cheap seat partisan interests. No shame. What a hoot.
What’s next from the lower case clan? sean offering tips on being a good American? raj coming back to give pointers on how Bush can save his prez legacy? gryph offering mind reading sessions on what the ReliRight is thinking?
Why is it that conservatives, who are ostensibly skeptical of MSM, will eat up any shit that comes out against the Clintons?
jpe, two reasons conservatives tend to believe the worst about the Clintons from the MSM… first, there’s the troubling little issue of precedent. From presidential pardons at the last second and over the objections of seasoned DOJ lawyers, the Clintons prove their slimebag status as corrupters of the legal system. And two, if it’s bad and it’s about the Clintons and the MSM is writing about it, it MUST be true because to get past the lapdog loyalists and Clinton enablers in the MSM must mean the story has legs and the MSM’s media greed is trumping its usual position of protect and defend the Kennedys-Clintons-Gores-Kerrys et al.
What can you expect from a family that steals art objects and furniture from the WH on their way out of town? Prudence? Discretion?
HA!