RANGER AGAINST WAR: Bill Kill <

Monday, September 25, 2006

Bill Kill

The New York Times reports former President Bill Clinton "worked hard" to try to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton states, "We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since...I did everything I thought I responsibly could." ("Bill Clinton Defends bin Laden Handling", Karen Matthews, 9/23/06).

These statements are as amazing and self-indicting as Bush's admission of rendering prisoners to secret prisons which we operate in foreign lands.

There was a time when Clinton was a feel-your-pain (or intern) kind of guy, but now we hear he "contracted with people." And who were his peeps who were gonna execute this hit? Did you talk with the Mafia, Bill? Well, did ya, punk?

I am sorry, but I am feeling very anti-hero right about now. Since when can a President condemn a person to death without a trial? Isn't assassination a violation of national policy and international law?

Did William Jefferson place an ad in Soldier of Fortune? We know he didn't ask the NRA for help, since he's anti gun, and guns are bad (though I'm sure some loyal NRA members would be chomping at the bit for just such an opportunity.) The hit probably specified using a knife or baseball bat, and that's why it wasn't too successful. The NRA could've done the job, if only Bill had acknowledged the 2nd Amendment.

Surely Osama is a Big Creep, but do we want the same attributes in our President? A President is not a Mafia don; if he wants to be, let's prosecute him under RICO. Forget impeachment.

What is happening when good Christian Presidents authorize torture and put out murder contracts? Seems our moral compass is pointing due South.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Kel Brady said...

I agree with your entire point and as a way of explination, I'm quite left and anti-gun myself. But you do make a point about the hypocrisy. What I'd like to add however is that some people warrant an exception to common sense, law or common courtesy, would you not agree? OK someone in power must decide who meets this exception. President Clinton picked bin ladan. That name and reputation alone warrant extreme action, and I don't care if that action is "wagging the dog", it is entirely justified. So I don't agree that you can retroactively condemn Clinton, becaseu he is absolutely right, at least he tried. And I put it to you, he did try to do something, possibly illegal, but bin ladan is an exception I and the vast majority of the civilized world would agree it OK dto do it to him. Thanks, Kel

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 2:24:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Tim Weeds said...

Ranger,

Just found your site via a link at Bartcop. I am glad to see that you don't have the same reflexive Clinton support mechanism Bart does.

I was also disappointed with Clinton's hit contract admission. Ever since Dukakas failed to display proper viciousness when asked about the death penalty every politician feels they have to make it very clear that they are stone cold killers. Really says a lot about our fellow 'mericans.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 3:11:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Jonsey J. Jones said...

Your arguement doesn't even make sense.
Are you trying to say Clinton is some kind of mafia don now?
The phrase you mentioned about contracting is nothing new, the government does it all the time, its what the CIA does best, find somebody in a position to help Uncle Sam, than pay him money to do the dirty work.

Geeze you fellows are naive.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 11:20:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Dear Jonsey,

Thanks for reading the blog, and for your comment.

I am just disappointed that Clinton felt compelled to jump on the tough-guy bandwagon.

I concede to your points de facto, but that doesn't mean taking out hits is correct or legal.

I am disappointed that this administration disingenuously undertook 15 different avenues of approach to the problem. A hit would have been much more cost effective. Instead, we set out on a path of "war" to "find him". But realize, America should not be in the business of "taking someone out". This is the purview of the mafia.

Of course I'm naive, since I believe the Founding Fathers never envisioned investing the President with the power to unilaterally condemn somebody to death, even someone as despicable as Osama.

Thursday, September 28, 2006 at 9:10:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous CAFKIA said...

The presidential oath of office does not offer a bin Laden exception in it's requirement to defend the Constitution. If it takes Osama's death to fulfill that requirement, so be it.

I suspect that what actually happened was that Bill authorized extreme measures to be taken to bring bin Laden to justice with a stated preference for his apprehension so as to facilitate a trial and incarceration. However, extreme measures assumes the risk of loss of life.

There is also another major thing that makes me prefer Clinton so much to the idiot currently occupying the oval office. Clinton did not childishly hold on to decisions and/or beliefs he had previously formed when facts became known that gave lie. In short, he adapted to the situation. The morons of the GOP refer to this as flip-flopping when in reality, it is intelligence asserting itself.

As a 10 year USN veteran, I had certain issues with Clinton, oddly enough, not the one's that every other vet seemed to have, but I simply do not agree with your critique.

CAFKIA

Thursday, September 28, 2006 at 6:21:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Dear Ciafka,

Thank you for reading "Bill Kill".

You are correct in your emphasis that the Constitution is the thing. I will never accept that defending the Constitution authorizes the president to be judge, jury and executioner. Assassination is forbidden by U.S. code, and there are no presidential exceptions.

You suspected that Clinton preferred apprehension over killing. If this is true, why did he send cruise missiles to make the arrest?

Per your comment that killing Osama might be necessary to the defense of the Constitution, it has been my observation that when an odious leader is removed, one far worse takes his place.

This said, please know I am no fan of Mr. Bush's (see rest of postings for confirmation).

Aside from my shock at Clinton's bragoddocio, I have no beef with him, and generally agree with your paragraph #3.

I applaud your military service, and your civic consciousness.

Thanks,
Jim

Thursday, September 28, 2006 at 7:49:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home