Senator John McCain keeps recycling the leftist/neocon lie about \”genocide\” in Kosovo, insulting the memory of people such as the heroic war reporter Daniel Pearl, one of the people who debunked those Clintonian deceptions. Everyone keeps overloo…

Are you an idiot? Do you just play on TV the blogosphere?

Daniel Pear was murdered in Jan. / Feb. 2002.

I imagine you are not an idiot. Most likely you are simply young and you weren’t paying attention about 2001 / 2002.

By the way I agree with the gist of the post that Clintion has blood on his hands with the Kosovo situation.

Otherwise, in terms of your posts, you are a pitiful weasel. Are you a real weasel are a fake one?

Wake Up!

PS Your other commentors must be idiots too as they did not pick up the obvious error of the time fram of Pearl’s death.

You misunderstood what I said. hmy_tb:

I never said, nor did I intend to imply, that the Clinton Administration did anything to encourage al Qaeda to kill Danny Pearl.

I said that al Qaeda killed Danny Pearl to silence him (obviously). I said that one of the reasons why AQ felt the need to silence him was that he had written an article that debunked the Clinton Administration’s rationalization for helping al Qaeda in the Kosovo War.

Had Danny Pearl lived, there’s a good chance he would have been able to arouse the public to the extent that they would have demanded an end to the Clinton Administration’s pro-Muslim, pro-jihadist, and pro-al-Qaeda foreign policy in the Balkans. So that’s a strong motive for AQ to shut up Danny Pearl once and for all. The fact that this would make a martyr out of him was no big deal to them, on account of the fact that Danny had had too little opportunity to get his message out before he was killed.

I blame the Clinton Administration, not for taking any particular action to cause the death of Danny Pearl, but for pursuing this evil and traitorous foreign policy to begin with. This foreign policy has done irreparable harm both to the US and to our European allies. :furious_tb:

I hope that clears the matter up. If not, please feel free to comment further.

I’m “all ears” and I want to hear from you and other readers on this issue.

1389

- That Clinton singled someone who was merely one of many critics of the war.
- Then he convinced sworn enemies of the U.S. to protect the reputation of the U.S. by silencing that person.
- Because silencing him AFTER he published his criticisms would make a difference.
- And that doing it in a high-profile way, complete with video – thereby immortalizing him and his writing – was the best way to retroactively silence his published criticism.

Y’know, with all the people who believe these tinfoil hat conspiracy thoeries, it’s a wonder that tinfoil manufacturers don’t rule the stock market.