Getting Through Clinton's Smoke And Mirrors (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

Bill Clinton said in his now infamous speech to Chris Wallace that he had passed up the chance to capture Bin Laden because Bin Laden hadn't committed any crimes against America.

That was in February, 1996.

The first mention by the media of any connection between Bin Laden and the 1st WTC attack occurred on 4/9/95 by the Associated Press. The headline was: "Government Says Abu Sayyaf Links Extend Through Afghanistan To Middle East." The link was reported being from Ramzi Yousef to Jamal Mohammed Khalifa, who is connected to Bin Laden directly.

The media gets their national security information from the government, usually on a delay, and usually without most of the story.

So if the media was reporting the connection between Bin Laden and the 1st WTC attack in 1995 (meaning the government MUST have been aware of it), then how is it possible that Clinton turned down extradition of Bin Laden due to him not having committed any crimes against us?

Even if there wasn't any indication Bin Laden had committed any crimes against us, by 1996, everyone knew he was dangerous, and this highlights the inadequacy of the left's preffered method-treating terrorism as a criminal issue rather than as a military one.

So the question is does this revelation indicate that Bill Clinton IS more culpable for 9/11, especially when you consider the two chances we had to kill Bin Laden that Clinton botched, and that in 8 years of Al Queda attacks, the ONLY two times he used military force was 1) on the day he admitted that he had slept with that woman, and 2) the day he was indicted (both attacks were total failures)?

 

[ProudAmerican]

I understand your question, and why you posed it. I really, really do.

I also understand that there are so many rabid liberals that want to act as though Bill Clinton worked his *** off to catch Bin Laden while Bus was just an incompetent boob reading a book to children while the WTC was being attacked.

While I believe Clinton is just as much to blame as anyone for the attacks against our country............

I TRULY LONG FOR THE DAYS WHERE AMERICA WAS UNITED RIGHT AFTER THE ATTACKS. I miss the days where there were no republicans, or democrats......there were only AMERICANS.

I wont vote, because I am tired of the blame being placed on anyone OTHER THAN ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.

we all have to put these partisan arguments aside and come together as a nation, or the terrorists will win.

This goes for all issues......all the way from 9-11, to the war in Iraq.

Blaming Clinton soley, or placing most of the blame on him for 9-11 is just as disengenuous as claiming Bush intentionally lied about Iraq.

NONE OF THESE THINGS HELPS THE COUNTRY. and ALL OF THESE THINGS GIVE OUR ENEMY RESOLVE.

 

[Iriemon]

I understand your question, and why you posed it. I really, really do.

I also understand that there are so many rabid liberals that want to act as though Bill Clinton worked his *** off to catch Bin Laden while Bus was just an incompetent boob reading a book to children while the WTC was being attacked.

While I believe Clinton is just as much to blame as anyone for the attacks against our country............

I TRULY LONG FOR THE DAYS WHERE AMERICA WAS UNITED RIGHT AFTER THE ATTACKS. I miss the days where there were no republicans, or democrats......there were only AMERICANS.

I wont vote, because I am tired of the blame being placed on anyone OTHER THAN ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.

we all have to put these partisan arguments aside and come together as a nation, or the terrorists will win.

This goes for all issues......all the way from 9-11, to the war in Iraq.

Blaming Clinton soley, or placing most of the blame on him for 9-11 is just as disengenuous as claiming Bush intentionally lied about Iraq.

NONE OF THESE THINGS HELPS THE COUNTRY. and ALL OF THESE THINGS GIVE OUR ENEMY RESOLVE.

Good point and I agree. I wish hate-obsessed folks like Aquapub had your same forward thinking atittude. While I believe Bush is as much to blame as anyone for the 9-11 attack, in respect for your point I won't respond to his post or vote either. Besides it's the same old crap that has been debated 20 times.

And PS: I found no site on the internet that has the phrase "Government Says Abu Sayyaf Links Extend Through Afghanistan To Middle East" that was supposedly the AP headline.

 

[Captain America]

That's classic Proud American. America first.

Keep the faith brother. I'm proud to call you my fellow American.

 

[reaganburch]

I understand your question, and why you posed it. I really, really do.

I also understand that there are so many rabid liberals that want to act as though Bill Clinton worked his *** off to catch Bin Laden while Bus was just an incompetent boob reading a book to children while the WTC was being attacked.

While I believe Clinton is just as much to blame as anyone for the attacks against our country............

I TRULY LONG FOR THE DAYS WHERE AMERICA WAS UNITED RIGHT AFTER THE ATTACKS. I miss the days where there were no republicans, or democrats......there were only AMERICANS.

I wont vote, because I am tired of the blame being placed on anyone OTHER THAN ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.

we all have to put these partisan arguments aside and come together as a nation, or the terrorists will win.

This goes for all issues......all the way from 9-11, to the war in Iraq.

Blaming Clinton soley, or placing most of the blame on him for 9-11 is just as disengenuous as claiming Bush intentionally lied about Iraq.

NONE OF THESE THINGS HELPS THE COUNTRY. and ALL OF THESE THINGS GIVE OUR ENEMY RESOLVE.

Amen my fellow American...:rock :yes: :2usflag:

 

[ProudAmerican]

That's classic Proud American. America first.

Keep the faith brother. I'm proud to call you my fellow American.

Thanks.

Im just FED THE ***KKKK UP with all the partisan nonsense.

am I guilty? hell yes, guilty as charged. we all have our OWN BELIEF SYSTEM. we all have our own IDEA OF HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE......but the bottom line is........everytime Bin Laden, or any of his goons sees Bill Clinton on TV shaking his finger, or Sean Hannity on TV yelling at some democrat, or some other political pundent screaming about how Bush lied....or Clinton lied, or how Rumsfeld dropped the ball.......

THEY LAUGH AND CONTINUE TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE THAT AGAINST US SO THEY CAN KILL MORE AMERICANS

we have got to get past the blame game, and start looking for SOLUTIONS.

These people will hit us again. maybe sooner than later. when they do, they WILL NOT BE KILLING REPUBLICANS, OR DEMOCRATS, OR INDEPENDANTS........THEY WILL BE KILLING

AMERICANS

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

There was no such offer from the Sudan according to the 9/11 Commission but the Sudan did make that offer to Saudi Arabia where he was wanted for crimes. Clinton did attempt to have Bin Laden extradited to the United States by placing sanctions on Afghanistan via the UN and threatening to keep them in place until they handed over Bin Laden. When that failed to yield results he called for his assasination via an executive order. He attempted to assasinate numerous times by lobbing cruise missiles at his percieved location. Of course, it was difficult to keep up those efforts while the majority of Congress was kicking and screaming about it and saying that we were running out of cruise missiles.

 

[ProudAmerican]

There was no such offer from the Sudan according to the 9/11 Commission but the Sudan did make that offer to Saudi Arabia where he was wanted for crimes. Clinton did attempt to have Bin Laden extradited to the United States by placing sanctions on Afghanistan via the UN and threatening to keep them in place until they handed over Bin Laden. When that failed to yield results he called for his assasination via an executive order. He attempted to assasinate numerous times by lobbing cruise missiles at his percieved location. Of course, it was difficult to keep up those efforts while the majority of Congress was kicking and screaming about it and saying that we were running out of cruise missiles.

one bit of hypocrisy I must point out.

You say it was "difficult to keep up those efforts" and that may be so. But if that is true, why do I constantly hear the left today say "Bush cant even find Bin laden"

like it should be easy?

its either difficult for both presidents, or easy for both. It cant be a difficult task for Clinton, and then be a sign of weakness for Bush.

(im not blaming you for this.....im just pointing out how the left in general has acted on this topic)

 

[Billo_Really]

ProudAmerican's post reflects what happens when ones perceptions go from intelligence to wisdom. And the nature of the post is so on the money, it practically commands respect.

 

[Billo_Really]

I was so moved by ProudAmerican's moment of clarity, I changed my "hate-sig".

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

one bit of hypocrisy I must point out.

You say it was "difficult to keep up those efforts" and that may be so. But if that is true, why do I constantly hear the left today say "Bush cant even find Bin laden"

like it should be easy?

Bush was given permission to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora but the bungling oaf let him get away. Clinton was not given permission to invade Afghanistan or Iraq and did not have the information needed to corner him.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Bush was given permission to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora but the bungling oaf let him get away. Clinton was not given permission to invade Afghanistan or Iraq and did not have the information needed to corner him.

Clinton never ASKED for permission either.

and im not sure how you think Bush was in charge of a military mission in Tora Bora.

someone definately dropped the ball there, but Bush wasnt in country giving the orders.

military personel do that.

a truly bi partisan thinker would have to admit either its very difficult to find bin laden for BOTH administrations, OR its very easy for BOTH administrations.

its always fun to what partisans spin and make excuses for one side or the other though.

IMO, finding one man on the planet is difficult for ANYONE no matter what party they belong to.

however, its pretty hard to defend the fact that Clinton wasnt even in afghanistan or iraq looking for him.

I will agree that the task is made MUCH MORE DIFFICULT when you arent even trying.

 

[Iriemon]

Clinton never ASKED for permission either.

Neither did Bush until after 3000 americans were dead.

its always fun to what partisans spin and make excuses for one side or the other though.

Yes it is.

IMO, finding one man on the planet is difficult for ANYONE no matter what party they belong to.

Unless you are a Republican talking about Clinton

however, its pretty hard to defend the fact that Clinton wasnt even in afghanistan or iraq looking for him.

See?

I will agree that the task is made MUCH MORE DIFFICULT when you arent even trying.

That was Clinton's point about Bush.

 

[bismitch]

The blame for the 9/11 attacks that happened can be traced back a couple decades, when the soviets invaded Afganistan and the rebels were heavily aided by countries like the U.S. and Pakistan. Weapons and training were given to Islamic militant groups(people like Bin Laden) to fight the Soviets. If we hadn't have done this then, we might be fighting a less potent enemy in the war on terror. Right now we can see the mistake in this, but during this time the Soviet Union was a threat and the US administration thought they were acting for the protection of the American people against the Soviets. The Militant groups that plague the region today were considered the lesser of two evils.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Neither did Bush until after 3000 americans were dead.

whats your point? Clinton never asked after multiple attacks. Bush asked after one.

Unless you are a Republican talking about Clinton

again, whats your point?

See?

so Clinton was in afghanistan looking for him?

That was Clinton's point about Bush.

one of YOUR FELLOW DEMOCRATS just admited in this thread that Clinton wasnt even looking for Bin Laden. he also admitted that Bush definately is.

your problem is with him.....not me.

Bush was given permission to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora but the bungling oaf let him get away. Clinton was not given permission to invade Afghanistan or Iraq and did not have the information needed to corner him.

talk to NN. it would seem he and I agree. accept for the trivial part I brought up about Clinton not even ASKING for permission.

 

[Iriemon]

whats your point?

My point is if you are going to say Clinton should have done x y and z then you have to explain why Bush is not held to the same standard you have created.

Clinton never asked after multiple attacks. Bush asked after one.

What is your point? That when Bush became president he got a "clean slate" and was free to ignore any terrorist threat untill they had hit us again?

one of YOUR FELLOW DEMOCRATS just admited in this thread that Clinton wasnt even looking for Bin Laden. he also admitted that Bush definately is.

I disagree with MY FELLOW DEMOCRAT. Are you saying you will agree with everything YOUR FELLOW REPUBLICAN says?

Bush was given permission to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora but the bungling oaf let him get away. Clinton was not given permission to invade Afghanistan or Iraq and did not have the information needed to corner him.

talk to NN. it would seem he and I agree. accept for the trivial part I brought up about Clinton not even ASKING for permission.

Not my statement.

 

[mpg]

He attempted to assasinate numerous times by lobbing cruise missiles at his percieved location.

Of course, it was difficult to keep up those efforts while the majority of Congress was kicking and screaming about it and saying that we were running out of cruise missiles.

Since when does a single attempt qualify as "numerous times"?

That never happened.

 

[Gibberish]

I'd like to applaud the posters on this thread for turning this thread into a non-partisan debate which it was obviously not originally meant to be.

:applaud

 

[Stinger]

My point is if you are going to say Clinton should have done x y and z then you have to explain why Bush is not held to the same standard you have created.

He is, the difference is he did something. And he started on his first day in office. He just didn't have enough time before they struck. He told his staff from the get-go that the Clinton days were over, no more reaction it was time for action and they were going to get him, so draw up plans. They hit his desk the day before 9/11.

What is your point? That when Bush became president he got a "clean slate" and was free to ignore any terrorist threat untill they had hit us again?

Since he didn't what is your point. One of the reason we were able to react so quickly was because he had started doing things. He just didn't have enough time.

 

[Iriemon]

He is, the difference is he did something. And he started on his first day in office. He just didn't have enough time before they struck. He told his staff from the get-go that the Clinton days were over, no more reaction it was time for action and they were going to get him, so draw up plans. They hit his desk the day before 9/11.

The Cole was attacked in Oct '00. Bush took office in Jan '01. He is excused from any response because it takes 8 1/2 months to come up with a plan. Or 11 months if you include the time from when he was elected.

Clinton left office about 3 months after the Cole was hit, before intellegence agencies confirmed it was Al-Quecda. But it is fair to blame him for not doing anything.

Got it.

Do you have a cite to this and what the plans were? I'd be interested to see what they talked about doing that Clinton didn't do.

Since he didn't what is your point. One of the reason we were able to react so quickly was because he had started doing things. He just didn't have enough time.

He didn't have enough time in 8 1/2 monts, but Clinton had enough time in 3 months. Right.

 

[Stinger]

The Cole was attacked in Oct '00. Bush took office in Jan '01. He is excused from any response because it takes 8 1/2 months to come up with a plan. Or 11 months if you include the time from when he was elected.

Why would you count from the time he was elected when he wasn't in power? Yes it takes that long to get into office, get your cabinet in place, get a plan laid out and carry it out. As Rice stated yesterday and as others in the adminsistration clearly stated they started immediately on what they were going to do.

Clinton left office about 3 months after the Cole was hit, before intellegence agencies confirmed it was Al-Quecda. But it is fair to blame him for not doing anything.

He already WAS President. He had EIGHT YEARS behind him. He had his cabinet in place. And according to his own words he had already formulated a plan. So why didn't he use it?

Got it.

No I don't think you do or care to.

Do you have a cite to this and what the plans were? I'd be interested to see what they talked about doing that Clinton didn't do.

No I don't think I need to cite that it is common knowledge that the review he order landed on his desk the day before 9/11. Rice spoke of the planning the did during that 8 months in her statement yesterday. If you didn't bother to listen to then once again you are showing you don't know enough about the issue to discuss it.

He didn't have enough time in 8 1/2 monts, but Clinton had enough time in 3 months. Right.

No Clinton had enought time in 8 years, he claims he was obsessed with this, he is the one who claims he had a plan already. So yes, right. What about the Embassy bombings? That was an act of war against us. What about after the Kobar towers?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Clinton never ASKED for permission either.

Clinton was given the Iraq Liberation Act by the Republicans which specifically stated that he did not have approval from Congress to engage in hostilities in Iraq. Why would Clinton have asked if he was already told no?

and im not sure how you think Bush was in charge of a military mission in Tora Bora.

As Reublicans like to remind everyone: Bush is the Commander In Chief of the armed forces. I highly doubt that anyone in the military handed over the responsibility of capturing Bin Laden to Pakistan without Bush's knowledge or approval.

 

[Stinger]

Clinton was given the Iraq Liberation Act by the Republicans which specifically stated that he did not have approval from Congress to engage in hostilities in Iraq.

Baloney, first it was CLINTON'S bill. Second it authorized the funding for the training and equipting with military materials an armed insurgence. That is an act of war, that is hostilities. Second had he actually used that and Saddam still resisted there is no evidence the Congress would not have supported further action.

It also stated it was the policy of the united states to take Saddam into custody and put him on trial.

But as usual Clinton was all talk and no action, it took Bush to finally carry it out.

Why would Clinton have asked if he was already told no?

He hadn't asked for direct intervention with our forces and he hadn't been told no, just that it would take another vote. He should have led, like Bush did, that's what he was elected to do.

 

[aquapub]

I understand your question, and why you posed it. I really, really do.

I also understand that there are so many rabid liberals that want to act as though Bill Clinton worked his *** off to catch Bin Laden while Bus was just an incompetent boob reading a book to children while the WTC was being attacked.

While I believe Clinton is just as much to blame as anyone for the attacks against our country............

I TRULY LONG FOR THE DAYS WHERE AMERICA WAS UNITED RIGHT AFTER THE ATTACKS. I miss the days where there were no republicans, or democrats......there were only AMERICANS.

I wont vote, because I am tired of the blame being placed on anyone OTHER THAN ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.

we all have to put these partisan arguments aside and come together as a nation, or the terrorists will win.

This goes for all issues......all the way from 9-11, to the war in Iraq.

Blaming Clinton soley, or placing most of the blame on him for 9-11 is just as disengenuous as claiming Bush intentionally lied about Iraq.

NONE OF THESE THINGS HELPS THE COUNTRY. and ALL OF THESE THINGS GIVE OUR ENEMY RESOLVE.

If the left's incessant treason over the last decade were a new development, I might agree. But when you understand the left's 50-year history of rushing to the aid of every enemy this country has faced, it becomes more and more clear that they must be identified as such.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If the left's incessant treason over the last decade were a new development, I might agree. But when you understand the left's 50-year history of rushing to the aid of every enemy this country has faced, it becomes more and more clear that they must be identified as such.

I understand your point of view completely. and please dont think I am trying to ruin your poll or thread.

Im just sick of seeing all the partisan political attacks, and someone has to take the high road.