NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/


The former president said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, but the action was never carried out. Clinton said that was because the United States could not establish a military base in Uzbekistan and because U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to certify that bin Laden was behind the bombing.

"The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I was president."


Oh, how I wish it had been carried out.

You can see the video of the first part of the interview here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/), and it's worth watching. Clinton gets up in Wallace's grill over the questioning, and Wallace deserves it.

I wish the rest of the Democrats would do that.

At least he didn't have to invade 2 countries in his attempt to kill one man...

I'm glad Wallace had the gonads to ask the tough questions. I'm gooing to watch the entire interview on Fox (FNC) at 6 PM eastern tonight. The interview should make some good cannon fodder for this forum.

At least he didn't have to invade 2 countries in his attempt to kill one man...

Yes he didn't, and he didn't take Bin Laden twice when offered him. :(

Saying that you were closer to killing to one person is the same as saying you were closer to winning than the other guy. It doesn't really matter unless you actually killed the guy and you actually won.

Yes he didn't, and he didn't take Bin Laden twice when offered him. :(

Sorry, I forgot to include the link http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Yes he didn't, and he didn't take Bin Laden twice when offered him. :(
He probably had an inside scope that the Republicans were going to win the 2000 elections and decided to hand them the problem... :p

I wish the rest of the Democrats would do that.

There's a very good reason that Bill Clinton was the last dominant Democrat.

He probably had an inside scope that the Republicans were going to win the 2000 elections and decided to hand them the problem... :p

No, he was to busy trying to explain what is is and denying oral sex is sex. :eek:

I'm glad Wallace had the gonads to ask the tough questions. I'm gooing to watch the entire interview on Fox (FNC) at 6 PM eastern tonight. The interview should make some good cannon fodder for this forum.You don't have to wait. (ttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/)

There's a very good reason that Bill Clinton was the last dominant Democrat.

I wish we could make him Emperor of the US.

I wish we could make him Emperor of the US.

Well, I really wouldn't like that, but I'm a solid opponent of term limits of all sorts.

You don't have to wait. (ttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/)

Got a Firefox error on the link.

Yes he didn't, and he didn't take Bin Laden twice when offered him. :(

How many times do those stories about being offered Bin Laden have to be called bullshit before people stop putting them out there. The 9/11 Commission debunked those, for fuck's sake.

I wish we could make him Emperor of the US.

But I'm already the Emperor of the US!

How many times do those stories about being offered Bin Laden have to be called bullshit before people stop putting them out there. The 9/11 Commission debunked those, for fuck's sake.

Indeedly weedly. It's an urban myth that continues to persist.

Got a Firefox error on the link.

It's a crooksandliars.com, third story down. It's also at Think Progress.

Indeedly weedly. It's an urban myth that continues to persist.Because lots of people in power have a vested interest in making it live.

No, he was to busy trying to explain what is is and denying oral sex is sex. :eek:

Which it wasn't his fault that the republican held congress was trying to make him look like he had done something all of them haven't done. Blame them for that whole ordeal.

How many times do those stories about being offered Bin Laden have to be called bullshit before people stop putting them out there. The 9/11 Commission debunked those, for fuck's sake.

You consider the LA Times http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
A bullshit paper? I'm suprised at you.

But I'm already the Emperor of the US!
You mean you're Bush?

You mean you're Bush?

No, that's the conveniently appointed stooge to distract attention. I am the Emperor. Says right here in this piece of paper I just wrote.

I wish we could make him Emperor of the US.
Better a shah. They don't have problems with having multiple women.

Which it wasn't his fault that the republican held congress was trying to make him look like he had done something all of them haven't done. Blame them for that whole ordeal.

:rolleyes: Groan. Oh, how stupid of me. Of course it's all the Republicans fault. :rolleyes:

You consider the LA Times http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
A bullshit paper? I'm suprised at you.
That's an editorial piece that was later debunked by the 9/11 Commission. They found the writer to have credibility issues. Too bad the LA Times editors didn't investigate his bona fides.

:rolleyes: Groan. Oh, how stupid of me. Of course it's all the Republicans fault. :rolleyes:

Sure it is, I mean using all those taxpayers money to investigate whether the man recieved a blow job or not. Yeah, go them for doing the "right" thing.:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Groan. Oh, how stupid of me. Of course it's all the Republicans fault. :rolleyes:

Well, they did accuse him of overhyping the terror threat from 1996 onward, and when he tried to go after Bin Laden, was often accused of wagging the dog. Or don't you remember that bit of the story?

Don't worry. Clinton will remind you.

You can see the video of the first part of the interview here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/), and it's worth watching. Clinton gets up in Wallace's grill over the questioning, and Wallace deserves it.
A standing ovation for Bill Clinton!!! :)

He sure made some extremely powerful points!!!!

Sure it is, I mean using all those taxpayers money to investigate whether the man lied under oath about recieving a blow job or not. Yeah, go them for doing the "right" thing.:rolleyes:
Edited for accuracy.

No, that's the conveniently appointed stooge to distract attention. I am the Emperor. Says right here in this piece of paper I just wrote.
Oh, this paper? *lights it on fire*

That's an editorial piece that was later debunked by the 9/11 Commission. They found the writer to have credibility issues. Too bad the LA Times editors didn't investigate his bona fides.

Would you care to debunk this source? http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml

Or this one? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

Shall I continue, or are all of these and the LA Times disreputable?

Edited for accuracy.

Was it their business anyway? I mean did he want the whole nation to know about his infidelity? It was just something the Rep. did to make his excellent presidency look like crap.

Was it their business anyway? I mean did he want the whole nation to know about his infidelity? It was just something the Rep. did to make his excellent presidency look like crap.
Well... the tabloids didn't have good... they needed something.

Would you care to debunk this source? http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml

Or this one? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

Shall I continue, or are all of these and the LA Times disreputable?

Well, Newsmax isn't worth the electrons it takes to make it visible, and besides, the 9/11 Commission had no reason to make Clinton look good, and they debunked it. Take it up with them.

Was it their business anyway? I mean did he want the whole nation to know about his infidelity? It was just something the Rep. did to make his excellent presidency look like crap.

I never said it was their business. I just pointed out an inaccuracy. My opinion is the same as yours -- well except calling it an excellent presidency. The whole ordeal was a waste of time and money and made everyone concerned look foolish.

Would you care to debunk this source? http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml

Or this one? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

Shall I continue, or are all of these and the LA Times disreputable?

I don't even need to read the NewsMax article to call bullshit on it...it's newsmax, for fuck's sake. The Sudan.net thing? Well, sudan.net certainly isn't an official Sudanese entity...it's run by a private citizen out of Georgia. I don't have the time or inclination to go through and take care of every single source here, but it's good to keep in mind that the 9-11 Commission debunked the Sudan story, and I trust them on this one.

A little off topic perhaps, but if the thread is moving towards questioning Clinton's credibility compared to Bush...


I hope it isn't moving in that direction. I'd love to have one thread, just one without someone bringing up Bush. I'm a little trired of Bush and threads about him. But unfortunatly...

I never said it was their business. I just pointed out an inaccuracy. My opinion is the same as yours -- well except calling it an excellent presidency. The whole ordeal was a waste of time and money and made everyone concerned look foolish.

fair enough.

I hope it isn't moving in that direction. I'd love to have one thread, just one without someone bringing up Bush. I'm a little trired of Bush and threads about him. But unfortunatly...

Hmmm..

Fair point, it could have led the thread off-topic.

Well, Newsmax isn't worth the electrons it takes to make it visible, and besides, the 9/11 Commission had no reason to make Clinton look good, and they debunked it. Take it up with them.

Sorry, but this is the first time I heard the Commission supposedly debunked that. Of course, I've never read the whole report either, so... And just because the Commission says Clinton was never offered Bin Laden, but multiple other sources say he was...well I guess the Commission was right and multiple other sources were...well...wrong.:rolleyes:

And just because the Commission says Clinton was never offered Bin Laden, but multiple other sources say he was...well I guess the Commission was right and multiple other sources were...well...wrong.:rolleyes:

What a shocking revelation, that sometimes one source is right even when a larger number of other people say differently.:rolleyes:

I hope it isn't moving in that direction. I'd love to have one thread, just one without someone bringing up Bush. I'm a little trired of Bush and threads about him. But unfortunatly...


Yeah, only 2 more years!

...but it's good to keep in mind that the 9-11 Commission debunked the Sudan story, and I trust them on this one.

You know you and Nazz keep saying that, but this is the very first I have heard that. Can you give me link or two so I can read about it?

Yeah, only 2 more years!

I have high hope that those two years will pass very quickly.

i was close to winning the lottery, but i never took the actions to buy a ticket:D

Saying that you were closer to killing to one person is the same as saying you were closer to winning than the other guy. It doesn't really matter unless you actually killed the guy and you actually won.

I think not killing him while not overthrowing two governments and destabilizing a region of the world gets alot further ahead in the winning race than the one who didn't kill him and did destabilize the region.

I have high hope that those two years will pass very quickly.
It will if you cryogenically freeze yourself.

What a shocking revelation, that sometimes one source is right even when a larger number of other people say differently.:rolleyes:

Yes, and sometimes multiple sources are right and a single source is wrong. The sword can cut both ways. :eek:

Yes, and sometimes multiple sources are right and a single source is wrong. The sword can cut both ways. :eek:
Or...EVERY source can be wrong!

Yeah, only 2 more years!

Ahh, don't forget that the media will be talking about the founding of the Bush Liberry in Texas. We'll get all kinds of good Bush news from that after [name] is President in 2009.

Ahh, don't forget that the media will be talking about the founding of the Bush Liberry in Texas. We'll get all kinds of good Bush news from that after [name] is President in 2009.
But, at least he won't be in power...

Yes he didn't, and he didn't take Bin Laden twice when offered him. :(

And bush didn't take him when he could of in Afganistan. Instead of using trustworthy American troops to surround him in Afganistan he used Afgani warlord troops, hence how Bin laden got away.
And Raegan gave him his training in the first place if one more person blames clinton for 9/11 i am going to fucking freak.

But, at least he won't be in power...

(shrug) Fair enough. But it'll be the same stuff with the next one. [Name] will be evil incarnate who's leading the nation to Hell and WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Clinton did what he thought was right and the GOP pooped all over him. Bush did what he thought was right and most everyone has pooped all over him. [Name] will do what s/he thinks is right and [opposite party] will poop all over him/her.

(shrug) Fair enough. But it'll be the same stuff with the next one. [Name] will be evil incarnate who's leading the nation to Hell and WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Clinton did what he thought was right and the GOP pooped all over him. Bush did what he thought was right and most everyone has pooped all over him. [Name] will do what s/he thinks is right and [opposite party] will poop all over him/her.

The opposition needs a scapegoat...

And bush didn't take him when he could of in Afganistan. Instead of using trustworthy American troops to surround him in Afganistan he used Afgani warlord troops, hence how Bin laden got away.
And Raegan gave him his training in the first place if one more person blames clinton for 9/11 i am going to fucking freak.

True. :( I don't blame anyone except the terrorists for 9/11. I never thought we should be looking to blame anyone, but should be looking to correct the problems with security and intelligence that facilitated it happening.

See, this is why I love writing. I can create my own perfect little example of what life should be and then pretend it's reality. :) Way less depressing to get absorbed in creating Utopia than to dwell on living in Dystopia.

See, this is why I love writing. I can create my own perfect little example of what life should be and then pretend it's reality. :) Way less depressing to get absorbed in creating Utopia than to dwell on living in Dystopia.

Word.

I think not killing him while not overthrowing two governments and destabilizing a region of the world gets alot further ahead in the winning race than the one who didn't kill him and did destabilize the region.

I must agree. If one sniper made two shots and missed both times, and other made no shots at all, because he was not sure he'll hit, I'd rather trust the second one.

Especially if they are shooting at someone in a crowd...

Yes, and sometimes multiple sources are right and a single source is wrong. The sword can cut both ways. :eek:

In this case, however, you have a bipartisan commission versus "news" sources with an agenda. Credibility is an issue.

As to the 9/11 report, here's a pdf of the thing, I believe. (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20040722_911Report.pdf#search=%229%2F11%20commission%20report%20online%22) Got it from google. Go to town.

In this case, however, you have a bipartisan commission versus "news" sources with an agenda. Credibility is an issue.

As to the 9/11 report, here's a pdf of the thing, I believe. (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20040722_911Report.pdf#search=%229%2F11%20commission%20report%20online%22) Got it from google. Go to town.

Some of those sources hardly have a left wing agenda. Speaking of sources, where are the sources I requested to support what you are saying about the Commission?

Some of those sources hardly have a left wing agenda. Speaking of sources, where are the sources I requested to support what you are saying about the Commission?

SORRY! Got it thank you. ...cleans glasses...

Some of those sources hardly have a left wing agenda. Speaking of sources, where are the sources I requested to support what you are saying about the Commission?

My point was that the 9/11 Commission report was a bipartisan report--both major parties represented and they had to fight to get a majority finding on a lot of stuff. Compare that to an editorialist in the LA Times who had an agenda and Newsmax, which really has an agenda. Which group should be considered more credible? I know which side I pick.

Because lots of people in power have a vested interest in making it live.

Let's not forget another factor too. There are at least a thousand people who will watch a preposterous conspiracy theory about Sep 11th on an internet video to each person who will even browse through ANY of the official findings. Since so many have only been willingly exposed to a sensationalised video to form an opinion is it any wonder that they have that opinion?

I guess the moral of the story is that if the US Government wishes to effectively hide something from most citizens then it should publicly issue it in a full disclosure tome and concurrently have one of the notable documentary film makers who are en vogue at the moment construct a shrill film featureing death destruction and a radical opposing viewpoint and unapologetic fingerpointing. The fillum will debunk the books reality in perpetuity.

My point was that the 9/11 Commission report was a bipartisan report--both major parties represented and they had to fight to get a majority finding on a lot of stuff. Compare that to an editorialist in the LA Times who had an agenda and Newsmax, which really has an agenda. Which group should be considered more credible? I know which side I pick.

So, where in this 525-page report that you say exonerates Clinton of the Sudan offer is the exoneration? Also, you are picking one source (but not identifying where in that report your information is) while I have provided at least three.

So, what should people believe? One source that maybe says the Sudan never offered Bin Laden to Clinton. One source that probably said the Sudan never offered Bin Laden to Clinton? Multiple independent sources, which say, they did?

Come on Nazz, I know you can do better than that.

So, where in this 525-page report that you say exonerates Clinton of the Sudan offer is the exoneration? Also, you are picking one source (but not identifying where in that report your information is) while I have provided at least three.

So, what should people believe? One source that maybe says the Sudan never offered Bin Laden to Clinton. One source that probably said the Sudan never offered Bin Laden to Clinton? Multiple independent sources, which say, they did?

Come on Nazz, I know you can do better than that.

Well, if reading a full report is too darn tough for you, go straight to the source material:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

From Page 3:


In exchanges beginning in February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching U.S. officials, asking what they could do to ease the pressure. During the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan’s defense minister visited Washington and had a series of meetings with representatives of the U.S. government. To test Sudan’s willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence information about Bin Ladin’s contacts in Sudan.

These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen.


He wasn't offered. There WAS a discussion on whether to ASK, but because there was no credible intelligence that he had performed any criminal act, there was no legal basis on which to pursue such a request.

Sure, it's all easy AFTER 9-11 to say that they should have asked anyway. But to expect such forsight in '96 to request an end-run around the law for someone who might just have been another of a thousand or two america-hating blowhards from the Middle East is rediculous.

Well, if reading a full report is too darn tough for you, go straight to the source material:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

From Page 3:

He wasn't offered. There WAS a discussion on whether to ASK, but because there was no credible intelligence that he had performed any criminal act, there was no legal basis on which to pursue such a request.

Sure, it's all easy AFTER 9-11 to say that they should have asked anyway. But to expect such forsight in '96 to request an end-run around the law for someone who might just have been another of a thousand or two america-hating blowhards from the Middle East is rediculous.
Good job Silli. Sometimes people give up looking for the facts, if they think that by finding those facts it will result in a defeat of their agenda?

That was great. I guess Clinton knew he messed up, and thats why he was prepared to go all out on that one. Bush kicks ass!

You can see the video of the first part of the interview here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/), and it's worth watching. Clinton gets up in Wallace's grill over the questioning, and Wallace deserves it.

Clinton went off on his ass. :p

Good job Silli. Sometimes people give up looking for the facts, if they think that by finding those facts it will result in a defeat of their agenda?

I have that whole response stuck in notepad. Have had for ages now. I've had to make it too damn many times to too damn many people who never got past the initial BS spin put on that story.

It's kinda like all those people who still think that Saddam had something to do with 9-11.....

I have that whole response stuck in notepad. Have had for ages now. I've had to make it too damn many times to too damn many people who never got past the initial BS spin put on that story.

It's kinda like all those people who still think that Saddam had something to do with 9-11.....
Or that we found WMD in Iraq already and the liberal media is just hiding it from us?

Or that we found WMD in Iraq already and the liberal media is just hiding it from us?

Well they DID find Mustafa al-Bini's recipe for extra-spicy falafel...... does that count?

Well they DID find Mustafa al-Bini's recipe for extra-spicy falafel...... does that count?

Only if you count my ass as a WMD. ;)

Well they DID find Mustafa al-Bini's recipe for extra-spicy falafel...... does that count?

That would be a weapon of ASS destruction. :p

I just watched that video..Omg I <3 Silly Willy Billy Clinton even more now :D

I just watched that video..Omg I <3 Silly Willy Billy Clinton even more now :D
He does seem a bit more free to express his displeasure these days, doesn't he? :D

Democrats---take a lesson from that performance.

Only if you count my ass as a WMD. ;)
I think it only counts if you actually EAT the falafel.

I think it only counts if you actually EAT the falafel.
You don't know my ass. It channels food like that. :p

You don't know my ass. It channels food like that. :p

Well, THERE'S some information I didn't need.......... :p

You consider the LA Times http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
A bullshit paper? I'm suprised at you.
I remember when a News channel said that all cars and watches would fail on Y2K. They had always been a 'Creditable" news source. Does this mean I didn't laugh like hell when I heard it? Of course not.

I have that whole response stuck in notepad. Have had for ages now. I've had to make it too damn many times to too damn many people who never got past the initial BS spin put on that story.

It's kinda like all those people who still think that Saddam had something to do with 9-11.....
I have noticed that the Old Fart hasn't replied yet.

Perhaps he will come back and apologize to The Nazz? :rolleyes:

He does seem a bit more free to express his displeasure these days, doesn't he? :D

Democrats---take a lesson from that performance.


No kidding, the American people want someone with big cajunas to be in office(or perhaps big boobs :p if you are into female politicians )

I have noticed that the Old Fart hasn't replied yet.

Perhaps he will come back and apologize to The Nazz? :rolleyes:

Dont' hold your breath. Purple's not your colour!

Dont' hold your breath. Purple's not your colour!
No worries there.....I have seen the routine far too often...

spar, spar, jab, jab, uppercut, duck, duck, really duck, crawl to bathroom.... :D

No kidding, the American people want someone with big cajunas to be in office(or perhaps big boobs :p if you are into female politicians )
I just flashed onto that Bill Hicks bit where he's talking about the cops from the Rodney King trial. "The man with big balls is here to testify. 'Scuse me. 'Scuse me."

"I almost got him better than you almost did....... so there boogers on you "




Only in America....:rolleyes:





Oh BTW Billy Boy...the results of you ALMOST getting him?



BIG ASS HOLE in the ground where the world trade center USED to stand.....


I'd be carefull with the braggging rights..

"I almost got him better than you almost did so there "




Only in America....:rolleyes:





Oh BTW Billy Boy...the results of you ALMOST getting him?



BIG ASS HOLE in the ground where the world trade center USED to stand.....


I'd be carefull with the braggging rights..

More like--I saw the danger and tried instead of sitting on my fucking ranch in Texas and telling the guy who briefed me "Okay, you've covered your ass." In that comparison, trying and failing is a whole lot fucking better than not trying.

Clinton failed ...he " tried " and failed...... as a result we have a war in Afghanistan and Iraq and attacks in Spain , London and the United States.



That is a fact .


Your dream about the ranch thing ?

Speculation .



Withn Clinton it ws more like " I saw the danger got a nice blow job and a cigar until it went away " .

Clinton failed ...he " tried " and failed...... as a result we have a war in Afghanistan and Iraq and attacks in Spain , London and the United States.



That is a fact .


Your dream about the ranch thing ?

Speculation .



Withn Clinton it ws more like " I saw the danger got a nice blow job and a cigar until it went away " .
A dream? You only wish (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211.html).
The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

But by all means, stay in your dream world, since it's obviously more comforting to live in a place where Bush is competent and you're not cowering under your bed afraid that tehMuzlimmmssss!!!!one11!11 are going to getcha. heh heh

Nazz ..one day you will realise that not all the things people write are actually the gosh darn honest truth ! :D


But here is some REAL life truth..


Clinton DID NOT GET Usama....and he had MANY chances ...could almost touch him.


The result was 9/ 11 and a slew of other attacks and two wars .

No way to " paper" over that SIMPLE fact .


Like I said , I wouldn't go around bragging about " almost ' getting him ..when the results of ALMOST are so devastating .

Write that down .

Neither President "got him".

All this "closer" and "tried more" or "tried harder" is pussy talk for "I didn't do shit".

And that goes for Bush AND Clinton.

All I needed to see from either is:

"Bin Laden's Head In Bowling Ball Bag - DNA Confirms Identity"

But, no...

Anything else is total bullshit.

Neither President "got him".

All this "closer" and "tried more" or "tried harder" is pussy talk for "I didn't do shit".

And that goes for Bush AND Clinton.

I love the way you and Ultraextreme Sanity (a misnomer if ever there were one) try to make an equivalence between "tried and missed" and "didn't do shit and we've got three big smoking craters" as though they're the same thing. If Bush had also tried and missed, I'd give him a lot more of a pass on 9/11 and the subsequent actions, but he didn't, and you can try to equivocate all you want and act as though the actions are the same, but it's bullshit to do that, and you know it.

I love the way you and Ultraextreme Sanity (a misnomer if ever there were one) try to make an equivalence between "tried and missed" and "didn't do shit and we've got three big smoking craters" as though they're the same thing. If Bush had also tried and missed, I'd give him a lot more of a pass on 9/11 and the subsequent actions, but he didn't, and you can try to equivocate all you want and act as though the actions are the same, but it's bullshit to do that, and you know it.

And I can quote the 9/11 report that says Sandy Berger said "No" in writing to a request for permission to kill bin Laden.

See how that works?

And I can quote the 9/11 report that says Sandy Berger said "No" in writing to a request for permission to kill bin Laden.

See how that works?

And to do that, you'd have to ignore that Clinton gave order to kill Bin Laden. Clinton trumps Berger, I believe. Face it, your boy Bush sat on his ass as far as Bin Laden was concerned because he wanted Iraq. al Qaeda was not a priority for him until 9/11, and it ceased to be a priority for him about a week later, when he and his cabinet saw a chance to turn this into an Iraq invasion.

and the Frenchies got closer to win the football cup than the Germans. Still, Italy's got it and France didn't.

PO-PO-PO-POPOPO-PO!
Ciao ciao Zidane!

No, he was to busy trying to explain what is is and denying oral sex is sex. :eek:
Oral sex isn't sex.

Oral sex isn't sex.
Well, I think it is, but that's not what Clinton claimed. He claimed oral sex wasn't sexual relations, and while the semantic difference may seem negligible, there is a legitimate argument that sexual relations means intercourse, and so he wasn't technically lying. His intent, however, was obviously to deceive.

You mean you're Bush?

Don't you mean Cheney? :p

And to do that, you'd have to ignore that Clinton gave order to kill Bin Laden. Clinton trumps Berger, I believe. Face it, your boy Bush sat on his ass as far as Bin Laden was concerned because he wanted Iraq. al Qaeda was not a priority for him until 9/11, and it ceased to be a priority for him about a week later, when he and his cabinet saw a chance to turn this into an Iraq invasion.

Face it, "almost" only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes.

Face it, "almost" only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes.

lol, you sound like my grandma. That's what she always says. :p

Face it, "almost" only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude. :rolleyes:

Face it, "almost" only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes.

The point being, Berger fucked up, not Clinton.

Clinton went off on his ass. :p

I would have to.

And to do that, you'd have to ignore that Clinton gave order to kill Bin Laden. Clinton trumps Berger, I believe. Face it, your boy Bush sat on his ass as far as Bin Laden was concerned because he wanted Iraq. al Qaeda was not a priority for him until 9/11, and it ceased to be a priority for him about a week later, when he and his cabinet saw a chance to turn this into an Iraq invasion.

America seems similar to a crack addict in it's addiction to oil.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/



Oh, how I wish it had been carried out.
If they had have killed Bin Laden, then they would have found some other arab terrorist as a patsy for 911. *zips up flamesuit*

I wish we could make him Emperor of the US.

you have to be kidding, klintoon is the dominant cause of 9/11

yeah he admits he failed on ossama, but what good did he do? - 8 years of nonaction created iraq/afganistan by another president that was handed the problem

klintoon and hildabeast are professional power grabbers with only self agrandizement as the motive

YMMV

you have to be kidding, klintoon is the dominant cause of 9/11

yeah he admits he failed on ossama, but what good did he do? - 8 years of nonaction created iraq/afganistan by another president that was handed the problem

klintoon and hildabeast are professional power grabbers with only self agrandizement as the motive

YMMV

You know, if there were the slightest chance you'd be able to carry on a serious discussion about this...

Yes he didn't, and he didn't take Bin Laden twice when offered him. :(

The 9/11 report disagrees with you as do the NIE reports. But keep regurgitating Rush limbaugh's greatest hits.

I love the revisionism wrt to Clinton.

People who then whined that his attempt to kill Osama was a stage show to take the news focus away from the Star inquiry who now say "but why didn't you keep at it?" you know, people like the republican-controlled house who could strangle government spending to make a point....

People who now whine "Why didn't he retaliate for the Cole?" who conveniently forget that a) it was not firmly traced back to al qaeda until after his term was ended, and b) completely also forget the testimony of THIS administration with regards to that issue:


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html


RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. … We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn’t want to respond tit-for-tat. …Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists — they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them — and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.


At least Clinton is willing to talk frankly about his mistakes. All Republicans seem capable of doing is blaming everyone else for theirs, not to mention totally misrepresenting their past.

Yes Clinton tried, and with as much firepower as the Congress at the time would allow him. But it was THEM focused on his penis back then. It was them whining that he was too obsessed with Osama, and that he needed to worry more about his penis. And it was them who didn't want to hear from Richard Clarke's team about the threat after they took power.

Both Bush AND Clinton failed ot get OSama before 9-11. But then again, only one of them actually tried which is more than the other can say. And had 9-11 happened on Clinton's watch you can bet he'd have finished the job first, and not got sidetracked putting 80% of his resources into an unneccessary war.

I don't give Clinton a pass. He DID after all fail - including failing to properly convince Republicans as to why it needed to be a priority.

But their rush to claim perfect 20-20 hindsight and blame Billy because they were to stupid to understand the threat back then is pretty f-ing laughable.

You consider the LA Times http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
A bullshit paper? I'm suprised at you.

I take 9/11 report over any paper. Thanks for nothing asshat.

Then reality hits ..a small monority ran around raising the alarm about Al Queda and Bin Laden ..the VAST Majoity on both sides and of all flavors dismissed him as JUST ANOTHER RAG HEAD TERRORIST .

Freeh wrote in his book that he couldn't get Clinton to call the saudis to get the FBI to be let in interogations about bombings..pragmatism and politics as usual..JUST like every other administration BEFORE 9/11 ..

That is the way terrorism was handled ...Go down the list from 1976 to 2001.

Why do we insist on fooling ourselves ?

NO ONE DID OR WOULD HAVE DONE ANYMORE OR LESS THAN CLINTON ..or so past history suggest...he just had the last and best shot and in hindsite ..

IM HINDSITE...he screwed up the oppurtunity .

He's no hero nor a goat ..just a patsi to be used by the political machine and the idiots that like to reinvent history every few hours or so .

Its all well and good to be able to quote on the fingers of both hands the people sounding the alarm ...but you would need a city full of fingers and hands and some feet to count all those who were on the other side of the argument .

This is just more unproductive bullshit .

The truth is we blew it . we slept through the alarm clock and only woke up when the building fell down ..now we are running around closing all the doors after the horses got out .


Ta- ta ...back to work for me ...

Would you care to debunk this source? http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml

Or this one? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

Shall I continue, or are all of these and the LA Times disreputable?

Do you know who owns and runs newsmax.com? And sudan.net? Please, 9/11 report trumps them all. Ha, Newsmax.com. Have you hear the term "echo chamber?" It means multiple sources/people with the same objective spouting the same wrong info. Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, etc. Wow, you really fall for all of the propoganda don't you? Please find for us in the 9/11 report where it said this happened. You know the people who got to look at all the classified info and interview EVERYONE. Then I'll believe you. Otherwise, go sell yout tripe to some other troll. :mp5:
:headbang:

Yes, and sometimes multiple sources are right and a single source is wrong. The sword can cut both ways. :eek:

I'll have to go home and thumb it up, but I believe that's exactly where it is. The exact words are "there was no evidence to suggest this incident occured" (referring to the reports of Clinton being offered Bin Laden):mp5:

Some of those sources hardly have a left wing agenda. Speaking of sources, where are the sources I requested to support what you are saying about the Commission?

it's right in the link you copied

Well, if reading a full report is too darn tough for you, go straight to the source material:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

From Page 3:



He wasn't offered. There WAS a discussion on whether to ASK, but because there was no credible intelligence that he had performed any criminal act, there was no legal basis on which to pursue such a request.

Sure, it's all easy AFTER 9-11 to say that they should have asked anyway. But to expect such forsight in '96 to request an end-run around the law for someone who might just have been another of a thousand or two america-hating blowhards from the Middle East is rediculous.

Reas the report Newsmax boy

Nazz ..one day you will realise that not all the things people write are actually the gosh darn honest truth ! :D


But here is some REAL life truth..


Clinton DID NOT GET Usama....and he had MANY chances ...could almost touch him.


The result was 9/ 11 and a slew of other attacks and two wars .

No way to " paper" over that SIMPLE fact .


Like I said , I wouldn't go around bragging about " almost ' getting him ..when the results of ALMOST are so devastating .

Write that down .

Listen, chuzzlewit, until you can cite chapter and verse from ANY source that confirms your twisted version of reality, I suggest you blow it out your anus. I'm sick to the teeth of you looking square at facts and saying "nope" without so much as a shred of evidence to back yourself up.

You're done, son.

Yeah, he authorized a regime change in Iraq, too. We see how well that went.

I take 9/11 report over any paper. Thanks for nothing asshat.

One politically motivated account vs another. It's hard to say that either is objective, isn't it?

What is funny is that everyone is taking an either or stance with this.

Did Clinton have opportunities to get Osama short of war? Maybe, the 911 report says he wasn't offered, but maybe Clinton should have gone after him. However, Bush didn't either before 911. In any case, it doesn't change the fact that this interview is political manuevering by Clinton. She is seen as too weak and so he steps in to be the firm one. Thereby creating a Hillary that the middle likes because she is being moderate but the extreme left likes because she is married to Bill...they are thinking of both the primaries and the elections. Based on some of the comments on here it seems to be working.

Yeah, he authorized a regime change in Iraq, too. We see how well that went.

Come on, now, Myrmidonisia. Do you honestly think that if Clinton had really decided to go into Iraq--as if he could have with the Congress he was dealing with at the time, who for all their bluster wouldn't have made Clinton a war president for anything--he'd have done it in as unilateral and slipshod a manner as these guys have? Be honest.

If Clinton was good at anything, he was good at rigging the game so he got the results he wanted. He did it with the federal budget. He did it with welfare reform. He did it with Kosovo. So why would an Iraq invasion--assuming he'd have wanted it--have been any different?

Besides, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to pin the shittiness of the Iraq War on Clinton, and we all know you wouldn't do somehing that dishonest, right?

You know, if there were the slightest chance you'd be able to carry on a serious discussion about this...
Methinks that you are asking too much!!

Come on, now, Myrmidonisia. Do you honestly think that if Clinton had really decided to go into Iraq--as if he could have with the Congress he was dealing with at the time, who for all their bluster wouldn't have made Clinton a war president for anything--he'd have done it in as unilateral and slipshod a manner as these guys have? Be honest.

If Clinton was good at anything, he was good at rigging the game so he got the results he wanted. He did it with the federal budget. He did it with welfare reform. He did it with Kosovo. So why would an Iraq invasion--assuming he'd have wanted it--have been any different?

Besides, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to pin the shittiness of the Iraq War on Clinton, and we all know you wouldn't do somehing that dishonest, right?
Clinton is a shameless opportunist. He would do, as you state, whatever would serve his purposes. Kosovo was a low cost, high benefit action. He didn't have to risk troops. Just like the cruise missiles that "almost" got Bin Laden.

That not withstanding, the Iraqi Liberation Act did call for exactly the action that was taken by President Bush. Hindsight is great, but I do believe that if Clinton had considered this law to be more than eyewash, we may have had an entirely different relationship with Iraq, the U.N. and the rest of the world. I also believe that the repeated attacks that we suffered from Al-Quaida during the '90s would not have happened.

Is Clinton to blame for the mess we're in now? Maybe a little, but it's because of inaction, rather than the wrong action.

Clinton is a shameless opportunist. He would do, as you state, whatever would serve his purposes. Kosovo was a low cost, high benefit action. He didn't have to risk troops. Just like the cruise missiles that "almost" got Bin Laden.

That not withstanding, the Iraqi Liberation Act did call for exactly the action that was taken by President Bush. Hindsight is great, but I do believe that if Clinton had considered this law to be more than eyewash, we may have had an entirely different relationship with Iraq, the U.N. and the rest of the world. I also believe that the repeated attacks that we suffered from Al-Quaida during the '90s would not have happened.

Is Clinton to blame for the mess we're in now? Maybe a little, but it's because of inaction, rather than the wrong action.
Methinks that you sell Clinton too short. Perhaps you did not watch him in action?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/

Clinton was a far better President then the warmonger currently in office.

Sorry.

When I was in the Army, you couldn't count an official kill unless it was witnessed by an officer or senior NCO AND you were subsequently able to step o the body.

Anything else, no matter how close your shot came to killing the target, didn't count for shit.

Unless you turned them into a "step on", you didn't do anything that day.

Neither President has turned Osama into a "step on".

Saying that one President has done more to try to kill Osama than another is complete and utter bullshit - super dickwaving.

Do we have a witnessed kill, and a body to step on? No.

So IMHO, nothing has been done.

Sorry.

When I was in the Army, you couldn't count an official kill unless it was witnessed by an officer or senior NCO AND you were subsequently able to step o the body.

Anything else, no matter how close your shot came to killing the target, didn't count for shit.


He still was closer then dear ol shrubby.


Saying that one President has done more to try to kill Osama than another is complete and utter bullshit - super dickwaving.

Kind of like shrubby talking about bringing democracy in Iraq eh?

Saying that you were closer to killing to one person is the same as saying you were closer to winning than the other guy. It doesn't really matter unless you actually killed the guy and you actually won.

As they say, close only counts in horsehoes and hand grenades.

He still was closer then dear ol shrubby.

Kind of like shrubby talking about bringing democracy in Iraq eh?

It's in the 9/11 Commission Report, in black and white. Sandy Berger got to stop the military and CIA from killing Osama, when they asked for permission. He wrote, "No" in the margins of the document which held the request.

Clinton never overrode that. So it stood.

They had their chance, and refused it. In black and white.

Sorry.

When I was in the Army, you couldn't count an official kill unless it was witnessed by an officer or senior NCO AND you were subsequently able to step o the body.

Anything else, no matter how close your shot came to killing the target, didn't count for shit.

Unless you turned them into a "step on", you didn't do anything that day.

Neither President has turned Osama into a "step on".

Saying that one President has done more to try to kill Osama than another is complete and utter bullshit - super dickwaving.

Do we have a witnessed kill, and a body to step on? No.

So IMHO, nothing has been done.
However, we must remember Bush's comments:

"We'll smoke him out of his cave and we'll get him eventually,"

And many more:

Bush Quotes about Bin Laden (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html)

Especially this one:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

However, we must remember Bush's comments:

And many more:

Bush Quotes about Bin Laden (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html)

Especially this one:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

And we must remember Sandy Berger's written denial of permission to kill Bin Laden. It's in the 9/11 Commission Report, and this denial was never overridden by Clinton. Evidently, Clinton trusted Sandy to say no for him.

He still was closer then dear ol shrubby.

Kind of like shrubby talking about bringing democracy in Iraq eh?
What he really meant to say was theocracy. With closer ties to Iran of course.

It's in the 9/11 Commission Report, in black and white. Sandy Berger got to stop the military and CIA from killing Osama, when they asked for permission. He wrote, "No" in the margins of the document which held the request.

Clinton never overrode that. So it stood.

They had their chance, and refused it. In black and white.

I never read the 9/11 commision report in full. After a couple pages it mentioned they did not have access to the Presidential Daily Briefs due to "national security" so the report is questionable.....

And we must remember Sandy Berger's written denial of permission to kill Bin Laden. It's in the 9/11 Commission Report, and this denial was never overridden by Clinton. Evidently, Clinton trusted Sandy to say no for him.
Didn't Silli debunk this a few pages back?

I heard after the interview was over Clinton gave Wallace a wedgie and took his lunch money.

No, he was to busy trying to explain what is is and denying oral sex is sex. :eek:

He wouldn't have had to waste time on that if the Republican slander machine wasn't working day and night to destroy his presidency.

Well, they did accuse him of overhyping the terror threat from 1996 onward, and when he tried to go after Bin Laden, was often accused of wagging the dog. Or don't you remember that bit of the story?

Don't worry. Clinton will remind you.

God damn straight. Clinton couldn't do a damn thing without the "wag the dog" comparison being brought out by his political enemies. Too bad that movie came out during his presidency and not just before the Iraq war.

He wouldn't have had to waste time on that if the Republican slander machine wasn't working day and night to destroy his presidency.

That was my point too. They (the republicans) did nothing for this country at that time, except waste time and and tax payer money, in order to stir partisan bullshit.

well klintoon is still a sociopath and self agrandizing butthole

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_play_it_as_it_lie.html

September 25, 2006
Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more - and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency - rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security. Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.

**********

Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.

Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.

Talk and compromise - not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them - were the hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything - just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.

Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.

The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat - on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East - and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to Intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.

President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism - and meant it.

**********

Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.
Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press).

© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

thus he still is a shithead

Clinton was a far better President then the warmonger currently in office.

Which isn't saying much.

well klintoon is still a sociopath and self agrandizing butthole

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_play_it_as_it_lie.html

September 25, 2006
Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass


thus he still is a shithead
Obviously Ronald A. Cass has an axe to grind. His invective towards Clinton destroys any arguments that he makes.

Is this the same Ronald A. Cass who was:

Former Vice-Chairman of the US International Trade Commission
(Appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Commissioner of the ITC; appointed Vice-Chairman by President George H.W. Bush)

Did he lose his job when Clinton took office?

Clinton would chew this guy up in a debate, much worse than the poor schmuck from Fox who lit a fire under Clinton on TV.

Try a little harder Jwp-serbu. :p

Which isn't saying much.
Clinton and Bush are light years apart. I would take Nixon over Bush any day.

Clinton and Bush are light years apart. I would take Nixon over Bush any day.

I'm not so sure. They're both terrible.

Wolfowitz once took offense that Richard Clarke compared Bin Laden to Adolf Hitler circa early 2001.

I wonder what Wolfowitz thinks about Bush and the gang drawing up those analogies today.

I'm not so sure. They're both terrible.

amen

Obviously Ronald A. Cass has an axe to grind. His invective towards Clinton destroys any arguments that he makes.

Is this the same Ronald A. Cass who was:

Former Vice-Chairman of the US International Trade Commission
(Appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Commissioner of the ITC; appointed Vice-Chairman by President George H.W. Bush)

Did he lose his job when Clinton took office?

Clinton would chew this guy up in a debate, much worse than the poor schmuck from Fox who lit a fire under Clinton on TV.

Try a little harder Jwp-serbu. :p


well don't believe the truth - klintoon had chances he blew or had chances he allowed to go by, trying to run the project a a "police" response vs a "war" lead to 9/11 - bush isn't lillt white either, but billery sucked as copresidents and later klintoon sucked for real as the blue dress showed lol

his legacy will suffer for his inaction/leading by polling/and general character flaws - too bad, so sad

*Snip*
HaHahaha thats a good one!

I'm glad Wallace had the gonads to ask the tough questions. I'm gooing to watch the entire interview on Fox (FNC) at 6 PM eastern tonight. The interview should make some good cannon fodder for this forum.

Let's see, Osama still hasn't been captured.

So...

Bill Clinton-didn't take Osama down. He didn't do enough.
Bush-hasn't gotten Osama. He hasn't done enough.

Thus, Bush has done nothing more than Clinton to capture Osama.

By the kind of rationale being used.

Of course, it is forgotten about how difficult it can be to get around international and even home politics.

amen

Actually, Nixon did a great deal to help this country, economically, environmentally, and in terms of foreign trade. Had Watergate not happened, he may very well could have been in the top-10 presidents of all times. Of course, doing some good things does not make it alright to do what he did, but still he wasn't TERRIBLE. Far better than Bush. By far.

Actually, Nixon did a great deal to help this country, economically, environmentally, and in terms of foreign trade. Had Watergate not happened, he may very well could have been in the top-10 presidents of all times. Of course, doing some good things does not make it alright to do what he did, but still he wasn't TERRIBLE. Far better than Bush. By far.

I would tend to agree. Nixon was one of the better Republican presidents in modern history. Corrupt but not all that bad in terms of policy. To put things into perspective, it was a Democrat that started the Vietnam War and it was a Republican that ended it.

I acknowledge Nxon's "Silent Majority" speech in 1969, as one of the greatest speeches of American history, even though I totally disagree with basically everything he said.

As far as Nixon being better than Bush... I can think of roughly 40 presidents that are better than Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/

Oh, how I wish it had been carried out.

There's a vast difference between going after Bin Laden ( or ANY terrorist, for that matter ) and blowing up a camel's ass. :rolleyes:

There's a vast difference between going after Bin Laden ( or ANY terrorist, for that matter ) and blowing up a camel's ass. :rolleyes:

I guess I'm still not all that sure why Clinton's failures to combat terrorists are something to brag about, while Bush's seem to be something to be ashamed of. At least, that's the way it appears to both Mr and Mrs Clinton. Why is that?

I guess I'm still not all that sure why Clinton's failures to combat terrorists are something to brag about, while Bush's seem to be something to be ashamed of. At least, that's the way it appears to both Mr and Mrs Clinton. Why is that?

The reasons for this are so painfully obvious that it makes me look dumb by writing a few of them down.

1. Bush ignored Bin Laden when Clinton's advisors had prepared the new administration that he should be the number one priority.
2. The plan Bush used for invading Afganistan was drawn up under Clinton's presidency on his orders and wasn't put into plan eariler because Clinton could not get the military action approved by the Pentagon, CIA, etc. September 11 changed all that.
3. By attacking Iraq Bush is seriously undermining the war on terror and mixing extreme and amoral neconservative foreign policy with clear focused and real objectives.

Obviously Ronald A. Cass has an axe to grind. His invective towards Clinton destroys any arguments that he makes.


I think the fact that he's lying does that.

"Anti-factual remarks?"

I've said it before. When a conservative accuses anyone else of lying what they mean is "statements that disagree with the Republican party line and are merely in accordance with objective reality."

I think the fact that he's lying does that.

"Anti-factual remarks?"

I've said it before. When a conservative accuses anyone else of lying what they mean is "statements that disagree with the Republican party line and are merely in accordance with objective reality."

The world is in a precarious edge when a satirical remark by Stephen Colbert mutates into a daily fact of life.