9/11 was Clinton's fault

[Secretariat]

Though the article is from the Dem Underground, the writer William Pitt writes for truthout.org.

It goes into a lot of stuff I was unaware of. Worth the read.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/84

"DATA DUMP: "9/11 was Clinton's fault"
Posted by WilliamPitt in General Discussion
Thu Aug 24th 2006, 01:34 PM

The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders."

[sq764]

Sec, just one quick question.. When Clinton was offered bin laden by Sudan (a fact that Clinton himself admitted), why did he not take the offer?

[Lefty]

Didn't say a word about the "wall" that prevented diff agencies from sharing info.
And the last couple sentences talks about the criminal activity of Enron, yet didn't explain why Clinton didn't expose them and put a stop to their "criminal" activities.

[BenDiesel26]

after the 1995 terror plot to blow up planes in the phillipines was thwarted by ACCIDENT.

Clinton Warned on Bin Laden Hijack-Kamikaze Plot (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/686689/posts)
Newsmax ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.newsmax.com) | 5/16/02 | Newsmax


Posted on 05/20/2002 6:46:48 PM PDT by OPS4 (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Eops4/)


Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:48 a.m. EDT Clinton Warned on Bin Laden Hijack-Kamikaze Plot



If you don't recall seeing the blaring post-Sept. 11 headline "Clinton Warned on Bin Laden Hijack-Kamikaze Plot," it's not because your memory is failing. In fact, the big media mostly ignored the story - in marked contrast to today's wall-to-wall coverage of news that President Bush received a pre-Sept. 11 CIA briefing on a possible bin Laden hijack plot.



And while the warning transmitted to Bush gave no inkling that bin Laden planned to transform U.S. airliners into flying bombs and slam them into American office buildings, Clinton administration intelligence officials were in fact in possession of detailed information on an al Qaeda conspiracy to hijack several U.S. airliners - including a plan to crash one of the planes into the Pentagon or CIA.



It was called "Operation Bojinka," a 1995 plot hatched by an al Qaeda cell in the Philippines with an eye toward blowing up 12 American airliners. Some would be booby-trapped with bombs, like Pan Am 103, others hijacked like the four U.S. jets commandeered on 9-11 and crashed into buildings.



Though the mainstream press never demonstrated much enthusiasm for the story, Accuracy in Media's Reed Irvine detailed what the Clinton administration knew - and when it knew it - for NewsMax.com last October.



Citing a Sept. 13 Agence France-Presse report, Irvine noted that Philippine Police Chief Superintendent Avelino Razon had uncovered the plot to "plant bombs in U.S. airliners and hijack others to crash them into buildings like the CIA headquarters." "Razon said [the plot] was found on the computer of Ramzi Yousef, the organizer of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center," Irvine reported. "He had fled to Pakistan, but his laptop was found in the apartment he shared with his accomplice, Abdul Hakim Murad. Razon said both were agents of Osama bin Laden."



A later Agence France-Press report noted: "Among targets mentioned [in Yousef's computer files] was the World Trade Center in New York ... CIA offices in Virginia and the Sears Tower in Chicago."



Picking up where Irvine left off, the Washington Post quoted a Filipino investigator who said that as he watched the attack on the World Trade Center on television, he exclaimed in horror, "It's Bojinka. We told the Americans everything about Bojinka. Why didn't they pay attention?"



Razon told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that after the the Philippine intelligence report was compiled in 1995, it was passed on to the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. Joint Task Force on Terrorism.



But, he complained, "It was not given credibility. Otherwise, it could have prevented the destruction of the World Trade Center."

The Clinton FBI was in full possession of all the frightening facts on Bojinka, but did nothing. Instead, as Reed Irvine revealed, the bureau assured Congress that everything was under control.



"In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on terrorism in February 1998, 'Bojinka' - which means 'big bang' - was described by Dale L. Watson, chief of the International Terrorism Operations Section of the FBI, only as a plot to blow up 'numerous U.S. air carriers.'



"He said that the FBI had identified 'a significant and growing organizational presence' of foreign terrorists in the United States. He swore the bureau had them under control."



The Clinton FBI counterintelligence chief told the Senate that as a result of the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, the FBI had developed an 'enhanced capability' to track terrorist activities.



Is it likely that U.S. intelligence possessed this much information on al-Qaeda plans to slam planes into U.S. buildings - and didn't tell President Clinton? Actually it is, if you believe the account of his former CIA Director James Woolsey, who said Clinton never bothered to meet with him during his stint as the nation's intelligence chief. What about other administration officials, like Attorney General Janet Reno, who certainly should have known about Bojinka?



There Clinton may also have an alibi. During all of 1998 - the same year FBI counterintelligence briefed Congress on the al-Qaeda hijack plot - Clinton met with his Cabinet exactly twice: once in January to lie to them about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and again in August to come clean about the affair.

[BenDiesel26]

Believe this was supposed to say 2000, but this would have been before GW ever took office.



BOMBAY TERRORIST WAS STILL PLANNING PLANE ATTACKS FOR NOVEMBER (http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/587874/posts)
Wall Street Journal via Rediff.com ^ (http://209.157.64.200/%5Ehttp://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=95001580) | Monday December 10, 2001 | James Taranto


Posted on 12/10/2001 9:08:36 PM PST by umbra (http://209.157.64.200/%7Eumbra/)
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:03:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history (http://209.157.64.200/perl/FORUM/THREAD/thread-history?thread_id=587874)]



Rediff.com reports that Mohammad Afroz, an alleged terrorist conspirator being held in India, has told Bombay police that the attacks were planned for 367 days earlier--Sept. 9, 2001--and that 'Islamic militants had planned to strike simultaneously in India, US, United Kingdom and Australia.'

[JustRalph]

If Clinton did so much.........what did Sandy Berger think was so important, that he had to steal documents to protect Clinton?

more bullshit from the Left.

[BenDiesel26]

Forgot about that one. Hmmmmm. Is someone trying to hide something?

Berger (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/01/national/w111624S64.DTL)

[BenDiesel26]

More reading, why was nothing done?

Operation Bojinka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka)

[rastajenk]

If it was posted at Dhimmi Underground, it must be true. :rolleyes:

In moments of weakness, I almost want Dems to regain control of things in 2008 so I can watch all the pinheads pop when they continue doing the same kinds of things the current administration is doing now: electronic surveillance, banking investigations, black ops, etc. Oh, maybe we won't hear about them then, in the interest of national security. That's what the article says: "terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently." Just think how different the world would be today if Clinton had an active blogosphere then fact-checking the media, not just the Drudge Report.

[sq764]

I must have missed the reply to my simple question.. Please post the reply again, I would greatly appreciate it.

(Here's the question again just in case you forgot)

When Clinton was offered bin laden by Sudan (a fact that Clinton himself admitted), why did he not take the offer?

[Secretariat]

I must have missed the reply to my simple question.. Please post the reply again, I would greatly appreciate it.

(Here's the question again just in case you forgot)

When Clinton was offered bin laden by Sudan (a fact that Clinton himself admitted), why did he not take the offer?

Because there was no offer. Apparently Hannity screwed up his facts again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:58pm EST

Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002.

While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Besides Whitewater and Monicagate, Clinton spent time going after the bad guys- remember his Somalia rescue efforts, In Bosnia bombing the Chinese embassy, Elian Gonzales, Waco, Haiti? I'm not too sure about him helping out troops, or protecting non-combatants, but he proved he knew how to use the Fed SWAT teams to win wars against children!LOL!! Go after Bin Laden? Go after Mulosovich? Real war crimials and terrorists? Who, Clinton? LOL!!

[kenwoodallpromos]

Clinton thought one bombing would put others back into the stone age- Bush is rebuilding them back into the stione age!LOL!!

[JustRalph]

I saw the Holy Prince of Saudi somebody on CBS and he said with his own mouth that Clinton passed on Bin Laden twice.

[sq764]

Because there was no offer. Apparently Hannity screwed up his facts again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:58pm EST

Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002.

While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.
You're bordering on pathetic anymore.. Hannity didn't start this 'claim'.. It was widely printed in the Washington Post..

[sq764]

Because there was no offer. Apparently Hannity screwed up his facts again.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

Fri, Jul 23, 2004 12:58pm EST

Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002.

While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.
Do you think bin laden was linked to or behind the 1993 WTC bombing?

[Secretariat]

You're bordering on pathetic anymore.. Hannity didn't start this 'claim'.. It was widely printed in the Washington Post..

Lighten up. Media matters has debunked the article, and Clinton's comment to 60 minutes which media matters quotes should end the matter, "There was a story which is factually inaccurate that the Sudanese offered bin Laden to us. ... As far as I know, there is not a shred of evidence of that."

Why do you continue to propagate this type of stuff ? Hannity stated he has a tape proving it, but has never played it. Clinton on 60 minutes denied it, Richard Clarke denied it on page 142 of his book. It is what you would like to have happened. I read the Post article, and it is filled with a lot of suppositions that the Saudis wouldn't accept Bin Laden, and Bin Laden couldn't be tried for WTC bombing 1, etc.. The bottom line is hannity has no proof or he would have aired it long ago. Clinton denies it.

Read the whole article.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

As to Bin Laden being linked to the WTC in 93, I think he ws associated with it, but the successful prosecution of the Blind shiek who is still in prison did not find enough evidence to prosecute Bin laden. Bin Laden was embraced by the previous Republican administrations (Bush and Reagan) and it would have been difficult to get the Republican members of Congress to go after someone who had helped fight the Soviet threat in Afghanistan. Besides the Bin Laden family was influential in Saudi Arabia.

Since I've answered two of your questions, I'm entitle to ask you one. Why did GW allow the Bin Laden family members to leave after 911, especially in lieu of this from the Sidney Herald?

"The Sydney Morning Herald
US agents told: Back off bin Ladens

US special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, it was reported today.

And the BBC2's Newsnight program also said the younger George Bush made his first million 20 years ago with an oil company partly funded by the chief US representative of Salem bin Laden, Osama's brother, who took over as head of the family after his father Mohammed's death in a plane crash in 1968.

The program said it had secret documents from the FBI investigation into the terror attacks on New York and Washington which showed that despite the myth that Osama is the black sheep of the family, at least two other American-based members of it are suspected of links with a possible terrorist organisation.

The program said it had obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of bin Laden family members living in the US after, and even before, September 11.

A document showed that special agents from the Washington field office were investigating Abdullah, a close relative of Osama, because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation, it said.

The program said it had found where he used to live with another close relative, Omar, also an FBI suspect, in Falls Church, Virginia, a suburb of Washington. The house was conveniently close to WAMY, it said, and just a couple of blocks down the road was a place listed by four of the alleged hijackers as their address.

The US Treasury has not frozen WAMY's assets, and insists it is a charity, the program said, yet Pakistan had expelled WAMY "operatives" and India claimed WAMY was funding an organisation linked to bombings in Kashmir.

The FBI did look into WAMY, but for some reason agents were pulled off the trail, it said.

The program has uncovered a long history of shadowy connections between the State Department, the CIA and the Saudis, it said."

[Lefty]

sec, I'm pretty sure Hannity has played the tape and i'm pretty sure Clinton gave some crappy answe like he didn't think he could hold bin ladin because he hadn't committed a crime in the U.S. Methinks Clinton is the liar.

[JustRalph]

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

[sq764]

As to Bin Laden being linked to the WTC in 93, I think he ws associated with it, but the successful prosecution of the Blind shiek who is still in prison did not find enough evidence to prosecute Bin laden. Bin Laden was embraced by the previous Republican administrations (Bush and Reagan) and it would have been difficult to get the Republican members of Congress to go after someone who had helped fight the Soviet threat in Afghanistan. Besides the Bin Laden family was influential in Saudi Arabia.
s father Mohammed's death in a plane crash in 1968.

Clinton said that the only reason he did not take the offer for bin laden was because 'as of 1996 he had not committed any crimes against the US'..

Was he getting bj's all through 1993, to the point that he forgot about the WTC??

[Tom]

Clinton said that the only reason he did not take the offer for bin laden was because 'as of 1996 he had not committed any crimes against the US'..

Was he getting bj's all through 1993, to the point that he forgot about the WTC??

He had his mind on another "tower!"

[boxcar]

You're bordering on pathetic anymore.. Hannity didn't start this 'claim'.. It was widely printed in the Washington Post..

This fact doesn't help your argument much. Liberal rags are are notorious for lying and distorting by commission and omission. :D

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Read the media matters post earlier in the thread, or the snopes post and draw your own conclusions.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

I don't expect to change your viewpoints

[Lefty]

sec, i for one won't change my viewpoing when I heard Clinton himself say he turned down Bin Ladin. Who am I to blve, Snopes, or my lying ears?

[Tom]

This from snopes: "(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)"

Duh!
I knew the minute I saw it on TV who did it. I don't think anyone had any doubts who did it. The apporriate response would have been total war - an attack on a US ship demands it.
Perhaps we could have ended OBL and AQ then and there, if Clinton only had the balls Monica had!

[Secretariat]

This from snopes: "(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)"

Duh!
I knew the minute I saw it on TV who did it. I don't think anyone had any doubts who did it. The apporriate response would have been total war - an attack on a US ship demands it.
Perhaps we could have ended OBL and AQ then and there, if Clinton only had the balls Monica had!


Tom, thanks for reading snopes.

The CIA did not confirm until January. I realize you knew it was OBL immediately, but the CIA wasn't as sure as you. Weren't you also convinced Saddam had WMD's that threatened US security?

Also, once the CIA confirmed in January why didn't GW go after Bin Laden at that time?

And how could one be courting the Taliban for oil rights at the same time you're launching all out war against them?

[Tom]

Me and everyone else.
To date, no one has proved he did not.
Not finding them doesn't mean they were not there and are now in , say, Syria?

And did you entertain the idea that Bush might have been trying just what you libs are always demanding - talking to the enemy? Attacking som ecountry the first month in office might not be the wisest thing to do. Like I said before, he had a 9 month window - Clinton had an 8 yea window, with almost attacks of the month to remind him. I sw a whole timeline on snops.com - you should go there, there is good info there you might want to consider.:p

Do you know that part of the deal wasn't them turning over Bin Laden?
As Kenny Mane says, "Of course not. You have no idea!"

[sq764]

Tom, thanks for reading snopes.

The CIA did not confirm until January. I realize you knew it was OBL immediately, but the CIA wasn't as sure as you. Weren't you also convinced Saddam had WMD's that threatened US security?

Also, once the CIA confirmed in January why didn't GW go after Bin Laden at that time?

And how could one be courting the Taliban for oil rights at the same time you're launching all out war against them?
Does it kill you to just step back for a second and say "Yes, Clinton F-ed up bigtime and put this country in a very vulnerable position by not responding to terrorist threats and actions accordingly"???

At the very least, be honest with yourself and say that, before you give everyone the usual "...but George Bush didn't...." or "..but why didn't Bush..."

[Secretariat]

Does it kill you to just step back for a second and say "Yes, Clinton F-ed up bigtime and put this country in a very vulnerable position by not responding to terrorist threats and actions accordingly"???

At the very least, be honest with yourself and say that, before you give everyone the usual "...but George Bush didn't...." or "..but why didn't Bush..."

Does it kill you to just step back for a second and say "Yes, Bush F-ed up bigtime and put this country in a very vulnerable position by not responding to terrorist threats and actions accordingly"???

At the very least, be honest with yourself and say that, before you give everyone the usual "...but Bill Clinton didn't...." or "..but why didn't Clinton..."

[Secretariat]

Me and everyone else.
To date, no one has proved he did not.
Not finding them doesn't mean they were not there and are now in , say, Syria?

His own inspectors have proved they are not there. No satellite images have been claimed by the admisntration of transporting them there. No intelligence has revealed they are there. If it did, GW would have been in Syria long ago.


And did you entertain the idea that Bush might have been trying just what you libs are always demanding - talking to the enemy?

I thought he didn't neogitate with terrorists.


Attacking som ecountry the first month in office might not be the wisest thing to do.

But according to you the wisest thing to do by Clinton was to attack Afganistan in his last month in office even though the CIA had not confirmed it was Bin Laden behind the Cole?


Like I said before, he had a 9 month window - Clinton had an 8 yea window, with almost attacks of the month to remind him.

Again, Tom, using your logic, there were no foreign terorrist attacks on the fifty states after the first WTC attack through Clinton's entire administration. Personally, that does not represent he had a good record on terrorrism, but it is the litmus test you have posted for GW.


I sw a whole timeline on snops.com - you should go there, there is good info there you might want to consider.:p

Do you know that part of the deal wasn't them turning over Bin Laden?
As Kenny Mane says, "Of course not. You have no idea!"

Well, Clinton has denied on 60 minutes there was a deal. Personally, let's assume he was lying. Here's the options:

1. In the purported deal the Sudanese never offered to hand him over to the Us, only to a Saudi Arabia, which has no extradition treaty with the US. Besides the Saudis have said they never woudl take him.

2. Let's say the Saudis did take him, and he was somehow extradited to the US to stand trial. Whether he woudl have been found guilty is questionable at this point? Many justice departent officials claim it woudl have been a dificult case espeically since the Blind Shiek had already been found guilty and was and still is in prison.

3. Let's say Bin Laden had stayed in Sudan. Who knows if he would have struck sooner?

4. Bin Laden is handed over to the Saudis, who despite having no extradition to the US, hand him over anyway, and a trial is declared on Bin Laden, even though justice officals say it would have been a very difficult case. He is found guilty and goes to jail. Meanwhile Zawahari does nothing?

The amount of questions and speculations go on and on. Clinton has denied there was ever any offer by the Sudanese to hand over Bin Laden.

[Tom]

Wow, Sec, new record - you missed every sinlge point I made!
Nice going!
Get a good night's sleep and try again tomorrow!
Every single point! :bang::rolleyes:

[sq764]

Does it kill you to just step back for a second and say "Yes, Bush F-ed up bigtime and put this country in a very vulnerable position by not responding to terrorist threats and actions accordingly"???

At the very least, be honest with yourself and say that, before you give everyone the usual "...but Bill Clinton didn't...." or "..but why didn't Clinton..."
That is the response I expect from my 20 months old, not you.

Is the 'I'm rubber you're glue' coming next?

[Show Me the Wire]

That is the response I expect from my 20 months old, not you.

Is the 'I'm rubber you're glue' coming next?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :jump:

[sq764]

Clinton has denied there was ever any offer by the Sudanese to hand over Bin Laden.

Clinton alsto denied (under oath) that he had sexual relations with Lewinsky..

[Show Me the Wire]

sq764:

Good pooint. Always amused me how the demlibs cast President Bush as a liar to defeat Presidnt Bush's agenda, while they promote the agenda of an admitted liar and convicted perjurer.

[sq764]

sq764:

Good pooint. Always amused me how the demlibs cast President Bush as a liar to defeat Presidnt Bush's agenda, while they promote the agenda of an admitted liar and convicted perjurer.
Same ones that believe that 9/11 started being planned the day Bush was sworn into office, not right under the nose of Clinton..

[Secretariat]

That is the response I expect from my 20 months old, not you.

Is the 'I'm rubber you're glue' coming next?

Then perhaps you need to sit down with your 20 month old child because he obviously understands a lot more than you.

Go back and look at the post, and try to figure it out. If you can't then ask and I'll explain for you, or in lieu of that, ask your 20 month old child.

[Secretariat]

sq764:

Good pooint. Always amused me how the demlibs cast President Bush as a liar to defeat Presidnt Bush's agenda, while they promote the agenda of an admitted liar and convicted perjurer.

Who promotes the agenda of Clinton? I listed numerous items of his that I was disturbed with including the Lewisnky affair. Don't skew what I wrote. My response was to the blanket mis-statements that Clinton did "nothing" abotu terrorism, that he was responsbile for 911, yadayada...I posted snope, media matters. The bottom line is you don't want to belevie he did anything, that he was responsible for 911, etc despite the links I posted. I understand that, it's why they put blinkers on horses.

It still amazes me that I am ridiculed for basing Bush, when I have previously posted positives he has done( btw.. I've done this multiple times). Yet when I asked for positives from Clinton from the same GOP gang, they never can list one. Speaks volumes.

The thing is his Iraq policy is a disaster (and 65% of the people agree), and his response to Katrina (by his own admission) was a disaster, and his deficits have been criticized by both the Cato and Heritage Groups (both bastions of conservatism) as not being conservative in the least. This doesn't even go to his immigration policy failures or his contunal vacations from his inauguration untul after 911 (look it up - Bush took off more time before 911 than any 20th century president taking office).

Clinton was a perjurer, and was lousy at economic trade agreements. He was embrolied in controversy his last four years, but he presided over some of the most expansive economic growth in the 20th century. And he settled the Bosnian-Serb incident without massive losses of life. And if you read the scopes link he made many attempts to address the terrorism issue. To infer he did nothing as scopes points out is just flat out wrong. Any 20 month old child can see that.

[JustRalph]

Clinton was a perjurer, and was lousy at economic trade agreements. He was embrolied in controversy his last four years, but he presided over some of the most expansive economic growth in the 20th century. You can thank Ronnie Reagan and Bill Gates for that run......not Clinton

And he settled the Bosnian-Serb incident without massive losses of life.
Ask those guys in Blackhawk down about how Clinton handled it? They asked for more Troops and heavy artilliary and he said no........ And if you read the scopes link he made many attempts to address the terrorism issue. To infer he did nothing as scopes points out is just flat out wrong. Any 20 month old child can see that.

Scopes was a monkey trial...........

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

The agenda of failed negotiations with, as BenDiesal26 succintly stated, "nut cases".

I agree U.S. policy has contributed to current problems. The policy of pretending that negotiations are with rational people with real griviences, and not with nut cases is definitely a big contributor to the current state of affairs.

BTW, I was taliking in general about demlibs' beliefs not specifically you or your specific views.

FYI, I customarily address you when I specifically refer to your opinions.

[sq764]

Then perhaps you need to sit down with your 20 month old child because he obviously understands a lot more than you.

Go back and look at the post, and try to figure it out. If you can't then ask and I'll explain for you, or in lieu of that, ask your 20 month old child.
Ok, I am back.. After conversing with my son, and he came back to me quoting a famous president's testimony:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

[sq764]

..

Clinton was a perjurer, and was lousy at economic trade agreements. He was embrolied in controversy his last four years, but he presided over some of the most expansive economic growth in the 20th century. And he settled the Bosnian-Serb incident without massive losses of life. And if you read the scopes link he made many attempts to address the terrorism issue. To infer he did nothing as scopes points out is just flat out wrong. Any 20 month old child can see that.
You still do not acknowledge the horrible job he did in (not) protecting this country and made it weaker from a worldwide standpoint.

[Secretariat]

You still do not acknowledge the horrible job he did in (not) protecting this country and made it weaker from a worldwide standpoint.

I simply don't agree with that assessment after reading the snopes site. I wish Clinton had got Bin Laden, as I wish GW had got Bin Laden. But as some have said here that Clinton did nothing to fight terroism is inaccurate as snopes has documented. The American economy expanded dramtically under Clinton running a suplus. This made us very strong worldwide. After the 93 incident those responsible wer prosecuted and convicted and are in prison. No foreign terroist act occurred in any of the 50 states after that. That has been the GW litmus test.

Why I think we are in much worse shape now is the stretching of our military resources to their breaking point thus emboldening enemies such as Iran to do whatever they want -- likewise with N. Korea. We also have huge deficits as far as the eye can see. And radical so called democracies emerging such as Hamas.

Now, why I posted my response to ask your child, is that anyone can post a question that can be asked of Clinton that can equally be asked of Bush? Simply replacing those names places us in a continual circle of blame. You think GW is not to blame. I think he is very much to blame. You think Clinton is to blame. To a an extent so do I, just not to the level you do.

[Secretariat]

sec:

The agenda of failed negotiations with, as BenDiesal26 succintly stated, "nut cases".

I agree U.S. policy has contributed to current problems. The policy of pretending that negotiations are with rational people with real griviences, and not with nut cases is definitely a big contributor to the current state of affairs.

BTW, I was taliking in general about demlibs' beliefs not specifically you or your specific views.

FYI, I customarily address you when I specifically refer to your opinions.

Of course they are nut cases. There's no need to negotiate with allies, the difficult negotiations are with your enemies - the nut cases. And all is not going to go well. The attempt is to maintain peace as long as possible.

Also, they do not see themselves as nut cases, but Islamic patriots fighting for a cause. And really the US is not their enemy - Israel is. The US is simply the ally of Israel that makes their task all the harder.

I guess I see this situation existing during everyone here's lifetime. The best that can be done is to try to keep the peace as much as possible while still keeping long term security threats in check. It is a tight rope. However, the other basic option is Islamic annihilation. Some here advocate that I know. I do not.

[sq764]

Now, why I posted my response to ask your child, is that anyone can post a question that can be asked of Clinton that can equally be asked of Bush? Simply replacing those names places us in a continual circle of blame. You think GW is not to blame. I think he is very much to blame. You think Clinton is to blame. To a an extent so do I, just not to the level you do.
Yes or no - Do you think Clinton's lack of action was partly responsible for 9/11?

[Tom]

Great show on Discovery/Time last night - will be repeated. About a triple cross, trcking a guy who was playing the FBI and Al Qeda against each other - a Bin Laden associate. Documents rather nicely the series of mis-cues, errors, screw ups, etc, that occurred during the Clinton years - especially several that would have stopped 9-11 cold.

While blame must be shared by Carter, Regan, Bush 41, and Bush 43, clearly, Clinton was at the helm when the real responses that were needed were but on the back burner to zipper-gate.

[Lefty]

sec, remember that tape you said Hannity never played; the one Clinton disavowed? On his radio show, tues., Hannity payed it again. Billy boy has lied to the pipples yet again.

[Tom]

Tuesday, Sept 5, on National Geographic Channel 9 pm - the Triple Cross piece airs again - very good documentary (not crockumentary) about all the stuff we messed up leading upo to 9-11. Well worth the watch. I thought it presented facts, not opinions or party lines very well.

Here's a peview.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2765219

[Secretariat]

Yes or no - Do you think Clinton's lack of action was partly responsible for 9/11?

No.

Why?

(1) I do not think there was a lack of action on his part based on the snopes link.

(2) There is an assumption that 911 would have not occurred if Bin Laden had been hypothetically turned over. But Zawahari may have even struck sooner. If you listen to his rhetorc after the assasination of Anwar Sadat he is much more militant in his actions. To speculate that 911 would have been prevented by an ally of Bin Laden the Muslim Sudanese government hypothetically turning over Bin Laden just doesn't make sense. An action that hypothetically occurred 6 years prior to 911. It's anecdotal and presumes a lot.