Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on October 16, 2003, 10:01:12 AM
-
Just go away.
Shall I list the links to the Sudan Govt. offer of Osama to Bill on three ocations.
How about his admins, use of grand jury's to interview terror suspects, rendering all info off limits to FBI, CIA agents, way to go Bill and Janet Reno.
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=388817
-
Nothing new here... this is an old story that is simply being brought up again because it's an election year.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Nothing new here... this is an old story that is simply being brought up again because it's an election year.
but isn't that politics?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Nothing new here... this is an old story that is simply being brought up again because it's an election year.
Wed October 15, 2003 10:27 PM ET
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Wed October 15, 2003 10:27 PM ET
LOL Rip I think Sandman needs to read up on his civics, even I know when the elections are... :)
-
Better brush up some more. Many states are voting on Nov. 4 for state-level positions. Kind of important from a "presidential wannabee" standpoint.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Better brush up some more. Many states are voting on Nov. 4 for state-level positions. Kind of important from a "presidential wannabee" standpoint.
I don't see how this could affect voter opinion. Its an article on Clinton saying he told Bush about OBL during the transition between administrations. Yeah, I can see how that would influence my decision on a state-level election much less a presidential one. :rolleyes:
-
Okay... yeah, there are some important elections in November, but my initial post is incorrect. I tend to look at fiscal years rather than calendar. In my line of work, it's already 2004.
So... I'm technically off by a few months.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Nothing new here... this is an old story that is simply being brought up again because it's an election year.
Interesting defense but hardly original. No cigar for you Sandy..
That was an official MO of Clintons. Release an embarrasing piece of news late Friday, and when asked about it on Monday, dismiss it as an "old news".
-
DiabloTX, these elections are more important than you believe.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Interesting defense but hardly original. No cigar for you Sandy..
It wasn't a defense at all. It was an observation. This story was covered in the past and now the Democrats believe they can make political gain in the upcoming elections by bringing it up again.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
DiabloTX, these elections are more important than you believe.
Never said that they weren't important, all I said was I don't see how this story would affect voters at the state level. Please read carefully before you reply, it will save you much embarrassment.
-
Presidents tend to come from governors. Governors tend to come from state congressmen. Could be used as a push to get more party power - "Don't vote for the XXX party! Look what their president did!"
-
Originally posted by JBA
Just go away.
Shall I list the links to the Sudan Govt. offer of Osama to Bill on three ocations.
How about his admins, use of grand jury's to interview terror suspects, rendering all info off limits to FBI, CIA agents, way to go Bill and Janet Reno.
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=388817
And the "Sudan Offer" has been shown to be at the very least questionable and possibly an out-and-out lie told by a current staffer of Fox news.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Never said that they weren't important, all I said was I don't see how this story would affect voters at the state level. Please read carefully before you reply, it will save you much embarrassment.
Wow, what a condescending POS you are. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. Anyway, what gofaster said.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And the "Sudan Offer" has been shown to be at the very least questionable and possibly an out-and-out lie told by a current staffer of Fox news.
Yup...it's Bush's fault and Clinton never dropped the ball.
Sorry MT....how many attacks against American interests took place under his watch?
Funny how you seem to grant a free ticket to Clinton...hard for me to take you very seriously when you seem so partisan. I have openly admitted before....I trust my president, because I choose to do so, as I did Clinton regarding his job(not his personal intent)...for all I know, Bush could be worse. Until proof of his dishonesty surfaces, I will continue to trust him.
C'mon MT...you know deep down inside, Clinton fed on popularity and would take no risk that a poll would not support. He was afraid of making too strong of a stand against terrorism in spite of his knowledge of the facts.
Perhaps we can strive for success in Iraq before we blow the dickens out of Syria or N. Korea....the only way this will end is if a Democrat President sells us out again to the UN, which will ultimately lead to another 9-11 type attack.
Be honest and stop this incessant trolling you do.:)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Wow, what a condescending POS you are. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so. Anyway, what gofaster said.
Oooooooh, touchy a bit huh?
Again, I ask you to READ what I said. I said I don't see how it will affect voters. Never said it wouldn't, never said it won't, and as of yet, no one has illustarted why it will influnce voters at all. As for gofasters remark, yeah, a lot of Pres do come from Gov's but as I said, I (that is singular, meaning myself) don't see how this story will influnce voter's opinions.
So, to some it up, how will Clinton's admission that he told G.W. about OSL make me want to vote for one party and not the other when all it is is Clinton being Clinton (not that there's anything wrong with that).
-
How many ways can he re-write his legacy?
Just go away.
Shall I list the links to the Sudan Govt. offer of Osama to Bill on three ocations.
How about his admins, use of grand jury's to interview terror suspects, rendering all info off limits to FBI, CIA agents, way to go Bill and Janet Reno.
Yes you should JBA, I would be interested to hear your take on that.
The point of the article you posted seems to be that outgoing President Clinton strongly warned incoming President Bush that the biggest threat would be from Ossma bin Laden.
"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defence,"
This would appear to be an “I told you so” moment.
We know that the Cole bombing happened in November of 2000, that Clinton deferred any retaliation to the incoming administration. That the new President did nothing about the Cole, shelved the Hart-Rudman anti-terrorism report, recalled the ships offshore of Pakistan and was about to de-fund the anti terrorism task force.
One could make the argument that President Bush dropped the ball in the eight months leading up to the 911 tragedy.
One could also make the argument that a “Pearl Harbor” event is just the ticket to get the people onboard for the Pax America policies outlined in The Project for the New American Century.
-
Not trolling Rude. I don't have any illusions about Clinton. I just hate the constant lies that are told regarding his Presidency.
More people (edit I meant to say Americans) died at the hands of Muslim terrorists during Reagan's term and Bush 1's term than during Clinton's.
The Sudan deal was never a reality according to many high level sources. The story has been told over and over by the guy who supossedly brokered the deal.... now a Fox news staffer.
Clinton's administration developed almost the exact plan that GW has implemented after 9-11, including a "Dept. of Homeland Security".
No Clinton wasn't a saint, but he wasn't the devil either. He had by almost any measure an extremely successful Presidency.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And the "Sudan Offer" has been shown to be at the very least questionable and possibly an out-and-out lie told by a current staffer of Fox news.
Here is a transcription along with an audio link of President Clinton explaining how he turned down one Sudanese offer:
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/12/24124
You must credit NewsMax if linking or republishing this article or audio.
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.
"And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him.
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." (End of excerpt)
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I said I don't see how it will affect voters. Never said it wouldn't, never said it won't, and as of yet, no one has illustarted why it will influnce voters at all.
Because, dear Diablo, a large number of Americans are block voters. If you successfully attack the party, you successfully win votes from them. Presidents always stump for governors and congressmen. The association is already there, so smearing Bush or Clinton is the same as smearing the party.
GWB had a very strong support base from the governors, and they were important to his winning the primary. You see, those governors belong to the party, and they will campaign in their respective states for presidential candidates. The more governors you have in your pocket, the more power you can wield during the election.
-
Ok, let me be clear then Kieran, I don't think Clinton's admission that he told GW about the threat of OSL is enough to be considered an "attack" on the GOP. If it was something more substantial then yes I can see that but OSL has been a known threat for some time, well before the transition of power in January, 2001. However, I am sure that Clinton had PLENTY of evidence before the WTC attack of February, 1993.
-
Prior to the first WTC attack Clinton was in exactly the same boat GWB was in when he took office... probably had some intelligence that indicated trouble was brewing, but nothing the American people would have tolerated acting on. After the first WTC, people still didn't seem all that shook up, and seemed quite satisfied with a cruise missile attack or two in response. Of course that didn't really solve anything, but it did look good.
Bush went in with troops, but it took WTC2 to make it happen.
-
I would refer you to Nuke's link, but I guess you wouldn't be interested in the truth Kieran. Or would you?
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I would refer you to Nuke's link, but I guess you wouldn't be interested in the truth Kieran. Or would you?
Go back and read that with a critical eye... assuming that it is all true:
Since last December, Ijaz has insisted that he negotiated the deal for bin Laden's release from Sudan. But he maintained that the White House declined to take advantage of the offer because of legal technicalities - a detail now confirmed by the ex-president
Clinton supposedly said:
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
So the "technicality" was that he had committed no crime. So you are upset that Clinton refused to break the law?
:aok
-
supposedly? My A** listen to the link.
My original post was the he is re-writhing history. If he told Bush about OBL in January of 2000, OBL had not committed any crime at that time either. Then way is it relevant that he told Bush? O Ya Election Year.
-
Originally posted by JBA
supposedly? My A** listen to the link.
My original post was the he is re-writhing history. If he told Bush about Saddam in January of 2000, Saddam had not committed any crime at that time either. Then way is it relevant that he told Bush? O Ya Election Year.
sigh..
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former President Bill Clinton says he warned President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that Osama bin Laden was the biggest security threat the United States faced.
-
10Bears, he didn't "supposedly" say it, he did say it in the audio if you would listen. He also said that Al Qaeda used the chemical plant in Africa to store chemical weapons. Now, "technically" OSL hasn't specifically committed a crime against the US according to what ole Bill says so what was Bill waiting for? OSL to rob a bank in Reno? If he knew that "he (OSL) wanted to commit crimes against America." then Bill had to have some kind of evidence to back this up. "Probable cause" could be used here if he knew for a fact OSL was planning crimes against the US. And do you really think that OSL wasn't involved in the 1993 attack at the WTC?? Come on now, really???
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not trolling Rude. I don't have any illusions about Clinton. I just hate the constant lies that are told regarding his Presidency.
More people (edit I meant to say Americans) died at the hands of Muslim terrorists during Reagan's term and Bush 1's term than during Clinton's.
The Sudan deal was never a reality according to many high level sources. The story has been told over and over by the guy who supossedly brokered the deal.... now a Fox news staffer.
Clinton's administration developed almost the exact plan that GW has implemented after 9-11, including a "Dept. of Homeland Security".
No Clinton wasn't a saint, but he wasn't the devil either. He had by almost any measure an extremely successful Presidency.
MT...he lacked character....he served himself and himself only. He was calculating and deliberate in every move of his presidency...doing what was right was far too risky.
My friend in Tulsa who knew both him and Hillary for over 15 years often has said that the public has no idea how badly they were duped....Clinton once said that the public would believe whatever he told them....they were sheep.
He was a bad man and to see you and others worship him is sickening.
I often wonder if you could sit with someone who knew them well and were told the truth, if you would blindly continue to hold this man up in spite of what you were told.
I suppose Dick Morris is a liar and all that he has exposed is due to just a falling out between he and Clinton. What's it take to get you to honestly take a look?
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I would refer you to Nuke's link, but I guess you wouldn't be interested in the truth Kieran. Or would you?
Wow. What a condescending POS you are. Oh, and what MT said.
-
Let's face it guys, the American public would not have tolerated arresting Osama without definitive proof. I detest Clinton as much as the next guy, but you have to hold him to the same standard as Bush. Saying "he might do this" is not the same as saying "he did that".
"Probable cause"? Are you kidding me? "Martyr" is more like it.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Let's face it guys, the American public would not have tolerated arresting Osama without definitive proof. I detest Clinton as much as the next guy, but you have to hold him to the same standard as Bush. Saying "he might do this" is not the same as saying "he did that".
"Probable cause"? Are you kidding me? "Martyr" is more like it.
If you think Clinton's only option was to "arrest" OSL knowing what he did then you are either extremely naive or foolish. What did we get Noriega on? DRUG CHARGES? Clinton said, and I quote, "we knew he (OSL) wanted to commit crimes against America". Now, I may be a "condescending POS" but I know when I see a threat made against the US. You sir, are just foolish. Oh, and your decision led to the deaths of 3,000 people on 9/11 and 17 sailors aboard the USS Cole not to mention the African embasssy and....shall I go on or do you want me to dust for finger prints to prove OSL was there so we can get a judge to order an extradiction?
*shakes head
-
Now, I may be a "condescending POS"
I don't think that's "maybe".
Guess we'd better go round up everyone in the world that makes threats against America. Oh, wait, we have a few down in GB. Do you think for a second that would have been tolerated pre-9/11? No way. No.... way.
Now I think Osama was guilty of both WTC attacks, don't get me wrong... but proven wrong of anything he was not. Maybe Clinton should have gone into Afghanistan in '93, or after the Cole, etc. One thing I am sure of, Americans would have totally rebuffed the idea of sending ground troops in '93. Heck, I am guilty of believing Clinton merely sent his missiles in to divert attention from his sexual exploits. Hindsight proves this to be false.
All that aside...
I don't think Americans would have been all that thrilled to have OBL arrested and brought to the US when nothing against him could be proven. Sad, but true. I personally would have no problem with it, but I tend to be a bit more conservative. There would have been no shortage of people pontificating on how it was "not the American way". Maybe if Clinton had more character he would have said to hell with it and seized him, but I have to be fair and admit he didn't have 20/20 hindsight to help him.
And in the final analysis...
Bush had a few months to begin to do something about OBL as well. I cannot honestly say it's fair to point a finger at Clinton without pointing one at Bush. It is completely reasonable to assume both presidents possessed the same intelligence reports. No matter how it is sliced, both presidents reacted pretty much the same way up to 9/11.
-
"Probable cause"
do you even know what 'probable cause' is?
it's not we 'probably' should arest him 'cause' we think he's planning something.
probable cause is when you have reason to believe a crime is being (or has been) comitted.
you can't arrest people for what you think they are planning.
and as far as Clinton have\ing to have proof before he mentioned it.
then Bill had to have some kind of evidence to back this up.
why do you assume that? what makes you think he had enough evidence to get a conviction? seeing someone has motive and is developing ability is a damn good reason to give the new guy a 'heads up'. however, if he had solid proof (plans, informants,or the like) of a plan in progress then you could arrest him for intent, because you would have proof that he's done something illegal.
but this is still america and we don't arrest people for what they might do, only for what they've done or you can prove they intend to do(unless they've changed this with the 'patriot act').