Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on October 17, 2003, 04:16:04 PM
-
quote JBA---------------------------------------------------
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 (secret) to FBI, CIA agents, way to go Bill and Janet Reno.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote 10bears.....
Yes you should JBA, I would be interested to hear your take on that.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/12/24124
Click here
Thanks Nuke.
-
linky no worky
-
link is fixed
-
JBA this is some straaaange spin.. I don't get it..
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.
Ok.. got the first part..
"And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again - they released him.
They released him.. OK.. this implys he was in jail. Maybe he meant they expelled him?.. They wanted him to leave their country.
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America[/size] so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him,[/size] though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
I would appear the former President is saying the CIA knew Bin Laden had intent to harm the United States, but that .. on account of him not having commited any crimes at the time (1996) they had no way to convict him of anything..
Good Gravy! this is like Hitech and Skuzzy trying to explain what a beta test is..
"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."
Right. And in 1998 after the Kobie towers attack, the President ordered 70 cruise missiles launched on Bin Laden's main training camp. Only someone tipped him off to the incoming attack and he was able to escape in time.
As you pointed out in the article you posted yesterday, Clinton STRONGLY advised Bush that his biggest concern would be Bin Laden.. Bush disagreed saying that his biggest concern would be missile defense. Urm... which one was right?
I didn't get an answer yesterday so I'll ask you. After the Cole attack in Nov. 2000, and the transition of presidents in Jan. 2001, Why was the hunt for Bin Laden stopped?..
Why were the ships parked of the coast of Pakistain recalled?
Why was the Hart/Rudman report recommending ways to counter terrorism shelved?
I know the answers but want to hear your take on it first.
-
Sorry fellas, I'm not gonna repeat everything 10Bears just said, but no matter how much you hate Clinton.... this ain't the part of his legacy that you can successfully attack. He did more than ANY PRIOR ADMINISTRATION regarding terrorism. Maybe your ire should be directed back a decade or so more.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry fellas, I'm not gonna repeat everything 10Bears just said, but no matter how much you hate Clinton.... this ain't the part of his legacy that you can successfully attack. He did more than ANY PRIOR ADMINISTRATION regarding terrorism. Maybe your ire should be directed back a decade or so more.
Oh please, like Reagan didn't send a whole bunch of F-111's knocking on Gaddafi's door. :rolleyes:
I voted for Clinton in '92 BTW. By '96 I had had enough.
Sending cruise missiles to do men's work is a cheap excuse for saying, "I did something, see? I sent cruise missiles! Someone ratted me out, I did something!" :rolleyes:
-
REagan would have used cruise missles if he could and you know it. Or do you think its better to put people in harms way?
Are you saying the F-111 drop was more accurate than the cruise missles?
LOL... I don't think so.
-
Uh, did I just hear Clinton saying that in 1996 bin laden had committed no crime against the US? Sure sounded like it. Is that what you guys are saying?
I believe he was a suspect in the '93 bombing of the WTC and that we knew this in '96. We also believe he was behind the bombing in Saudi that killed 19 Americans in '95 though I don't know if we knew this before or after the Sudanese offer.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
He did more than ANY PRIOR ADMINISTRATION regarding terrorism. Maybe your ire should be directed back a decade or so more.
No way, Reagan gave them guns and told them to shoot the Soviets. That was way more productive than anything Clin-Ton did.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
REagan would have used cruise missles if he could and you know it. Or do you think its better to put people in harms way?
Are you saying the F-111 drop was more accurate than the cruise missles?
LOL... I don't think so.
No, as usual, you have it backwards. Clinton had many spec ops for missions and he chose to use the missiles. Whatever. He's your hero, more power to you.
And Reagan could have used cruise missiles but I am sure at the time AF F-111s offered better accuracy and much more hitting power. I do think so.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I believe he was a suspect in the '93 bombing of the WTC and that we knew this in '96. We also believe he was behind the bombing in Saudi that killed 19 Americans in '95 though I don't know if we knew this before or after the Sudanese offer.
You believe?.. WTF provide a site turkey.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
You believe?.. WTF provide a site turkey.
First one I found.
Right here turkey (http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/02262003/opinion/14794.htm)
-
..and another.
Click here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm)
-
mmm....turkey.....
-
First one I found.
Right here turkey
Okay let me take a look at this and see if we can prove if Clinton was lying when he said at the time (1996) that they did not have enough evidence to convict Bin Laden
Yousef was captured in 1995 in a home for former Afghan freedom fighters run by Osama bin Laden. The FBI prosecuted the suspects and all were convicted, including a group of several individuals thought to be plotting attacks on New York’s bridges and tunnels, reportedly led by the blind Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman.
You might have something here.. they captured Yousef at a safe house financed by Bin Laden.
It was reported at the time - and obviously believed by U.S. intelligence agencies - that the World Trade Center attack was the work of a handful of unaffiliated Muslim extremists. Whether that was the view held by the FBI, which prosecuted the suspects, remains a mystery.
As President you have to ask your intelligence folks, do we have enough evidence to prosecute this guy.. yes or no.
I don’t see anything else in the first article to indicate intelligence knew Ossama was involved in first attack. Lets go to the second..
The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established.
The point of JBA’s thread is to imply Clinton was lying when he said they didn’t have enough evidence to convict bin Laden at the time (1996). This second article doesn’t indicate that at all.
Sorry for calling you a turkey back there.. your not. It just gets so frustrating sometimes when people want to blame Clinton for not catching Osama when he had the chance when the evidence that intelligence knew at the time bin Laden committed these crimes is inconclusive.
BTW I finally remembered what movie you get your avaitor from.. It was Angle Heart. (1986).. Lisa Bonett played the girl.. I forgot the actors name that played Johnny Angle.
-
Both links reveal that there was unquestionably no doubt at all in anyones mind without the slightest bit of hesitation for even an instant
that you didn't read what you linked.
:rofl
-
your first link is to the editorial page in the portsmouth herald. did you really have to dig that hard to find someone who agreed with you? I'm sure there are a couple of others on the board who could have wrote you a suporting opinion and saved you the search.
editorials are opinions not facts.
-
He didn't say there was doubt about a conviction, he said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Both links reveal that there was unquestionably no doubt at all in anyones mind without the slightest bit of hesitation for even an instant that you didn't read what you linked.
:rofl
Sigh...no, I did read. They both revealed a link to Al Qaeda. If you link to Al Qaeda then you link OSL. Only because YOU didn't make that link let me know YOU didn't read it, you only looked for what you thought was there. :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
your first link is to the editorial page in the portsmouth herald. did you really have to dig that hard to find someone who agreed with you? I'm sure there are a couple of others on the board who could have wrote you a suporting opinion and saved you the search.
editorials are opinions not facts.
Uh, no. It was the first hit I had on a search engine. He used facts to back up his opinion. And as you can see, I have had A LOT of support from this board.
Despite questions concerning Yousef’s connections to the Iraqi military and bin Laden,
I guess this isn't enough 'fact' for you to believe then? Well, choose to believe what you want, it seems that's all you are capable of doing.
-
...with gravy and mashed potatoes....mmmm...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
More importantly, both attacks were failures in that neither Gadaffi nor OBL seized their terrorist activities, but rather intensified them.
Which is exactly why, IMHO, no single Presidency up to and including Clinton did more to stop terrorism than the other. I felt Clinton through the 90's had the best opportunity to do something but chose to do something that was politically safe.
I would characterize the 1986 attack not as a failure, but as incomplete. Gaddifi's verbal attacks on the US quieted down quite a bit but unfortunately, as GS said, his involvement in terrorist attacks didn't.
As for GW, he had an opportunity to do a lot as well and chose to be safe. But to say Clinton did more than any other administration is an out and out falsehood.