But who will you blame when George left office and his successor is a democrat? Will you blame him for the things his administration inherit from this one or will you, for once, point a finger at the republicans as well. Not all troubles are caused by the democrates and succesive president inherit the puke-bucket from their predesessor. And yes, this goes two ways.
Cancerous Remnants of the Clinton Era
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Ah, blame is a wonderful gift that just keeps on giving. It defies logic even. I have no doubt in the ability of my fellow man to lay blame for everything in his world on someone or something else regardless and most often in complete disregard as to such petty details as facts and such.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Then maybe our Founding Fathers, who believed the public was too ignorent to run a government, were right and we should leave it totally up to the E.C...People should be able to decipher a lie
mmarsh
Active member
Damien and Phenoix
I want to address a point made earlier concerning the Bin Laden-Sudan offer. I know of the story well. First of all it was invented at by the 'no spin zone' people at FOX and is a total lie.
What happened was this:
Sudan never offered to extradite Bin laden to the US. In 1996, bin Laden was becoming such a problem to the Sudanese government that they wanted him gone. At that time, Bin Laden was not wanted for any crime against the US and therefore could not be held. This was before Africa bombings, the USS Cole, and 9-11 although he was wanted by Allied countries (like Saudi Arabia and Egypt) for anti-government activities. In 1996 The Sudanese government offered to extradite bin laden to Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Administration begged the Saudis to accept the Sudanese offer. The Saudis reject Sudan's offer as they are afraid Bin Laden's influance with the masses would spark an attempted overthrow of the monarchy. It was felt that he was more of a danger inside the country than outside of it.
If you want proof...Here is the actual quote from Clinton from the very speech FOX claims as its source Clinton admitted fumbling on Bin Laden. This is what he really said:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/112336.shtml
CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, 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 dealing 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.
As we see another bit of 'fair and balanced' reporting at FOX. Of course, they were silent on the part where Bush REALLY DID let bin laden escape at Tora Bora...
I want to address a point made earlier concerning the Bin Laden-Sudan offer. I know of the story well. First of all it was invented at by the 'no spin zone' people at FOX and is a total lie.
What happened was this:
Sudan never offered to extradite Bin laden to the US. In 1996, bin Laden was becoming such a problem to the Sudanese government that they wanted him gone. At that time, Bin Laden was not wanted for any crime against the US and therefore could not be held. This was before Africa bombings, the USS Cole, and 9-11 although he was wanted by Allied countries (like Saudi Arabia and Egypt) for anti-government activities. In 1996 The Sudanese government offered to extradite bin laden to Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Administration begged the Saudis to accept the Sudanese offer. The Saudis reject Sudan's offer as they are afraid Bin Laden's influance with the masses would spark an attempted overthrow of the monarchy. It was felt that he was more of a danger inside the country than outside of it.
If you want proof...Here is the actual quote from Clinton from the very speech FOX claims as its source Clinton admitted fumbling on Bin Laden. This is what he really said:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/112336.shtml
CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, 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 dealing 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.
As we see another bit of 'fair and balanced' reporting at FOX. Of course, they were silent on the part where Bush REALLY DID let bin laden escape at Tora Bora...
Last edited:
PJ24
Active member
You couldn't be more wrong. It was actually <drumroll> Newsmax.com that first started the story. That's right! Your very own quoted source! TA DA! They started the story, Hannity later picked up on it and went with it.
mmarsh said:
As Damien pointed out, 1996, long after the first WTC bombing, it was also long after the attempted bombing of US troops (they mistimed it) at the Gold Mihor Hotel in Yemen in '92.
As for the offer, Sudan did in fact offer through the US to give Bin Laden to the Saudis. There was a hitch though, they wanted the Saudis to pardon him. I was never a fan of Clinton, but I honestly can't blame him for not facilitating this offer more. There were too many "catches" like the one above. So, the US gave up in the discussions, Sudan expelled Bin Laden to Afghanistan and the Saudis stuck by their guns and refused to take him. However, Afghanistan wasn't a far stretch for him since he'd lived there in the '80s.
Wow, now you're doing exactly what you accuse FOX news of doing. Total irony.
Do you honestly believe the POTUS, all the way from the white house, was calling the shots? Do you think he decided the strategy and tactics to use? Did he order the "outside" help filtering in from an unamed country?
A lot of things went wrong with that operation, and as someone that was involved in that op, I'll even be the first to say that it wasn't the White House that was the problem. If you want to point fingers, look towards the guys with the shiney collars/black suits and huge egos. This was not a political screw up, it was a military/agency one.
Inter-service rivalry isn't just at the grunt level.
Last edited:
Damien435 said:
I can't recall to hear the name Bin Laden connected to this incident untill after 9-11. Sure it were muslim fundamentalists, but after 9-11 it seems that every fundamentalist was related to Bin Laden. I don't know if it so, neither do you that it is so. His name is so commonly used for everything bad in the Middle East..... International terrorists do not get together very often to socialize and to state that they all work for Bin Laden is giving him to much credit.
Once again I can't prove any of this but it is just my gut feeling that some thinge were pulled out of perspective.
phoenix80
Banned
PJ24 said:You couldn't be more wrong. It was actually <drumroll> Newsmax.com that first started the story. That's right! Your very own quoted source! TA DA! They started the story, Hannity later picked up on it and went with it.
As Damien pointed out, 1996, long after the first WTC bombing, it was also long after the attempted bombing of US troops (they mistimed it) at the Gold Mihor Hotel in Yemen in '92.
As for the offer, Sudan did in fact offer through the US to give Bin Laden to the Saudis. There was a hitch though, they wanted the Saudis to pardon him. I was never a fan of Clinton, but I honestly can't blame him for not facilitating this offer more. There were too many "catches" like the one above. So, the US gave up in the discussions, Sudan expelled Bin Laden to Afghanistan and the Saudis stuck by their guns and refused to take him. However, Afghanistan wasn't a far stretch for him since he'd lived there in the '80s.
Wow, now you're doing exactly what you accuse FOX news of doing. Total irony.
Do you honestly believe the POTUS, all the way from the white house, was calling the shots? Do you think he decided the strategy and tactics to use? Did he order the "outside" help filtering in from an unamed country?
A lot of things went wrong with that operation, and as someone that was involved in that op, I'll even be the first to say that it wasn't the White House that was the problem. If you want to point fingers, look towards the guys with the shiney collars/black suits and huge egos. This was not a political screw up, it was a military/agency one.
Inter-service rivalry isn't just at the grunt level.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1624014/posts
LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE AUDIO: Fulbrighters' gasps of horror follow clinton's "I always asked the same question for eight years, 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' I don't think we can bring 'em back tomorrow, but can we kill 'em tomorrow? If we can kill them tomorrow, then we're not weak...."
I suspect the horror was provoked not by the (proven) fecklessness and recklessness and rigidity and danger of the purported clinton 'terrorism policy' or even by the absurdity of the argument; I suspect the gasps of horror were in response, rather, to the Kill-Bill kind of violence (albeit "virtual") contained in bill clinton's words.
God save us from people who do the morally right thing. It's always the rest of us who get broken in half.
--[SIZE=-1]Paddy Chayefsky[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]And God save us from the morally unencumbered clintons, who get us broken in half nonetheless.[/SIZE]
LoL, may be because you are in Europe!
Did you hear about him when he killed hundreds of people in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998?
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
Damien an PJ24
I'm sorry but you are totally wrong. The first WTC attack was orchastrated by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (now in a permanent resident of a SUPERMAX facility) not Osama bin laden. Rahman was never a member of al-Qaida although they shared similar beliefs. Osama was not involved in the first attack.
PJ24
Ok, so I mixed one right wing crap news source with another, its irrelevant the point remains the same, the story is untrue. Furthermore Sean Hannity went on repeating this story for some time (even past the orginal Newsmax story). If a newsperson repeats a story he knows to be untrue, do you really think thats good journalism? The NYTimes, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and CBS have all done retraction when stories they published were untrue or unfounded. Did Hannity ever do the same?
Its not Irony, for the very simple reason that A) I don't work for the press and B) And I dont intentionally misquote people to try and blame people for things they didnt do. As much as I dispise Bush, I dont agree with the far left crowd that has concoted this fantasty that Bush was behind 9-11.
The fact of the matter is the ball was dropped at Tora Bora. That doesn't bother me, s*** happens and people make mistakes (and in Bush's case quite alot of them). That isnt the point, But to accuse Clinton for something that NEVER happened while keeping quiet about Bush is very hypocritical.
Phoenix
Yes, you got me, I'm Michael Moore. :neutral:. It doesnt change the fact that you published something that was erronous and got nailed for it.
And what does that audio clip proove, that Clinton didnt want to go around
killing everybody everytime there was a problem. Maybe thats what they do in Iran, but we are still a democracy. I would like to point out that Clinton DID try and kill OBL in 1998, unfortunatly he missed.
I liked Clinton but even I know where he made mistakes (other than with his fly). If you want to bash him for something that try to pick something he did rather than something he didn't do. I'll even be nice enough give you a clue, ADNAWR. (see if you can figure it out, its not too hard).
I'm sorry but you are totally wrong. The first WTC attack was orchastrated by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (now in a permanent resident of a SUPERMAX facility) not Osama bin laden. Rahman was never a member of al-Qaida although they shared similar beliefs. Osama was not involved in the first attack.
PJ24
Ok, so I mixed one right wing crap news source with another, its irrelevant the point remains the same, the story is untrue. Furthermore Sean Hannity went on repeating this story for some time (even past the orginal Newsmax story). If a newsperson repeats a story he knows to be untrue, do you really think thats good journalism? The NYTimes, the Washington Post, Newsweek, and CBS have all done retraction when stories they published were untrue or unfounded. Did Hannity ever do the same?
Its not Irony, for the very simple reason that A) I don't work for the press and B) And I dont intentionally misquote people to try and blame people for things they didnt do. As much as I dispise Bush, I dont agree with the far left crowd that has concoted this fantasty that Bush was behind 9-11.
The fact of the matter is the ball was dropped at Tora Bora. That doesn't bother me, s*** happens and people make mistakes (and in Bush's case quite alot of them). That isnt the point, But to accuse Clinton for something that NEVER happened while keeping quiet about Bush is very hypocritical.
Phoenix
Yes, you got me, I'm Michael Moore. :neutral:. It doesnt change the fact that you published something that was erronous and got nailed for it.
And what does that audio clip proove, that Clinton didnt want to go around
killing everybody everytime there was a problem. Maybe thats what they do in Iran, but we are still a democracy. I would like to point out that Clinton DID try and kill OBL in 1998, unfortunatly he missed.
I liked Clinton but even I know where he made mistakes (other than with his fly). If you want to bash him for something that try to pick something he did rather than something he didn't do. I'll even be nice enough give you a clue, ADNAWR. (see if you can figure it out, its not too hard).
Last edited:
PJ24
Active member
Nope, I'm not totally wrong. You might want to do a little more research and see just who Santa's boss man was. Bin Laden, from the beginning, was wanted in connection with the first WTC bombing.
Why are you preaching? I simply pointed out you were wrong about where the story originated.
Sure you do, you do it in almost every post you make about Bush. Like where you blamed Bush for Op. Anaconda. Which has to be the most ridiculous, bias and illogical thing I've heard you say yet.
You can't really use Clinton as a rebuttal to my post, because I came out and said exactly what happened, I also said I didn't blame him for not pushing the offer with the Saudis more.
If you're going to reply to me directly, please at least read my posts so that your replies aren't all the way off in left field.
mmarsh
Active member
Nope, I'm not totally wrong. You might want to do a little more research and see just who Santa's boss man was. Bin Laden, from the beginning, was wanted in connection with the first WTC bombing.
PJ
Ah OK I took your advice, and double checked and you are still wrong. I found this on the ADL website stated this: 'There is little evidence to suggest a significant connection between bin Laden and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993'.
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp
I couldnt find any definate link from OBL to the 1993 attack.
The only link I could find was a house rented a few days by Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan that was owned by OBL, AFTER the attack. In all the articles I found its clear that OBL admired and respected Rahman, but I found nothing that suggested they worked together in 1993 attack. Your're going to have to provide a link to prove otherwise.
Why are you preaching? I simply pointed out you were wrong about where the story originated.
I'm not preaching, I'm actually saying your are right, but that it changed nothing. My major point remains that the original claim is bogus. And so far nobody has provided any real proof to the contrary.
Sure you do, you do it in almost every post you make about Bush. Like where you blamed Bush for Op. Anaconda. Which has to be the most ridiculous, bias and illogical thing I've heard you say yet.
Where did i intentionally misquote someone? Prove it. Again, I'm not in the press. Its a far different thing to present my opinion (which I admit could be wrong, I'm not a Republican therefore I do make mistakes and admit to them). But thats much different than doing a NewsMax-Fox tactic of taking a story, totally rewriting it what happened and presenting it on National TV as the truth. There's a difference between being mistaken and being intentionally misleading. Again you will have to prove it, but I warn you that lies are not my style. Good luck!
Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that Bush and Rummy didnt know what was going on at Tora Bora? I would think the POTUS would know what his troops are doing when they are launching a major military assault. I have never heard of any president from Lincoln to the Present not being involved at least on some level in major military operations. But in case you are right, then you've just added to the arguement about the total lack of competance of the Bush Administration.
You can't really use Clinton as a rebuttal to my post, because I came out and said exactly what happened, I also said I didn't blame him for not pushing the offer with the Saudis more.
You misunderstand. I wasn't accussing you. I did read what you said, but I wasnt talking to you. I was making a reference back to referring to Phoenix's and Damiens original post.
If you're going to reply to me directly, please at least read my posts so that your replies aren't all the way off in left field.
I read your posts and I just dont agree, Espically because you didn't provide any proof on anything you said. Am I just suppose to take your word? Sorry I'm such a suspicious bastard. :-D
PJ
Ah OK I took your advice, and double checked and you are still wrong. I found this on the ADL website stated this: 'There is little evidence to suggest a significant connection between bin Laden and the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993'.
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp
I couldnt find any definate link from OBL to the 1993 attack.
The only link I could find was a house rented a few days by Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan that was owned by OBL, AFTER the attack. In all the articles I found its clear that OBL admired and respected Rahman, but I found nothing that suggested they worked together in 1993 attack. Your're going to have to provide a link to prove otherwise.
Why are you preaching? I simply pointed out you were wrong about where the story originated.
I'm not preaching, I'm actually saying your are right, but that it changed nothing. My major point remains that the original claim is bogus. And so far nobody has provided any real proof to the contrary.
Sure you do, you do it in almost every post you make about Bush. Like where you blamed Bush for Op. Anaconda. Which has to be the most ridiculous, bias and illogical thing I've heard you say yet.
Where did i intentionally misquote someone? Prove it. Again, I'm not in the press. Its a far different thing to present my opinion (which I admit could be wrong, I'm not a Republican therefore I do make mistakes and admit to them). But thats much different than doing a NewsMax-Fox tactic of taking a story, totally rewriting it what happened and presenting it on National TV as the truth. There's a difference between being mistaken and being intentionally misleading. Again you will have to prove it, but I warn you that lies are not my style. Good luck!
Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that Bush and Rummy didnt know what was going on at Tora Bora? I would think the POTUS would know what his troops are doing when they are launching a major military assault. I have never heard of any president from Lincoln to the Present not being involved at least on some level in major military operations. But in case you are right, then you've just added to the arguement about the total lack of competance of the Bush Administration.
You can't really use Clinton as a rebuttal to my post, because I came out and said exactly what happened, I also said I didn't blame him for not pushing the offer with the Saudis more.
You misunderstand. I wasn't accussing you. I did read what you said, but I wasnt talking to you. I was making a reference back to referring to Phoenix's and Damiens original post.
If you're going to reply to me directly, please at least read my posts so that your replies aren't all the way off in left field.
I read your posts and I just dont agree, Espically because you didn't provide any proof on anything you said. Am I just suppose to take your word? Sorry I'm such a suspicious bastard. :-D
Last edited: