- Jun 19, 2009
- 17,451
- 6,835
- 335
You do realize OBL threatened the US and is the reason why Bill surrounded him in the first place. Once again you used^^^ Mindless drivel.What you describe as letting him "slup away in 1998," is in reality, Clinton choosing between killing OBL along with hundreds of innocent civilians plus political leaders versus not killing OBL that day. We can argue over which would have been the right thing to do, but he offered that explanation and it was his choice to make. And given Clinton fired missiles at OBL just a few months earlier and doing so didn't kill OBL, choosing not to repeat that is a reasonable position. And again, you possess zero evidence he did so because the Saudis (who were no friends of OBL) paid him. For you to suggest he might have is nothing but your over-active imagination hard at work.You obviously do not take precise wording into account (as in you have not read me correctly[perhaps you were rushed?]), which is why I'm guessing you are one of the people easily swayed by fake news lack of proper tenses and wording to reshape how you view the news. To answer your post anyway;Not only do you not possess any evidence whatsoever that the Saudis paid Clinton money to let OBL go; even suggesting such nonsense requires you to ignore the reality that the Saudis were not friends of OBL. They earlier revoked his citizenship and later, wouldn't allow him to return.My point with Joe is Bill Clinton's 1998 incident where he mysteriously let Bin Laden slip away, something he himself admitted regretting ironically a day before 911.
Fact: we now know Clinton foundation took money for favors from the Saudis, I even showed a pic of one such open hand off money envelope. My point to Joe is his lack of concern to what those favors were especially if letting Bin Laden go was one of those favors that is the doosey of all crimes committed in the name of greed and power.
1)Using Dem standards there's enough smoke to require investigation otherwise admit there is no evidence of collusion says the 3 intelligence agencies and over a year investigation.
2) it's serious enough to mandate investigating further. You and assuming your fellow party posters are sgowing zero concern which is disturbing.
3)There is evidence in Hillary's emails and picture evidence of pay to play favors given the Saudis, all I did was ask did that include letting OBL slip away? And since she destroyed evidence how can you conclude there is/was no evidence of the favors?
You say no, without evidence (using your own standard) but never explain
1-why he let him slup away in 1998
2-why did his concious feel guilty to confess to an Australian audience a day before 911?
3-what were all theworthys and are some of them just as cringe worthy.
INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THESE issues, people would rather ad hominem smokescreen
reply and avoid honest discussion, even as far as acoiding what Bill Clinton himself admited in COULD HAVE Captured or kill ObL in 1998. PLUS you guys keep making excuses and have an unusual disturbing acceptance of criminal greed.
As far as him discussing that the day before 9.11, there is nothing to explain. Him saying what he did and Al-Qaeda attacking us the next day are unrelated.
And who created the figures to number of innocents at risk when we had precision bombs, are they the same wild eye propaganda figures they use for healthcare casualties *L*
SERIOUSLY, YOU TRUST THAT EXCUSE which inflates casualties to save face?
This is the king of lying Bill Clinton you are talking about, spin doctor supreme you are trusting. ONCE AGAIN, even he admitted the bad decision and choice before 911, before Afghan, Iraq wars before Isis, & before Syria unrest. Imagine now knowing the trade off.
-oops.=argument failed and is still smokescreening the millions of dollars question: "what favors were performed or what was overlooked for the Saudis "donations"?
Stop avoiding the question and admit it's being swept under the rug in embarassment and protection of a former sitting teflon president.
If collateral damage was not a factor, as you suggest, Clinton would have not mentioned the incident at all. He was under no obligation to do so and offered it freely. And like your hollow suggestion that he could have been paid by enemies of OBL to let OBL go free, you again have no evidence to confirm your empty claims.
And why on Earth would anyone entertain your Clinton is the devil masturbation? Had you had any actual evidence, I'd be more than happy to engage it. I'm not about to waste bandwidth to fuel your delusions.
ad hominem arguments and refused to answer the IMPORTANT QUESTIONS and admit you're wrong.
WHAT WE DO KNOW FROM THIS IS:
Bill's choices=a mess
Hillary's decisions= a mess
Obama decisions (gov't run health care, Syria pulling out of Iraq and announcing everything, kicking the proverbial can down the road)=complete mess.
The Democrat House and Senate voting Nay uniformally in obstruction to things the People of the Country need, benefit from and want= anti democracy by being affiliate first country last=epic failures in leadership.