List of Al Qaeda leaders killed by Obama

[rightwinger]

Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.

Better off dead

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Saddam dead - More than 3,000 Americans dead, more than 37,000 maimed for life. 100,000 Iraqis dead. Three trillion dollars.

Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.

The difference, Qaddafi actually attacked the US. Saddam didn't.

I'm sorry, what was your question again?

First none of this gibberish answered the question
do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?

Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.

Now what did we do to kill Qaddafi and when was he a threat to America's national security?

We supported Al queda in their drive to oust the Libyan leader.

As I remember when Reagan bombed him for attacking us the response from people like Dean was "shame shame".

I've always pushed that argument that obama gave aid to the enemy in Libya. and he's wanting to do it again in Syria

 

[CrusaderFrank]

(Remember these?)

He's only making more terrorists!

You can't fight an ideology with bullets and bombs!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.

Obama knew he couldn't run on the economy so he used the alleged "bin Laden" raid (Where's the body?) for a photo op

Did it end the war in Afghanistan? Nope

Did it totally vindicate Bush's strategy of neutralizing OBL by taking away his state sponsorship? Yup

 

[Too Tall]

Do you have a list of the innocents killed by drones?

That list would be a lot longer, since in many case, wives, children and relatives were also killed by the hellfire missiles indiscriminately launched by Obama's drones. War tribunal at the Hague for Obama seems to be appropriate.

 

[Too Tall]

Pretty impressive

And yet, Republicans still claim he is soft on terrorism

Obama is tough on terrorists as well as any wives and children that happen to be around when he kills them all.

 

[rightwinger]

Pretty impressive

And yet, Republicans still claim he is soft on terrorism

Obama is tough on terrorists as well as any wives and children that happen to be around when he kills them all.

They would be in danger regardless of what tactic is used. If the Terrorist chooses to surround himself with wives and children, he is putting them at risk

Better than risking US Soldiers invading hostile territory

 

[Caroljo]

Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.

Better off dead

Has anyone even seen any proof that he IS dead?
At least we saw Sadaam be taken to trial....and many actually got to see him hang for it. I can't believe there are NO pictures or anything out there to prove Osama is dead. I do believe he is, but why was NOTHING ever shown to us? And then the guy that lead us to him has been put in prison for it. Why hasn't Obama tried to help this guy??? No, he just throws him under the bus now that he did what we wanted. Do you think we'll get any help from anyone else again?

 

[whitehall]

President Hussein's kill on sight list is impressive. Let's hope the drones don't start flying in the US.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We should be thankful Val Jarett and Hillary pushed Obama to finally order the hit on bin Laden

 

[Lakhota]

Have you noticed? That is the SAME EXACT list of al Qaeda leaders that Republicans "let go"? Starting with Bin Laden. Coincidence?

Really? Bubba Clinton is a Republican?

Pole Rider is a major NaziCon dumbass.

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

 

[rightwinger]

Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.

Better off dead

Has anyone even seen any proof that he IS dead?
At least we saw Sadaam be taken to trial....and many actually got to see him hang for it. I can't believe there are NO pictures or anything out there to prove Osama is dead. I do believe he is, but why was NOTHING ever shown to us? And then the guy that lead us to him has been put in prison for it. Why hasn't Obama tried to help this guy??? No, he just throws him under the bus now that he did what we wanted. Do you think we'll get any help from anyone else again?

Stop showing your ignorance

 

[Too Tall]

Dean do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?

Saddam dead - More than 3,000 Americans dead, more than 37,000 maimed for life. 100,000 Iraqis dead. Three trillion dollars.

Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.

The difference, Qaddafi actually attacked the US. Saddam didn't.

I'm sorry, what was your question again?

No question, but with Saddam gone he won't be able to invade any more middle eastern countries and he won't be able to re-institute his nuclear program as soon as the UN sanctions were removed.

 

[Decus]

From the list presented, Obama is a stone-cold Republican killer. I'm looking forward to the action figures and the major motion picture starring Stallone as Barack. I can already see the previews..."First there was Rambo. then the Expendables, but nothing came close to the Obaminator. Based on a true story. This film is rated PG-13"...

 

[Too Tall]

Have you noticed? That is the SAME EXACT list of al Qaeda leaders that Republicans "let go"? Starting with Bin Laden. Coincidence?

Really? Bubba Clinton is a Republican?

Pole Rider is a major NaziCon dumbass.

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.

FULL QUESTION

Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?

FULL ANSWER

Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.

It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.

Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.

Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:

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.

Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."

So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.

Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.

Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.

 

[Decus]

From the list presented, Obama is a stone-cold Republican killer. I'm looking forward to the action figures and the major motion picture starring Stallone as Barack. I can already see the previews..."First there was Rambo. then the Expendables, but nothing came close to the Obaminator. Based on a true story. This film is rated PG-13"...

How do you on the one hand applaud a homicidal maniac and on the other condemn the actions of another for doing no less?

 

[rdean]

Dean do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?

Saddam dead - More than 3,000 Americans dead, more than 37,000 maimed for life. 100,000 Iraqis dead. Three trillion dollars.

Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.

The difference, Qaddafi actually attacked the US. Saddam didn't.

I'm sorry, what was your question again?

First none of this gibberish answered the question
do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?

Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.

Now what did we do to kill Qaddafi and when was he a threat to America's national security?

Oh my God. Seriously?

OK, first, go find out about Pan Am Flight 103, then, once you have a little relevant material, come back and we can begin with "attacks on US Citizens".

These right wingers. What is wrong with them?

 

[rdean]

Really? Bubba Clinton is a Republican?

Pole Rider is a major NaziCon dumbass.

Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?

A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.

More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.

FULL QUESTION

Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?

FULL ANSWER

Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.

It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.

Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.

Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:

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.

Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."

So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.

Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.

Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.

With Bin Laden's connection to Saudi Oil, Republicans never would have let Clinton take him down unless something as big as taking down the World Trade Center or some other such huge event. Remember, Republicans apologized to BP and look at what BP did to the Gulf. Even though they constantly accuse this president of apologizing, the only apology that stands out is theirs. Worse, Republicans let Bin Laden go after they had him cornered. They smelled "sweet crude" fumes wafting in from Iraq. It was simply too tempting.

 

[Unkotare]

" List of Al Qaeda leaders killed by Obama"



0

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Saddam dead - More than 3,000 Americans dead, more than 37,000 maimed for life. 100,000 Iraqis dead. Three trillion dollars.

Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.

The difference, Qaddafi actually attacked the US. Saddam didn't.

I'm sorry, what was your question again?

First none of this gibberish answered the question
do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?

Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.

Now what did we do to kill Qaddafi and when was he a threat to America's national security?

Oh my God. Seriously?

OK, first, go find out about Pan Am Flight 103, then, once you have a little relevant material, come back and we can begin with "attacks on US Citizens".

These right wingers. What is wrong with them?

Oh my God. Seriously, is right. Now what threat was he to America's national security? How long ago did that happen?
Now for the one question you keep side stepping
Do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?