Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Olympics
- Thread starter OCA
- Start date
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
"Bring 'em on" undermined our troops. Lying to the troops about why he was asking them to sacrafice their lives and limbs undermined our troops.
Where are the facts I asked for regarding these supposed lies? You make these statements and then aren't bright enough to back them up? You're pathetic.
K
kcmcdonald
Guest
8 years of Clinton:Two embasy bombings, World Trade Center bombings, Colbart Tower bombings, USS Cole bombing, UBL offered not once, not twice, but thrice!!!!
3 1/4 years of Bush:9-11, Two Rouge Regimes toppled, 2/3's of AQ's top leadership dead or in jail, Saddam Hussien in jail, and this is the most important. NO ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL IN OVER 2 1/2 YEARS!!!!!
compare those two statictics and I think you find out who the better pres is on the war on terror. Clinton did nothing but bomb an Asprin factory. Bush is winning the war on Terror.
Take that to the bank and cash it.
3 1/4 years of Bush:9-11, Two Rouge Regimes toppled, 2/3's of AQ's top leadership dead or in jail, Saddam Hussien in jail, and this is the most important. NO ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL IN OVER 2 1/2 YEARS!!!!!
compare those two statictics and I think you find out who the better pres is on the war on terror. Clinton did nothing but bomb an Asprin factory. Bush is winning the war on Terror.
Take that to the bank and cash it.
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
Originally posted by OCA
...D.C, that is of course you are inside the beltway which would mean you have no idea how America really thinks.
The last time I checked, the White House and the Naval Observatory (the VP's residence) were in the Beltway. Not to mention most of the White House staff. What does this prove again?
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
Originally posted by jimnyc
Clinton refused to have Osama turned over. Osama was the mastermind behind 9/11. Nobody died on that day?
Typical clueless democrat. You are dismissed.
Clinton refused to have Osama turned over.
Prove it.
Osama was the mastermind behind 9/11.
Everyone can agree with that.
Nobody died on that day?
Thousands. That day would be in 2001 correct? Who was President?
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
Originally posted by Sir Evil
But it's just a state of mind!
The following link better illustrates my state of mind with respect to the president.
http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Clinton refused to have Osama turned over.
Prove it.
I already did, CAN YOU NOT HEAR???????????? I POSTED AN MP3 OF CLINTON SPEAKING! HE ADMITS HE DID NOT WANT OSAMA IN OUR COUNTRY!! You're a pretty ignorant and dense little boy. Try reading and listening and you won't keep looking like a fool.
Osama was the mastermind behind 9/11.
Everyone can agree with that.
Nobody died on that day?
Thousands. That day would be in 2001 correct? Who was President?
And who refused OBL and allowed all 16 hijackers to enter the country? Typical loser democrat, fuck things up and then blame it on others!
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
The following link better illustrates my state of mind with respect to the president.
http://www.blackstarsblog.com/bushin41point2.htm
Your state of mind is like silly putty. A poor impressionable little boy who believes everything he reads on conspiracy-theory.com.
Don't worry, some day you'll grow up.
Here you go, knucklehead!!
Straight from the chairman of the independent commission probing the 9/11 attacks:
Kean: Clinton Blew Best Chance to Get Bin Laden
The chairman of the independent commission probing the 9/11 attacks said Sunday that the U.S. probably missed its best chance to take Osama bin Laden out during the Clinton administration, when the notorious terrorist left Sudan for Afghanistan in 1996.
"If we had acted earlier on al Qaeda when al Qaeda was smaller and just getting started, even before bin Laden went to Afghanistan, there were times we could have gotten him," former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean told NBC's "Meet the Press."
"There's no question that had we gotten [bin Laden] and his leadership at that point, the whole story might have been different," he added.
Referring to missed opportunities in Sudan, as well as chances to kill bin Laden four years later after CIA Predator drones pinpointed his location in Afghanistan, Kean said, "Those early opportunities are clear. We had him, we saw him. I think maybe we could have done something about it."
"Could we have sent a team in? Could we have sent a cruise missile in? Could we have gotten him and his leadership at some point - that's a very important question the commission will be addressing," Kean said.
By 2001, however - after President Bush had taken office - the opportunities to get bin Laden had faded, the former New Jersey governor said. "Later on it's a little bit fuzzier. Nobody wanted to invade Afghanistan at that point," he told "Meet the Press."
The 9/11 commission chairman said he intended to raise these issues with ex-President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore when they testify in the coming weeks.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/4/123358.shtml
Straight from the chairman of the independent commission probing the 9/11 attacks:
Kean: Clinton Blew Best Chance to Get Bin Laden
The chairman of the independent commission probing the 9/11 attacks said Sunday that the U.S. probably missed its best chance to take Osama bin Laden out during the Clinton administration, when the notorious terrorist left Sudan for Afghanistan in 1996.
"If we had acted earlier on al Qaeda when al Qaeda was smaller and just getting started, even before bin Laden went to Afghanistan, there were times we could have gotten him," former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean told NBC's "Meet the Press."
"There's no question that had we gotten [bin Laden] and his leadership at that point, the whole story might have been different," he added.
Referring to missed opportunities in Sudan, as well as chances to kill bin Laden four years later after CIA Predator drones pinpointed his location in Afghanistan, Kean said, "Those early opportunities are clear. We had him, we saw him. I think maybe we could have done something about it."
"Could we have sent a team in? Could we have sent a cruise missile in? Could we have gotten him and his leadership at some point - that's a very important question the commission will be addressing," Kean said.
By 2001, however - after President Bush had taken office - the opportunities to get bin Laden had faded, the former New Jersey governor said. "Later on it's a little bit fuzzier. Nobody wanted to invade Afghanistan at that point," he told "Meet the Press."
The 9/11 commission chairman said he intended to raise these issues with ex-President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore when they testify in the coming weeks.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/4/123358.shtml
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
Originally posted by jimnyc
Where are the facts I asked for regarding these supposed lies? You make these statements and then aren't bright enough to back them up? You're pathetic.
Bush and his staff...in their own words.
http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Bush and his staff...in their own words.
http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush
I'm not watching some movie. You made the stupid statements, just give me a list of specifically what you're referring to. Can you do that without relying on someone else? Do you need someone to hold your hand? Just list them out and let me blow them outta the water and make you look stupid, again.
jon_forward
Active Member
Typical Dumb Democrat, they really believe that crap.
Here you go again, buttmonkey!
Clinton Spurned Bin Laden Offer Because He Didn't Want to Work With Sudan, Analyst Says
Nairobi, Kenya (CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden because his administration did not accept that a country regarded as a sponsor of terrorism wanted to change, a leading regional analyst believes.
After the U.S. declined to take the al Qaeda terrorist leader, Sudan sent him to Afghanistan, according to Akasha Alsayeed Akasha, a Sudanese scholar based in Nairobi.
Debate on Clinton's handling of the global terror threat has been rekindled by publication of a book called "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," by investigative reporter Richard Miniter.
It says the Clinton administration turned down offers by Khartoum to share intelligence information on al Qaeda operatives and to arrest bin Laden himself.
The Saudi-born terrorist, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been linked to attacks against Americans starting in 1992, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of East African U.S. embassies, up to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Commenting on the U.S. reluctance to cooperate with Sudan in the counter-terror field, Akasha told CNSNews.com that the Clinton administration had underestimated Khartoum's determination to end relations with terrorist networks around the world.
An example of its willingness to do so, he said, was seen in Sudan's decision to hand over Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the fugitive terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to the French authorities in 1994.
Bin Laden had moved to Sudan after Saudi Arabia expelled him in 1991.
After Washington turned down the bin Laden offer in 1996, Sudan reportedly favored sending him to Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh refused to accept him, fearing he may overthrow the government, Akasha said.
read the rest here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html
Clinton Spurned Bin Laden Offer Because He Didn't Want to Work With Sudan, Analyst Says
Nairobi, Kenya (CNSNews.com) - Former President Bill Clinton turned down an offer from the Sudanese government to arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden because his administration did not accept that a country regarded as a sponsor of terrorism wanted to change, a leading regional analyst believes.
After the U.S. declined to take the al Qaeda terrorist leader, Sudan sent him to Afghanistan, according to Akasha Alsayeed Akasha, a Sudanese scholar based in Nairobi.
Debate on Clinton's handling of the global terror threat has been rekindled by publication of a book called "Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," by investigative reporter Richard Miniter.
It says the Clinton administration turned down offers by Khartoum to share intelligence information on al Qaeda operatives and to arrest bin Laden himself.
The Saudi-born terrorist, whose whereabouts are unknown, has been linked to attacks against Americans starting in 1992, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombing of East African U.S. embassies, up to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Commenting on the U.S. reluctance to cooperate with Sudan in the counter-terror field, Akasha told CNSNews.com that the Clinton administration had underestimated Khartoum's determination to end relations with terrorist networks around the world.
An example of its willingness to do so, he said, was seen in Sudan's decision to hand over Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the fugitive terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to the French authorities in 1994.
Bin Laden had moved to Sudan after Saudi Arabia expelled him in 1991.
After Washington turned down the bin Laden offer in 1996, Sudan reportedly favored sending him to Saudi Arabia, but Riyadh refused to accept him, fearing he may overthrow the government, Akasha said.
read the rest here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200309/FOR20030904h.html
How about Clinton's own words again for those too dense to have followed the first time around:
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer
Secret audiotape obtained exclusively by NewsMax.com shows former President Clinton admitting for the first time anywhere that he had the chance to take Osama bin Laden into custody, but he nixed the idea because he couldn't come up with a legal justification for the 9-11 mastermind's extradition.
The tape, recorded at a February business luncheon on New York's Long Island, proves that the claims of Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz, who says he brokered the deal for bin Laden's extradition, have been accurate all along - even as former Clinton officials trashed him as an exaggerator and even a liar.
Clinton's comments to the Long Island Association were so controversial that the group refused to release its own video recording to NBC News, after the network requested a copy on Friday based on NewsMax.com's Wednesday report on the event.
But NewsMax was there with our own tape rolling, a portion of which we now make available to our readers.
On the tape you'll hear the ex-president himself responding to a question about whether he would have handled bin Laden differently knowing now what he didn't know then.
Clinton explains that he was criticized at the time for being "too obsessed" with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, then maintains he just barely missed the terror kingpin when he launched the Aug. 20, 1998, cruise missile attack on his terror training camp in Khost, Afghanistan.
The mission failed, said the former commander in chief, because the attack plans were "ratted out."
In the next breath the ex-president defends his simultaneous cruise missile attack on a Sudanese medicine factory, claiming subsequent testimony from the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers proves that attack was justified.
Then Clinton makes the devastating admission he has never repeated before or since - that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden to the U.S., but he said no, even though "we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/12/24124
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio: I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer
Secret audiotape obtained exclusively by NewsMax.com shows former President Clinton admitting for the first time anywhere that he had the chance to take Osama bin Laden into custody, but he nixed the idea because he couldn't come up with a legal justification for the 9-11 mastermind's extradition.
The tape, recorded at a February business luncheon on New York's Long Island, proves that the claims of Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz, who says he brokered the deal for bin Laden's extradition, have been accurate all along - even as former Clinton officials trashed him as an exaggerator and even a liar.
Clinton's comments to the Long Island Association were so controversial that the group refused to release its own video recording to NBC News, after the network requested a copy on Friday based on NewsMax.com's Wednesday report on the event.
But NewsMax was there with our own tape rolling, a portion of which we now make available to our readers.
On the tape you'll hear the ex-president himself responding to a question about whether he would have handled bin Laden differently knowing now what he didn't know then.
Clinton explains that he was criticized at the time for being "too obsessed" with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, then maintains he just barely missed the terror kingpin when he launched the Aug. 20, 1998, cruise missile attack on his terror training camp in Khost, Afghanistan.
The mission failed, said the former commander in chief, because the attack plans were "ratted out."
In the next breath the ex-president defends his simultaneous cruise missile attack on a Sudanese medicine factory, claiming subsequent testimony from the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers proves that attack was justified.
Then Clinton makes the devastating admission he has never repeated before or since - that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden to the U.S., but he said no, even though "we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/12/24124
Originally posted by st8_o_mind
I am not ignoring what Clinton didn't do. I am ignoring your unsubstantiated claim of what you say Clinton did not do.
So, what is it you were saying? C'mon, get your finger out of your ass and admit you are clueless!
jon_forward
Active Member
and jim is ruthless, especailly when he has in audiance. we await your return
S
st8_o_mind
Guest
Originally posted by jimnyc
And I'm still patiently waiting for a list of the supposed lies by GWB. You made the comment very quickly, why is it taking you so long to list them out?
Your rapier wit in describing me as, let's see..."buttmonkey, knucklehead, clueless, etc" does raise one question that is worth answering: Just what grade are you in anyway?
As for the substance, Jimnyc wrote:
And yet I'm willing to bet you can't back that up. How about you give proven facts that he lied.
then Jimnyc wrote:
Bullshit, try reading for once instead of spouting! I posted the Clinton's own words on here via audiotape.
(read the audiotape!!! - What a schmuck)
and then Jimnyc wrote:
Where are the facts I asked for regarding these supposed lies?
So I posted a clip of Bush lying in his own words (see above, it is noteworthy that Jimmyboy considers this proof when it support his theories)
To which Jimmy responds, get ready for this...!
I'm not watching some movie.
Yes, it is all true, very word. You can scroll through the posts yourself.
Hey Jim, I guess you never have to concede a point if you refuse to listen to anything that does not support your pre-conceived notions do ya. So dont listen. Ignorance is bliss. Be happy.
Can you backup your statements or not, idiot? You read this thread about 18 times in the past 2 hours after you made an asshole out of yourself and this is the best you have to offer?
No comment on making you look foolish about Clinton and Osama either I see.
What a maroon.
You're a waste of time.
Backup your comments with reputabe, factual data - not movies. Tell me what he said and what he EXACTLY lied about.
Why can't you do this?
Is this beyond your comprehension level?
So put up or shut up, dick!
No comment on making you look foolish about Clinton and Osama either I see.
What a maroon.
You're a waste of time.
Backup your comments with reputabe, factual data - not movies. Tell me what he said and what he EXACTLY lied about.
Why can't you do this?
Is this beyond your comprehension level?
So put up or shut up, dick!
Originally posted by Sir Evil
OK aintmymind - Please stick to facts! post some credible links!
By the way, did you make that flick?
He didn't make it, it's just more garbage equivalent to moveon.org.
Sadly, this is the best he can do. He makes bold statements and then can't back them up with reputable proof. He's backpedalling like a diseased monkey on a mid 70's Huffy.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 46
- Views
- 462
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 94
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 96
- Replies
- 28
- Views
- 889
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 85
- Replies
- 81
- Views
- 483
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 123
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8045
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-