Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials

[Jon]

Furthermore, do you know that at one point soldiers had Bin Laden in their crosshairs but Clinton told them to stand down? Why? Because Clinton was smart and realized that killing one man was pointless because somebody would just quickly take his place along with the fact that it's more then one person running the show.

So, let me get this straight: your argument is that it's pointless to kill Bin Laden because he's just one man. Yet, hasn't Obama vowed to go after that very man? Haven't you and your leftist cohorts complained because Bush went after an entire country of known terrorists instead of one man bitched and fucking moaned about the fact that he let "Osama go free" for the last five years?

Hypocrisy is a stinky business, and you sure wreak.

Also, I was completely against the prosecution of Bill Clinton. I didn't give a shit if he was having an affair, that was between him, Hillary, and Monica - not the country. So, your argument to me that we wasted money then does nothing to negate the point that we would be wasting money to go after Bush. More than likely, Obama would pardon him at the end of his administration anyway, if the price was right (and it would be).

 

[Avatar4321]

How great a president is depends on the sum of their actions, not their words or personal life. While Clinton wasn't perfect he did do more to help the country than Bush Jr..

Like? Ive been waiting 8+ years for someone to tell me what Clinton did that was so good. I havent heard it yet.

 

[Alpha1]

Really need to keep your tone of language down.

As for all this intel we have seen outdated intel, forged documents and cherry picked intel and exaggerating and misleading claims. I doubt the French intel reported many of the claims Bush said and I'm quite sure most other countries did not have that intel either.

I real sorry if the "tone" of my posts upset you....but you need develop a thicker skin.... as for "you're quite sure most other countries did not have that intel either" , you must have missed what Mr. Tony Blair was saying about Saddam and the period in question.....

maybe it was just Canada that did not have that intel .... even Russia was in agreement with worldwide views about Iraq....false though is was , that was the common belief....even if their making big bucks from the oil for food nonsense skewed their public statements.........

 

[Alpha1]

Like? Ive been waiting 8+ years for someone to tell me what Clinton did that was so good. I havent heard it yet.

The only thing Clinton did that was wise was agree to let Gingrich get needed legislation passed contained in 'the contract with America'......and his support of NAFTA.....

 

[elvis]

So, let me get this straight: your argument is that it's pointless to kill Bin Laden because he's just one man. Yet, hasn't Obama vowed to go after that very man? Haven't you and your leftist cohorts complained because Bush went after an entire country of known terrorists instead of one man bitched and fucking moaned about the fact that he let "Osama go free" for the last five years?

Hypocrisy is a stinky business, and you sure wreak.

Also, I was completely against the prosecution of Bill Clinton. I didn't give a shit if he was having an affair, that was between him, Hillary, and Monica - not the country. So, your argument to me that we wasted money then does nothing to negate the point that we would be wasting money to go after Bush. More than likely, Obama would pardon him at the end of his administration anyway, if the price was right (and it would be).

This is the terrorist who declared war on America in what? 1995?

 

[DiveCon]

This is the terrorist who declared war on America in what? 1995?

i thought it was in 93

 

[Truthmatters]

Like? Ive been waiting 8+ years for someone to tell me what Clinton did that was so good. I havent heard it yet.

Your problem is you are in the vast minority who think this.

 

[elvis]

i thought it was in 93

He was interviewed by some Brit. I can't remember the exact year.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Just a question, if Bin Laden was such a huge threat when Clinton was in office then why the fuck did Bush do nothing on August 23, 2001 when a memo stated: Bin Laden to attack U.S was given to Bush by Condi?

Golly... a whole 'memo?' And one declaring that Bin Laden was planning an attack? Well that's just damned near a blue print... except it doesn't say how, where or when... and given the Clinton regimes evisceration of the intelligence means of the US, in implementing such policy as 'the wall' which prevented US intelligence from sharing intelligence with domestic law enforcement... along with such brilliance as preventing the CIA from hiring intelligence operatives with violent or criminal backgrounds... which would tend to discourage getting OPERATIVES INSIDE TERRORIST CELLS...

Furthermore, do you know that at one point soldiers had Bin Laden in their crosshairs but Clinton told them to stand down? Why? Because Clinton was smart and realized that killing one man was pointless because somebody would just quickly take his place along with the fact that it's more then one person running the show.

LOL... Well then you must be beside yourself on the whole premise wherein John Gotti was prosecuted... after all, taking him out of circulation wouldn't stop organized crime... some other criminal would just commit another crime, another gangster would just fill his shoes...

ROFLMNAO... Hysterical!

Al-Qaeda is most likely not as big as we think because ANYONE can claim to be Al-Qaeda and Osama doesn't mind.

Al Qaeda is a management group... it seeks to organize the assets of the individual groups of Islamics hostile to the Western world... It was never a terrorist group in and of itself... it simply utilizes the international body of individual groups for every facet of proxy war against the west; from shooters to intelligence, technical and logistical support such as ordinance, funding, travel and diplomatic assistance.

Why? It gives the illusion that Al-Qaeda is a dangerous group that is everywhere at anytime.

But I cannot wait to see your answers.

Hey... it's the 'terrorism was never a major problem' strategy... which would of course be a great point if it wasn't for the whole 9-11, USS Cole, the numerous US embassy bombings, the '93 WTC bombing, bombings of US citizens around the world killing hundreds of Americans and thousands of American allies... the Beruit Barracks Bombing and the dozens and dozens of bombings, hijackings and other assorted mass murders which were targeted at NOTHING EXCEPT INNOCENT PEOPLE.

So the fact is that organized mass murder is a serious problem, one destroys innocent life, shrinks economies and cripples cultures... so what could be the purpose behind people who are determined to establish that such is NOT a particularly significant problem? Could it be argued that they're purpose is to undermine the security of that culture?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So, let me get this straight: your argument is that it's pointless to kill Bin Laden because he's just one man. Yet, hasn't Obama vowed to go after that very man? Haven't you and your leftist cohorts complained because Bush went after an entire country of known terrorists instead of one man bitched and fucking moaned about the fact that he let "Osama go free" for the last five years?

Hypocrisy is a stinky business, and you sure wreak.

Also, I was completely against the prosecution of Bill Clinton. I didn't give a shit if he was having an affair, that was between him, Hillary, and Monica - not the country. So, your argument to me that we wasted money then does nothing to negate the point that we would be wasting money to go after Bush. More than likely, Obama would pardon him at the end of his administration anyway, if the price was right (and it would be).

Clinton's impeachment was not about sex... it was about the integrity of the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE US LEGAL SYSTEM... Abuse of power, Obstruction of Justice, subornation of perjury, perjury and so on...

Your conclusion which just oozes 'its all about sex'... is a function of the non-stop propaganda campaign which was designed to elicit that erroneous position... just as the non-stop propaganda campaign that "Bush's Presidency is a failure is designed to elicit the erroneous conclusion that it imparts... it's not true, it's just commonly accepted as truth and THAT is all they're after.

Your problem is you are in the vast minority who think...

... sound familiar? this member can't show reasoned argument in support of her position, she is only concerned with what she feels is a popularly held position... and she erroneously feels that a popularly held position is a logically valid, intellectually sound position... 'All those people can't be wrong...' Which is nonsense... they can be wrong and they USUALLY ARE...

 

[Jon]

Clinton's impeachment was not about sex... it was about the integrity of the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE US LEGAL SYSTEM... Abuse of power, Obstruction of Justice, subornation of perjury, perjury and so on...

Clinton's impeachment was based on perjury. He lied under oath. What did he lie about? Having sex. So, yes, it's all about sex.

 

[Modbert]

So, let me get this straight: your argument is that it's pointless to kill Bin Laden because he's just one man. Yet, hasn't Obama vowed to go after that very man? Haven't you and your leftist cohorts complained because Bush went after an entire country of known terrorists instead of one man bitched and fucking moaned about the fact that he let "Osama go free" for the last five years?

Hypocrisy is a stinky business, and you sure wreak.

Also, I was completely against the prosecution of Bill Clinton. I didn't give a shit if he was having an affair, that was between him, Hillary, and Monica - not the country. So, your argument to me that we wasted money then does nothing to negate the point that we would be wasting money to go after Bush. More than likely, Obama would pardon him at the end of his administration anyway, if the price was right (and it would be).

No, I'm not saying it's pointless to kill Bin Laden now, he should of been but Clinton was smart enough to know that it wouldn't of made that huge of a difference. At the very least a martyr would of been created in their eyes.

If there was a time that taking out Osama Bin Laden would of made a difference would of been in 1988 after the formation of Al-Qaeda.

I realize looking at the post you quoted that I used a bad choice of words.

My point still stands though, killing Osama Bin Laden at that point would of done little to nothing to Al-Qaeda and it's most likely that 9/11 would of still occurred. If not in the same exact form then in another form with perhaps even more deaths.

However, I just as much as anyone wish to see Osama Bin Laden dead for the crimes he has committed.

 

[Modbert]

Clinton's impeachment was based on perjury. He lied under oath. What did he lie about? Having sex. So, yes, it's all about sex.

They wanted to nail Clinton plain and simple. I guess the Republicans were sick of taking it.

 

[elvis]

No, I'm not saying it's pointless to kill Bin Laden now, he should of been but Clinton was smart enough to know that it wouldn't of made that huge of a difference. At the very least a martyr would of been created in their eyes.

If there was a time that taking out Osama Bin Laden would of made a difference would of been in 1988 after the formation of Al-Qaeda.

I realize looking at the post you quoted that I used a bad choice of words.

My point still stands though, killing Osama Bin Laden at that point would of done little to nothing to Al-Qaeda and it's most likely that 9/11 would of still occurred.

if the news of Moussaui being captured had reached al qaeda "headquarters", a couple days earlier, they would have called off 9/11. So, I think killing bin Laden would have put al qaeda into a tailspin.

 

[Modbert]

Golly... a whole 'memo?' And one declaring that Bin Laden was planning an attack? Well that's just damned near a blue print... except it doesn't say how, where or when... and given the Clinton regimes evisceration of the intelligence means of the US, in implementing such policy as 'the wall' which prevented US intelligence from sharing intelligence with domestic law enforcement... along with such brilliance as preventing the CIA from hiring intelligence operatives with violent or criminal backgrounds... which would tend to discourage getting OPERATIVES INSIDE TERRORIST CELLS...

My mistake, it was an August 6, 2001 memo.

August 6, 2001, President's Daily Briefing Memo - SourceWatch

On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a briefing by the CIA titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. (National Post, May 20, 2002, p.1) The report was prepared at Mr. Bush's request after he became alarmed at warnings of 'an impending attack in the summer of 2001.' (ibid., p. A9) At the time, Bush was concerned about 'domestic targets.' Yet According to Jonathan Freeland (writing in the National Guardian, May 30-June 5, 2002 p. 11) "Vice President Dick Cheney sat on a Counter-Terrorism Bill passed to him in July, 2001. The Attorney General John Ashcroft refused a demand for more FBI anti-terrorism agents. The Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not deploy a predator drone aircraft which the Clinton Administration had used to track Bin Laden. National Security Advisor Condi Rice was warned by her Clintonite predecessor that she should spend more time on Al Qaeda than any other issue.' She didn't," Steve Moore reported in Global Research, August 18, 2002.

"I never worry about action, but only about inaction."

- Winston Churchill

 

[Modbert]

if the news of Moussaui being captured had reached al qaeda "headquarters", a couple days earlier, they would have called off 9/11. So, I think killing bin Laden would have put al qaeda into a tailspin.

The only problem would of been perhaps funding but they could of obtain that from the Afghanistan Taliban controlled government.

Of course, a dent in their plans would make them rethink of going through with the plan right away.

But there is no doubt that due to the inaction of the Bush Administration that eventually an 9/11 type attack would of happened.

 

[elvis]

The only problem would of been perhaps funding but they could of obtain that from the Afghanistan Taliban controlled government.

Of course, a dent in their plans would make them rethink of going through with the plan right away.

But there is no doubt that due to the inaction of the Bush Administration that eventually an 9/11 type attack would of happened.

partisan

 

[Modbert]

partisan

How? Do explain?

Was the article above not enough evidence that the Bush Administration committed inaction?

By the way, tough for me to be a partisan when I'm not a member of any party or consider myself a member of any party huh.

 

[elvis]

How? Do explain?

Was the article above not enough evidence that the Bush Administration committed inaction?

i didn't read it. I know about his inaction.

partisan.

 

[Modbert]

i didn't read it. I know about his inaction.

partisan.

So why call me a partisan? I guess the facts make me such a thing?