9/11 Commissioner: Clinton screwed up

[jimnyc]

** What do you have to say now, democratic whiners? Looks like the 9/11 commission is now saying what I've said for quite some time now. **

9/11 Commissioner former Navy Secretary John Lehman said Monday that President Bill Clinton's decision not to accept Sudan's offer to extradite Osama bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996 was probably the biggest blunder in the war on terrorism.

Reacting to NewsMax.com's audiotape of Mr. Clinton admitting he turned down the Sudanese, Secretary Lehman told radio host Sean Hannity, "[Clinton's comments offer] a very good insight into the overall policy during the Clinton administration, which was essentially dominated by lawyers [who treated bin Laden] as a law enforcement, not a foreign policy or a prevention issue."

Asked if it was "wrong to conclude that the biggest mistake we made was not taking Osama when we had an opportunity," Lehman told Hannity, "Yes, that's certainly true."

"There were many ways in which [bin Laden] could have been apprehended," he added.

Reacting to comments from 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean, who said yesterday that if the U.S. had nabbed bin Laden while he was in Sudan, "the whole story might have been different," Secretary Lehman told Hannity, "I do agree with that."

The former Reagan administration official said, however, that it was a mistake to focus entirely on the 9/11 mastermind, because al-Qaida is "raising a whole generation of young Arab children and youth to hate America."

"Getting Osama probably would have disrupted the planning [for 9/11]," Lehman said, "but it wasn't just Osama."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/5/181623.shtml

 

[DKSuddeth]

I'd have to agree. Here's a question though, purely hypothetical.

What kind of shit would clinton have gotten from the republican side for dealing with a terrorist supporting nation?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I'd have to agree. Here's a question though, purely hypothetical.

What kind of shit would clinton have gotten from the republican side for dealing with a terrorist supporting nation?

I can only speak for myself. I would have supported him completely. How did the republicans act in '98 when Clinton ordered the bombing campaign in Iraq? Removing terrorists from the gene pool is always a good thing, whether lead by democrats or republicans.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I remember hearing 'wag the dog' alot. I'm sure that with the vitriolic hatred that some of the top republicans held for clinton that something would have come up.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I remember hearing 'wag the dog' alot. I'm sure that with the vitriolic hatred that some of the top republicans held for clinton that something would have come up.

But the question is, what DID come up when he invaded Iraq. Were there as many cheapshots at Clinton, or was there a bit of support?

 

[jimnyc]

Here's an article from 1998 regarding republican support for Clinton regarding the use of force against Iraq. I'm sure there were some dopes that spoke out against him at the time, but most supported his decision. A few questioned the timing but that was more critical of his affair with Lewinsky than it was speaking out against the decision to bomb targets in Iraq. How many of these reports have we read about the democrats supporting Bush?

New Gingrich said ""In matters of international relations, the United States is one nation."

"I'm worried that Saddam Hussein, not understanding America, might be confused by the difference between headlines and the national will,"

"We as a people are unified in our opposition to terrorism, and we are unified in our opposition to Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction,"

Gingrich told reporters following the meeting with Berger and Lott that there should be no mistake about the "American nation's commitment" to preventing Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Republicans are "prepared to be supportive" of measures to prevent that from happening, he said.

Senator John McCain (Republican-Arizona) offered his support to the White House January 26 "if the President does it right.

"If there are sustained and serious air operations," McCain said, "then I would be one of the first to defend his actions. The attacks would exact a price for Saddam's behavior, to the point where he and his supporters will figure that it is not in their interest to continue defying" the sanctions.

http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/congress/archive/1998/january/uc1128.htm

 

[DKSuddeth]

While I don't doubt that there were supporters, there were also detractors, many of whom made their retorts after the effect.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/17/981217-bill-con.htm

INTRO: MANY CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS ARE QUESTIONING PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S CREDIBILITY IN THE WAKE OF THE U-S MILITARY ATTACKS ON
IRAQ. THE AIRSTRIKES BEGAN ON THE EVE OF THE SCHEDULED
IMPEACHMENT VOTE IN THE U-S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ANGERING
SOME OPPOSITION REPUBLICANS WHO ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF USING THE
ATTACK ON IRAQ TO DELAY THE IMPEACHMENT VOTE. AS NATIONAL
CORRESPONDENT JIM MALONE REPORTS, THE LEVEL OF TRUST BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS APPEARS TO BE AT AN
ALL-TIME LOW.

TEXT: IN THE WAKE OF THE ATTACK ON IRAQ, THE CREDIBILITY GAP
BETWEEN CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS AND PRESIDENT CLINTON SEEMS TO
BE WIDENING. DANA ROHRABACHER IS A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.

/// ROHRABACHER ACT. ///

WE DO NOT EVEN TRUST HIM WHEN HE ORDERS THE AMERICAN
MILITARY INTO ACTION. WE BELIEVE HE IS A SHAMELESS LIAR
AND IT IS TIME FOR HIM TO STEP DOWN.

/// END ACT. ///

SOME REPUBLICANS NOW SEE POLITICAL MOTIVES IN EVERYTHING THE
PRESIDENT DOES, AND THAT COULD POISON RELATIONS BETWEEN THE WHITE
HOUSE AND CONGRESS FOR THE REST OF MR. CLINTON'S TERM, ASSUMING
HE SURVIVES AN EXPECTED IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE SENATE.

THIS IS UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA POLITICAL SCIENTIST LARRY SABATO.

/// SABATO ACT. ///

WE ARE BEGINNING TO SEE THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE
PRESIDENT'S MISSTATEMENTS AND UNTRUTHS CONNECTED TO THE
SCANDALS. NOW, A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, AT LEAST A THIRD (ACCORDING TO MOST POLLS), DO
NOT BELIEVE HIM AND ARE NOT INCLINED TO BELIEVE HIM ON
ANYTHING. AND THAT PERCENTAGE IS ACTUALLY HIGHER AMONG
THE GOVERNING CLASS, THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN OFFICE OR
CLOSE TO POWER.

/// END ACT. ///

THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY LEADER IN THE U-S SENATE, TRENT LOTT
(MISSISSIPPI) EVEN TOOK THE UNUSUAL STEP OF WITHHOLDING HIS
SUPPORT FOR THE IRAQ BOMBINGS, SAYING THE TIMING OF THE ATTACK
WAS SUSPECT.

AT THE WHITE HOUSE, PRESIDENT CLINTON SOUGHT TO REASSURE THE
PUBLIC THE ATTACK AGAINST BAGHDAD WAS NOT PART OF A POLITICAL
STRATEGY AIMED AT SIDETRACKING THE IMPEACHMENT EFFORT IN
CONGRESS.

/// CLINTON ACT. ///

THAT IT IS NOT TRUE. THAT WHAT I DID WAS THE RIGHT
THING FOR THE COUNTRY. I DO NOT THINK THAT ANY SERIOUS
PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THAT ANY PRESIDENT WOULD DO SUCH A
THING.

/// END ACT. ///

THIS GROWING WILLINGNESS BY REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS TO QUESTION
THE MOTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ABROAD IS THE LATEST
EXAMPLE OF THE DETERIORATING BIPARTISANSHIP IN OFFICIAL
WASHINGTON.

/// OPT /// IT IS A TREND WHICH BEGAN DURING THE DIVISIVE
DEBATES OVER THE VIETNAM WAR IN THE 1960'S AND BLOSSOMED DURING
THE WATERGATE SCANDAL IN THE 1970'S AND THE IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL
OF THE 1980'S.

POLITICAL ANALYST STUART ROTHENBERG SAYS AMERICAN PRESIDENTS CAN
NO LONGER AUTOMATICALLY COUNT ON BIPARTISAN SUPPORT WHEN DEALING
WITH A CRISIS OVERSEAS.

/// ROTHENBERG ACT. ///

IT USED TO BE SAID THAT POLITICS STOPPED AT THE WATER'S
EDGE, AND THAT WAS A REFERENCE TO WHEN FOREIGN POLICY
WAS INVOLVED THERE WERE NO REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATS OR
LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES, BUT JUST AMERICANS. AND I
THINK THAT SINCE VIETNAM (WAR) WE HAVE SEEN EROSION OF
THAT BIPARTISANSHIP AND MOST RECENTLY, SENATOR (TRENT)
LOTT'S CRITICAL COMMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S DECISIONS, I
THINK, EMPHASIZE THAT EROSION AND POINT OUT THAT
PARTISAN POLITICS NO LONGER STOPS AT THE WATER'S EDGE
AND NOW INVOLVES IMPORTANT NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES AS
WELL.

 

[jimnyc]

The difference being, they were questioning his timing during the Lewinsky fiasco. You don't see them condemning his actions against Iraq. You don't see them claiming that he shouldn't have taken action without sufficient proof. You don't see them claiming it was about oil. You don't see them claiming he lied and mislead america to further his political agenda.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I gotcha :cof:

 

[zarquiekia]

That is a lie! Clinton made a grave error. The shortterm of his error is Osama will be captured or killed.

The biggest blunder is going to war with Iraq! That blunder will have longevity and will have the most powerful deadly consequences to the United States Of America. Open your eyes! Iraqis are showing you they are not going to lie down and give their country to a false dream of democracy. Democracy is not what Bush and his evil regime have in mind for Iraq!

You want to know my source! Read your bible!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by zarquiekia
That is a lie! Clinton made a grave error. The shortterm of his error is Osama will be captured or killed.

The biggest blunder is going to war with Iraq! That blunder will have longevity and will have the most powerful deadly consequences to the United States Of America. Open your eyes! Iraqis are showing you they are not going to lie down and give their country to a false dream of democracy. Democracy is not what Bush and his evil regime have in mind for Iraq!

You want to know my source! Read your bible!

Sure, we'll listen to a raving PMS lunatic over the 9/11 commission.


Palestinian Jew - remember yesterday I told you about these droolers? This dope is a perfect example!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by zarquiekia
You want to know my source! Read your bible! [/B]

OK. Where, exactly, in the Bible, does it state that the US should not have invaded Iraq? As an evangelical Christian, I would be ashamed to have missed this passage.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by zarquiekia
That is a lie! Clinton made a grave error. The shortterm of his error is Osama will be captured or killed.

The biggest blunder is going to war with Iraq! That blunder will have longevity and will have the most powerful deadly consequences to the United States Of America. Open your eyes! Iraqis are showing you they are not going to lie down and give their country to a false dream of democracy. Democracy is not what Bush and his evil regime have in mind for Iraq!

You want to know my source! Read your bible!

"the short term of his error is Osama will be captured or killed"

You have got to be the most scatterbrained, incoherent, dumbass broad i've ever had the displeasure of reading! Do you even realize you make no sense? If no go away!

 

[zarquiekia]

Bush ignores chaos in Iraq! Bush had time to throw the ceremonial first pitch Monday at the Busch Stadium in St Louis.

The first sentence is a Kerry quote.

Bush don't give a crap about the military dying in Iraq! What president during wartime do you know went to a baseball game to enjoy himself and men were dying in a war:

Abe Lincoln, did not play baseball during the Civil War.

Truman, did not play baseball during WWI&II.

JFK, did not play baseball at the beginning of Vietnam War.

Johnson, did not play baseball at the beginning of Vietnam War.

Nixon, did not play baseball during Vietnam War.

America had presidents that served their country fighting in war. Bush was a chickens--t. Bush made it clear that he would not die for his country but Bush send other American's children to die in his quest far oil!

Source U.S. History!

 

[jimnyc]

You are an idiot!

Source - look in the mirror, DOLT!

 

[OCA]

Zarq give yourself a rest you are making an ass out of yourself! Truman was not a president during WWI you ignorant dyke! I do not believe there to be organized baseball in the 1860's so Lincoln didn't even have the opportunity to my knowledge, HOLY CRAP YOU ARE STUPID! Every opening day of every baseball season the president throws out a first pitch somewhere. Because Bush did he now does not care about the troops, are you serious with this shit??????? Get the fuck out of here and go back to your cave for the love of god!

 

[zarquiekia]

The Fall Of Babylon: In the book of Revelation ch 18.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by zarquiekia
The Fall Of Babylon: In the book of Revelation ch 18.

You are 100% clueless. Go jump off a bridge.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by zarquiekia
The Fall Of Babylon: In the book of Revelation ch 18.

Revelation chapter 18
King James Version
1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

It would be Biblical IF:

You ALREADY had a number of the beast and nobody would buy or sell without it.

You already had a one world religion

You knew Babylon to be America or Iraq, neither of which Geographically fit, ony Rome does.

and

Your AC came into being from a governmental system mirroring the EU (the horns of the beast).

So, no, you are quite off base.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by jimnyc
You are 100% clueless. Go jump off a bridge.

Jimmy i'm beginning to think that this chick has some serious mental and comprehension problems. In fact i'm not sure she can understand what were saying, i'm talking serious now. If she's in NYC might be time to give Bellevue a call.