Political history being re wrote as we watch

[JRK]

Boo there was no impeachable offense
The war was deemed legal before we ever invaded. Why do you Libs keep going round and round about something that has 0 truth to it?

GWB did what congress said for him to do. And you libs are trying to say that what he did was against the law?
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Quotes From Democrats on Weapons of Mass Destruction - BreakTheChain.org

I voted for Bob Graham in 98 I think it was

 

[BlindBoo]

Boo there was no impeachable offense
The war was deemed legal before we ever invaded. Why do you Libs keep going round and round about something that has 0 truth to it?

GWB did what congress said for him to do. And you libs are trying to say that what he did was against the law?
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Quotes From Democrats on Weapons of Mass Destruction - BreakTheChain.org

I voted for Bob Graham in 98 I think it was

JRK, that is your opinion and you're welcome to it. Your own link gives a reasonable rebuttal to that opinion. My opinion is that it not only violated the UN's Charter or Mission Statement, but also destroyed the international response to aggression precident President Bush(41) help set by insisting on getting the UNSC behind the effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Iraq was not a significant threat to the USA. Nothing we've found during the invasion or occupation has changed that. Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attack. Those were the criteria set in the 02 resolution for military action. The conditions Congress set were not met. Congress did nothing about it. They should have all resigned. They disgraced America.

 

[JRK]

Boo there was no impeachable offense
The war was deemed legal before we ever invaded. Why do you Libs keep going round and round about something that has 0 truth to it?

GWB did what congress said for him to do. And you libs are trying to say that what he did was against the law?
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Quotes From Democrats on Weapons of Mass Destruction - BreakTheChain.org

I voted for Bob Graham in 98 I think it was

JRK, that is your opinion and you're welcome to it. Your own link gives a reasonable rebuttal to that opinion. My opinion is that it not only violated the UN's Charter or Mission Statement, but also destroyed the international response to aggression precident President Bush(41) help set by insisting on getting the UNSC behind the effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Iraq was not a significant threat to the USA. Nothing we've found during the invasion or occupation has changed that. Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attack. Those were the criteria set in the 02 resolution for military action. The conditions Congress set were not met. Congress did nothing about it. They should have all resigned. They disgraced America.

The mistake was made when we trusted the UN
I keep going back top what Blix said in 03 and it threw every-one for a loop
Boo the UN has only one place in this event, it was there lack of being able to provide certain enforcement that caused us to invade as was mandated by the US congress

Let me ask you a question, do you take the other 50 or so countries that either put boots on the ground or supported out invasion, do there leaders go to jail also?
if not whats the difference?

 

[idb]

Boo there was no impeachable offense
The war was deemed legal before we ever invaded. Why do you Libs keep going round and round about something that has 0 truth to it?

GWB did what congress said for him to do. And you libs are trying to say that what he did was against the law?
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Quotes From Democrats on Weapons of Mass Destruction - BreakTheChain.org

I voted for Bob Graham in 98 I think it was

JRK, that is your opinion and you're welcome to it. Your own link gives a reasonable rebuttal to that opinion. My opinion is that it not only violated the UN's Charter or Mission Statement, but also destroyed the international response to aggression precident President Bush(41) help set by insisting on getting the UNSC behind the effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Iraq was not a significant threat to the USA. Nothing we've found during the invasion or occupation has changed that. Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attack. Those were the criteria set in the 02 resolution for military action. The conditions Congress set were not met. Congress did nothing about it. They should have all resigned. They disgraced America.

The mistake was made when we trusted the UN
I keep going back top what Blix said in 03 and it threw every-one for a loop
Boo the UN has only one place in this event, it was there lack of being able to provide certain enforcement that caused us to invade as was mandated by the US congress

Let me ask you a question, do you take the other 50 or so countries that either put boots on the ground or supported out invasion, do there leaders go to jail also?
if not whats the difference?

A lot of countries went only after bullying from the US.
'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.'
The threat of trade sanctions was used.

It's great to have friends

 

[JRK]

JRK, that is your opinion and you're welcome to it. Your own link gives a reasonable rebuttal to that opinion. My opinion is that it not only violated the UN's Charter or Mission Statement, but also destroyed the international response to aggression precident President Bush(41) help set by insisting on getting the UNSC behind the effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Iraq was not a significant threat to the USA. Nothing we've found during the invasion or occupation has changed that. Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attack. Those were the criteria set in the 02 resolution for military action. The conditions Congress set were not met. Congress did nothing about it. They should have all resigned. They disgraced America.

The mistake was made when we trusted the UN
I keep going back top what Blix said in 03 and it threw every-one for a loop
Boo the UN has only one place in this event, it was there lack of being able to provide certain enforcement that caused us to invade as was mandated by the US congress

Let me ask you a question, do you take the other 50 or so countries that either put boots on the ground or supported out invasion, do there leaders go to jail also?
if not whats the difference?

A lot of countries went only after bullying from the US.
'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.'
The threat of trade sanctions was used.

It's great to have friends

what we faced in Jan of 2003 and what has been re wrote sense is night and day and those who re wrote have a day in which they will have to answer to doing that

EVERY-ONE thought Saddam was dirty because he said he was. Today only booooooooooooosh gets any of it. he does not care and neither would I if it was not the biggest reason Obama got elected

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Considering we didn't see another attact on American soil by terrorists, after 911, until Fort Hood (under Obama), I think GWB did a great job. He did a better job at protecting this country than President Clinton, who saw terrorists bombings on:

Feb 1993 The World Trade Center (killing 6, wounding 1,042) - no response

Nov 1995 car bomb in Riyadh, Saudia Arabia - (5 US military killed) - no response

June 25, 1996 Fuel truck bomb explodes on an Air Force instillation in Dhahran, Saudia Arabia (19 US military killed in Khubar buildings, 240 Americans wounded) - no response

Aug 7 1998 US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (12 Americans of 301 killed, with 7 Americans among 5077 wounded) - President Clinton launched a cruise missile destroying a pharmaceutical facility in Khartoum, Sudan (was that ever a HUGE threat)

Oct 2000 USS Cole bombed at the port of Aden, Yemen (killing 17 sailors, injuring 39) - no response

The ‘benefactor’ of GWB’s incompetence.

It's quite interesting to note how quick the left placed blame on President Bush for what happened on 9-11, only months into GWB first year as President. Yet Obama can't stop "whining" about blaming GWB for the CURRENT state of the economy he still "claims" to have inherited 3 YEARS later into his term. Can liberals be found really balling this much? Do they ever grow up? Care to have a tissue as you cry me a river?

Funny that you cast the blame on Clinton for the 1993 bombing of the WTC when it was mere days, not months into his Presidency. Nor did he recieve a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In the USA". Nor did he stop and blame President Bush(41) either. Furthermore you credit President Bush with stopping terrorist attack on US soil and then list 5 terrorist attacks that occurred under Clinton that were on foriegn soil? You also failed to mention that many of the counter terrorism incentives proposed by President Clinton were fought with an alliance of the ACLU and Republican in Congress.

President Clinton did more to fight Terrorism that any President before him.

When did the Bush Administration finally take up the question of international terrorism? I recall that the Bush team regarded Star-War Missile defense as the way to protect America from Rogue Nations, well until 9-11 that is.....

Mere days? I bet you still like to place blame for this current state of the economy, on Bush and the Republicans after three years don't you? So don't give me this mere days crap! This bombing of the World Trade Center happened on who's watch? If Clinton did such a fantasic job in fighting terrorism, why are there more reports of terrorist attacks that followed the 1993 Trade Center bombings than can be found after 9-11? (facts "supported" under my last post) Looks like the only thing your beloved Clinton was concerned about was covering his own ass with Monica Lewinski.

I do however, see the GREAT "success" these counter terrorism incentives you mentioned actually had, please read:

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden
The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden — just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled — giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm

Try including some facts when you make a statement next time, that way you won't look like someone who simply enjoys rambling about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

 

[idb]

The mistake was made when we trusted the UN
I keep going back top what Blix said in 03 and it threw every-one for a loop
Boo the UN has only one place in this event, it was there lack of being able to provide certain enforcement that caused us to invade as was mandated by the US congress

Let me ask you a question, do you take the other 50 or so countries that either put boots on the ground or supported out invasion, do there leaders go to jail also?
if not whats the difference?

A lot of countries went only after bullying from the US.
'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.'
The threat of trade sanctions was used.

It's great to have friends

what we faced in Jan of 2003 and what has been re wrote sense is night and day and those who re wrote have a day in which they will have to answer to doing that

EVERY-ONE thought Saddam was dirty because he said he was. Today only booooooooooooosh gets any of it. he does not care and neither would I if it was not the biggest reason Obama got elected

Sorry - what did you face in Jan of 2003?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boo there was no impeachable offense
The war was deemed legal before we ever invaded. Why do you Libs keep going round and round about something that has 0 truth to it?

GWB did what congress said for him to do. And you libs are trying to say that what he did was against the law?
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

Quotes From Democrats on Weapons of Mass Destruction - BreakTheChain.org

I voted for Bob Graham in 98 I think it was

JRK, that is your opinion and you're welcome to it. Your own link gives a reasonable rebuttal to that opinion. My opinion is that it not only violated the UN's Charter or Mission Statement, but also destroyed the international response to aggression precident President Bush(41) help set by insisting on getting the UNSC behind the effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Iraq was not a significant threat to the USA. Nothing we've found during the invasion or occupation has changed that. Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attack. Those were the criteria set in the 02 resolution for military action. The conditions Congress set were not met. Congress did nothing about it. They should have all resigned. They disgraced America.

The mistake was made when we trusted the UN
I keep going back top what Blix said in 03 and it threw every-one for a loop
Boo the UN has only one place in this event, it was there lack of being able to provide certain enforcement that caused us to invade as was mandated by the US congress

Let me ask you a question, do you take the other 50 or so countries that either put boots on the ground or supported out invasion, do there leaders go to jail also?
if not whats the difference?

The US had no legal or moral right to enforce the UN mandate.

To do so violated international law, making bush et all war criminals.

 

[JRK]

A lot of countries went only after bullying from the US.
'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.'
The threat of trade sanctions was used.

It's great to have friends

what we faced in Jan of 2003 and what has been re wrote sense is night and day and those who re wrote have a day in which they will have to answer to doing that

EVERY-ONE thought Saddam was dirty because he said he was. Today only booooooooooooosh gets any of it. he does not care and neither would I if it was not the biggest reason Obama got elected

Sorry - what did you face in Jan of 2003?

what we faced really does not matter as usual your making light of the events that american lives where sacrificed for and the world as we knew was changed for ever
Have a good day, and when you get a chance, thank those who gave it all so you can sit behind that key board and be you.
I really will never understand the mental attitude that thinks all of this stuff is a joke, dont you agree?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK knows full well his postings are nothing but a joke on the good, a parody of the suffering of good men and women throughout the world, all in the pursuit of neo-con thuggism.

 

[BlindBoo]

Considering we didn't see another attact on American soil by terrorists, after 911, until Fort Hood (under Obama), I think GWB did a great job. He did a better job at protecting this country than President Clinton, who saw terrorists bombings on:

Feb 1993 The World Trade Center (killing 6, wounding 1,042) - no response

Nov 1995 car bomb in Riyadh, Saudia Arabia - (5 US military killed) - no response

June 25, 1996 Fuel truck bomb explodes on an Air Force instillation in Dhahran, Saudia Arabia (19 US military killed in Khubar buildings, 240 Americans wounded) - no response

Aug 7 1998 US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (12 Americans of 301 killed, with 7 Americans among 5077 wounded) - President Clinton launched a cruise missile destroying a pharmaceutical facility in Khartoum, Sudan (was that ever a HUGE threat)

Oct 2000 USS Cole bombed at the port of Aden, Yemen (killing 17 sailors, injuring 39) - no response






It's quite interesting to note how quick the left placed blame on President Bush for what happened on 9-11, only months into GWB first year as President. Yet Obama can't stop "whining" about blaming GWB for the CURRENT state of the economy he still "claims" to have inherited 3 YEARS later into his term. Can liberals be found really balling this much? Do they ever grow up? Care to have a tissue as you cry me a river?

Funny that you cast the blame on Clinton for the 1993 bombing of the WTC when it was mere days, not months into his Presidency. Nor did he recieve a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In the USA". Nor did he stop and blame President Bush(41) either. Furthermore you credit President Bush with stopping terrorist attack on US soil and then list 5 terrorist attacks that occurred under Clinton that were on foriegn soil? You also failed to mention that many of the counter terrorism incentives proposed by President Clinton were fought with an alliance of the ACLU and Republican in Congress.

President Clinton did more to fight Terrorism that any President before him.

When did the Bush Administration finally take up the question of international terrorism? I recall that the Bush team regarded Star-War Missile defense as the way to protect America from Rogue Nations, well until 9-11 that is.....

Mere days? I bet you still like to place blame for this current state of the economy, on Bush and the Republicans after three years don't you? So don't give me this mere days crap! This bombing of the World Trade Center happened on who's watch? If Clinton did such a fantasic job in fighting terrorism, why are there more reports of terrorist attacks that followed the 1993 Trade Center bombings than can be found after 9-11? (facts "supported" under my last post) Looks like the only thing your beloved Clinton was concerned about was covering his own ass with Monica Lewinski.

I do however, see the GREAT "success" these counter terrorism incentives you mentioned actually had, please read:

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden
The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden — just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled — giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

Clinton and Terrorism

Try including some facts when you make a statement next time, that way you won't look like someone who simply enjoys rambling about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

Nice attempt at diversion and denigration. The economy is a different subject. The first WTC bombing happen less than a month after Slick took office........

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

 

[JRK]

Funny that you cast the blame on Clinton for the 1993 bombing of the WTC when it was mere days, not months into his Presidency. Nor did he recieve a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In the USA". Nor did he stop and blame President Bush(41) either. Furthermore you credit President Bush with stopping terrorist attack on US soil and then list 5 terrorist attacks that occurred under Clinton that were on foriegn soil? You also failed to mention that many of the counter terrorism incentives proposed by President Clinton were fought with an alliance of the ACLU and Republican in Congress.

President Clinton did more to fight Terrorism that any President before him.

When did the Bush Administration finally take up the question of international terrorism? I recall that the Bush team regarded Star-War Missile defense as the way to protect America from Rogue Nations, well until 9-11 that is.....

Mere days? I bet you still like to place blame for this current state of the economy, on Bush and the Republicans after three years don't you? So don't give me this mere days crap! This bombing of the World Trade Center happened on who's watch? If Clinton did such a fantasic job in fighting terrorism, why are there more reports of terrorist attacks that followed the 1993 Trade Center bombings than can be found after 9-11? (facts "supported" under my last post) Looks like the only thing your beloved Clinton was concerned about was covering his own ass with Monica Lewinski.

I do however, see the GREAT "success" these counter terrorism incentives you mentioned actually had, please read:

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden
The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden — just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled — giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

Clinton and Terrorism

Try including some facts when you make a statement next time, that way you won't look like someone who simply enjoys rambling about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

Nice attempt at diversion and denigration. The economy is a different subject. The first WTC bombing happen less than a month after Slick took office........

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

GWB firt recession took place about 1 month after he took office

 

[JakeStarkey]

Clinton did not wrongfully invade Iraq.

Bush did and will be remembered as a war criminal for the rest of written history.

 

[BlindBoo]

Mere days? I bet you still like to place blame for this current state of the economy, on Bush and the Republicans after three years don't you? So don't give me this mere days crap! This bombing of the World Trade Center happened on who's watch? If Clinton did such a fantasic job in fighting terrorism, why are there more reports of terrorist attacks that followed the 1993 Trade Center bombings than can be found after 9-11? (facts "supported" under my last post) Looks like the only thing your beloved Clinton was concerned about was covering his own ass with Monica Lewinski.

I do however, see the GREAT "success" these counter terrorism incentives you mentioned actually had, please read:


Try including some facts when you make a statement next time, that way you won't look like someone who simply enjoys rambling about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

Nice attempt at diversion and denigration. The economy is a different subject. The first WTC bombing happen less than a month after Slick took office........

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

GWB firt recession took place about 1 month after he took office

SFW? The tech bubble started bursting the day Micosoft lost in court, months before the election.

 

[JRK]

Nice attempt at diversion and denigration. The economy is a different subject. The first WTC bombing happen less than a month after Slick took office........

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

GWB firt recession took place about 1 month after he took office

SFW? The tech bubble started bursting the day Micosoft lost in court, months before the election.

I could not agree more, and here we are almost 3 years into Obama's reign and almost 5 years sense the GOP had congress and it is still Boooooooooooooooooooooshies fault

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know a guy on another forum that posts that way...all crammed onto the left side of the post...and he is extra special crazy if it's the same guy.

Well jr. is passionate about his shrub. Just based on his posts he's not particularly grounded in terms of historical reference.

That's the huge problem with the idealogically motivated revisionist history being created these days. It was bad enough when higher education in this country was dominated by sophomoric liberal teachers, but now...pundits are writing history, or at least reinterpreting history, to suit the electioneering efforts du jour.

jrk, toxicmedia is spoofing in that he is describing you and himself.

 

[JRK]

Well jr. is passionate about his shrub. Just based on his posts he's not particularly grounded in terms of historical reference.

That's the huge problem with the idealogically motivated revisionist history being created these days. It was bad enough when higher education in this country was dominated by sophomoric liberal teachers, but now...pundits are writing history, or at least reinterpreting history, to suit the electioneering efforts du jour.

jrk, toxicmedia is spoofing in that he is describing you and himself.

You guys are having some real issues with reality Jake. Your just adding to the count.
I really feel sorry for you dude

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jrk cannot face the reality of what bush's history is going to be, so i will give him a hint.

George w. Bush's qualities are those in every era that answer in the inevitable rendering of the conscientious neo-con to be ineffectual in public life. The reactionary's convictions force him to engage in such political conspiracy that calls for devotion to mental flexibility, a submission of ends to skewed and insensitiveness of means, an unforgiving willingness to admit vicious expenditures in an inevitable cost of life and liberty, and a fatal insight into the purposes of men and women less conscientious and fair-minded than himself.

The president failed in all these tests of character. He plotted against international treaty obligations and reciprocities of law that condemned war crimes. He involved himself with men and women who easily used him for their own agendas. The measures of which he was the principal decider whirled beyond his grasp and direction.

The tragedy of george bush devolves from his virtues: From his neo-conservative progressivism; his virtuousness; and his limpidness of intention. The denouement has yet to unfold completely, but we can foresee it by the outlines of today. Iraq is and will continue to ally with iran’s foreign policy; american presence in afghanistan will be reduced to a few fortresses in and about kabul; and the united states totters weakened financially, politically, and morally.

The above will be the findings of history about the presidency of george w. Bush.

 

[JRK]

Jrk cannot face the reality of what bush's history is going to be, so i will give him a hint.

George w. Bush's qualities are those in every era that answer in the inevitable rendering of the conscientious neo-con to be ineffectual in public life. The reactionary's convictions force him to engage in such political conspiracy that calls for devotion to mental flexibility, a submission of ends to skewed and insensitiveness of means, an unforgiving willingness to admit vicious expenditures in an inevitable cost of life and liberty, and a fatal insight into the purposes of men and women less conscientious and fair-minded than himself.

The president failed in all these tests of character. He plotted against international treaty obligations and reciprocities of law that condemned war crimes. He involved himself with men and women who easily used him for their own agendas. The measures of which he was the principal decider whirled beyond his grasp and direction.

The tragedy of george bush devolves from his virtues: From his neo-conservative progressivism; his virtuousness; and his limpidness of intention. The denouement has yet to unfold completely, but we can foresee it by the outlines of today. Iraq is and will continue to ally with iran’s foreign policy; american presence in afghanistan will be reduced to a few fortresses in and about kabul; and the united states totters weakened financially, politically, and morally.

The above will be the findings of history about the presidency of george w. Bush.

WHAT? Jake we had 5% UE for 8 years while he was president, defended the homeland, changed the destiny of many countries to the good and you write the word denouement to describe that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK, that is what you want to believe, but history will follow my outline, not yours.