Still No Terror Attack In The US

[mattskramer]

Here are some links.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18999503/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/us.security/index.html (Actually, British security here).

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6682409 References the potential Miami group attack and some overseas attacks.



http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=February&x=20060209175513cpataruk0.1249201

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117414,00.html [This was the US Embassy in Jordan]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Anyway, there are some. I didn't read them too closely, and I always wonder if it is a real terrorist cell, or just a couple of incompetent wackjobs, but for what it is worth.

Okay. Fair enough. While it does not prove that a Democrat president would not have thwarted terrorists attacks. It does show that Bush’s policy did stop some terrorism. For that I give Bush credit. Congratulations.

Now, I wonder if RSR would credit Clinton’s policy for capturing for terrorists like Ahmed Ressam who were caught during his watch.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=ahmed_ressam

I doubt it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay. Fair enough. While it does not prove that a Democrat president would not have thwarted terrorists attacks. It does show that Bush’s policy did stop some terrorism. For that I give Bush credit. Congratulations.

Now, I wonder if RSR would credit Clinton’s policy for capturing for terrorists like Ahmed Ressam who were caught during his watch.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=ahmed_ressam

I doubt it.

You are aware that Clinton had 2 opportunities to stop OBL long before 9/11/2001? And he said no on both. Are you also aware that Clinton put into place road blocks to the different agencies providing data on terrorism and a host of other issues?

Some believe the documents that Sandy Burger removed from the Archives were ones that provided damning evidence of Clinton's mistakes on the terror front. Burger had access to and could have stolen source documents that had no copies , no one cares though and no one has even tried to find out. The excuse he gave is so ridiculous that it defies logic that any sane person would believe it.

They cauht him stealling MULTIPLE copies of the same documents. His excuse was he wanted to prepare for testimony, umm why would he need more than one copy of a document to do that? Or are you gonna say he has alziemers?

 

[mattskramer]

You are aware that Clinton had 2 opportunities to stop OBL long before 9/11/2001? And he said no on both. Are you also aware that Clinton put into place road blocks to the different agencies providing data on terrorism and a host of other issues?

Some believe the documents that Sandy Burger removed from the Archives were ones that provided damning evidence of Clinton's mistakes on the terror front. Burger had access to and could have stolen source documents that had no copies , no one cares though and no one has even tried to find out. The excuse he gave is so ridiculous that it defies logic that any sane person would believe it.

They cauht him stealling MULTIPLE copies of the same documents. His excuse was he wanted to prepare for testimony, umm why would he need more than one copy of a document to do that? Or are you gonna say he has alziemers?

I asked for examples of the Bush policy thwarting terrorist attacks. I received them and posted my gratitude for Bush. I then posted a link with information about a terrorist caught during Clinton’s watch and wondered if RSR would give any recognition to Clinton for it.

Instead, you come along and seem to be going off on a tangent like RSR often does. Please don’t pick up RSR’s bad habits. Anyway, in reply to your comments, yes - it is a shame that Clinton could not or did not take Osama. Yet, there are examples in which Clinton did try to fight terrorism. Check out:

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm

It provides links and links within links to support the fact that Clinton did some thinks in the fight against terrorism. The Republicans, at least on one occasion seemed to try to prevent him from taking action. Check it out for yourself.

Here is another good site if you want to know the nitpicky truth.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/osama_bin_missing_whos_tried_hardest_to.html

 

[maineman]

You are aware that Clinton had 2 opportunities to stop OBL long before 9/11/2001? And he said no on both.

and you are aware that Bush was told in early August that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the US and didn't think that was important enough to change his tee time, let alone cancel his vacation?

and PUHleese tell me that one of those Clinton "opportunities" was the Sudan offer. I would love to rub your nose in some more of your own bullshit.

 

[mattskramer]

and you are aware that Bush was told in early August that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike within the US and didn't think that was important enough to change his tee time, let alone cancel his vacation?

and PUHleese tell me that one of those Clinton "opportunities" was the Sudan offer. I would love to rub your nose in some more of your own bullshit.

I read about that on different sites. I understand it to be true. I was not going to shove it at them. It is too bad that the political right won’t acknowledge things like that. I acknowledge things that I’m told quite often. It would be nice if other people would do the same, especially when there is no way to logically deny it. Oh well. I guess that it is just a dream that I have.

 

[red states rule]

I read about that on different sites. I understand it to be true. I was not going to shove it at them. It is too bad that the political right won’t acknowledge things like that. I acknowledge things that I’m told quite often. It would be nice if other people would do the same, especially when there is no way to logically deny it. Oh well. I guess that it is just a dream that I have.

Clinton even admitted he did not accept an offer to take OBL

Posted on 06/17/2004 814 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax



In his interview with CBS newsman Dan Rather set for broadcast on Sunday, ex-President Bill Clinton flatly contradicts his earlier recorded confession that Sudan offered to arrest Osama bin Laden and hand him over to the U.S., calling reports of such an offer "bull."


"On the accusation that he had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden, had opportunities to have him delivered by the Sudanese, he said, 'absolutely, flatly untrue,' describing it as 'bull,'" Rather tells the Washington Post on Thursday.


In Feb. 2002, however, Mr. Clinton clearly admitted that the Sudanese offer had indeed taken place. And that he turned it down.


"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.


"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.


"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.


"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155217/posts

 

[maineman]

so what?

He had no justification at that time to take OBL, a foreign national on foreign soil, into US custody.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

I can well imagine that looking back, the Washington DC police would have loved to have taken John Wilkes Boothe into custody the week before he assassinated Abe Lincoln...but unfortunately, they didn't know what he was going to do and he had not done anything before the night he shot Abe in Ford's Theater that would have justified his incarceration.

 

[red states rule]

so what?

He had no justification at that time to take OBL, a foreign national on foreign soil, into US custody.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

I can well imagine that looking back, the Washington DC police would have loved to have taken John Wilkes Boothe into custody the week before he assassinated Abe Lincoln...but unfortunately, they didn't know what he was going to do and he had not done anything before the night he shot Abe in Ford's Theater that would have justified his incarceration.

Having trouble countering his lies?

I guess he actually wanted to take OBL before he decided not to

 

[maineman]

Having trouble countering his lies?

I guess he actually wanted to take OBL before he decided not to

there was no legal justification under international law for the United States to take Osama bin Laden into custody in May of 1996. That is a fact.

 

[red states rule]

there was no legal justification under international law for the United States to take Osama bin Laden into custody in May of 1996. That is a fact.

Lame spin

Of cousre Bill first said OBL was not offered to him - but he admitted it during a speech

and it was caught on tape

 

[maineman]

Lame spin

Of cousre Bill first said OBL was not offered to him - but he admitted it during a speech

and it was caught on tape

not "lame spin" ... FACT

You are the one who claims to like facts so much. The FACT is, regardless of how bad a man we now know OBL was.... regardless of what he did to us on 9/11/01, in May of '96, we were UNAWARE of ANYTHING he had ever done that was a crime against America or American interests. FACT.

 

[red states rule]

not "lame spin" ... FACT

You are the one who claims to like facts so much. The FACT is, regardless of how bad a man we now know OBL was.... regardless of what he did to us on 9/11/01, in May of '96, we were UNAWARE of ANYTHING he had ever done that was a crime against America or American interests. FACT.

Who would think YOU would find fault with a Democrat?

 

[mattskramer]

Clinton even admitted he did not accept an offer to take OBL

Posted on 06/17/2004 814 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax



In his interview with CBS newsman Dan Rather set for broadcast on Sunday, ex-President Bill Clinton flatly contradicts his earlier recorded confession that Sudan offered to arrest Osama bin Laden and hand him over to the U.S., calling reports of such an offer "bull."


"On the accusation that he had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden, had opportunities to have him delivered by the Sudanese, he said, 'absolutely, flatly untrue,' describing it as 'bull,'" Rather tells the Washington Post on Thursday.


In Feb. 2002, however, Mr. Clinton clearly admitted that the Sudanese offer had indeed taken place. And that he turned it down.


"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002.


"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.


"They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.


"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155217/posts

(Sigh) (Yawn) Yes, yes, yes, RSR. It is old news. I’ve read it several times. I was even presented with the information again yesterday. See post number 82. It is old news. Now would you acknowledge that Clinton policy and instruction helped capture Ahmed Ressam? Oh, never mind.

 

[red states rule]

(Sigh) (Yawn) Yes, yes, yes, RSR. It is old news. I’ve read it several times. I was even presented with the information again yesterday. See post number 82. It is old news. Now would you acknowledge that Clinton policy and instruction helped capture Ahmed Ressam? Oh, never mind.

Yea, libs do find facts boring

 

[maineman]

Who would think YOU would find fault with a Democrat?

who would think that YOU would run away from FACTS?

 

[mattskramer]

there was no legal justification under international law for the United States to take Osama bin Laden into custody in May of 1996. That is a fact.

I did forget about that. A pesky fact but a good point.

 

[red states rule]

who would think that YOU would run away from FACTS?

The fact is Bill lied about the offer - then the tape came out - and he spins

You defend his spin

No surprise

 

[maineman]

but hey...if you had a legitimate link that shows that the United States had any evidence in hand prior to May of 96 that Osama bin Laden had committed any crimes against this country or our interests, I am sure you would have produced it long ago.

 

[red states rule]

but hey...if you had a legitimate link that shows that the United States had any evidence in hand prior to May of 96 that Osama bin Laden had committed any crimes against this country or our interests, I am sure you would have produced it long ago.

and you call other a political hack

 

[maineman]

The fact is Bill lied about the offer - then the tape came out - and he spins

You defend his spin

No surprise

I am not defending anyone's "spin". I am merely stating the fact that we had no justification in May of 96 to take OBL into custody - and I don't care if the Pope had offered him up..we still had no evidence at that time that he had done anything against our interests that was worthy of custody and incarceration.