Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

I meant to post this a while ago. Anyway, this is one of the most delusional pieces of garbage I have ever read. How does anyone take this guy seriously?

Article deleted for copyright reasons. Link substituted. Cliff's notes: Bush is a good president.

Where can I bet on this?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America … that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all," he reassured NPR listeners in April 2003. "Iraq's always been very secular.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used this one a few weeks ago and expressed the same disbelief - how can anyone listen to this guy? Notice the arrogance, "pop sociology" bs. Not really Bill, just guys who actually study this stuff all their lives, and don't wage war on the backs of the poor based on some faith based neo con pipe dream.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

Victor Kiam liked Remington razors so much, he bought the company. I heard recently that Kristol is a large share holder in Kool-Aid.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

From Kristol:

[ QUOTE ]
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's ignore all the mistakes and scandals. Good start.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, let's look at his terms in their entirety. How he made us safer, reduced the size and scope of govt, and put us on a new course away from nation building. Right, Bill, that's where your good conservative stance is going with this?

[ QUOTE ]
What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. But he did have that one attack which called 3000 Americans. And hindsight says the government may have dropped the ball on actionable intel and that Bush ignored some advice from previous admin. Adn it appears that we now have as big or maybe bigger terrorist problem than before. But oh hell, sure let's call one major attack and 3000 dead a success.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, Bill, I'm confused. Because you'd be first in line to not give credit to a President when the economy booms under say Clinton. Remember, Bill, don't you believe that business leaders and hard-working Americans make the economy tick. Seems as though massive govt deficits and ginormous spending increases would be the kind of thing you would frown on in the past. But oh hell, let's not nit pick.

[ QUOTE ]
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Bill, I can't let you get away with this one. This admin has done just about everything possible to screw up this war from the start -- a war that hindsight proves was never necessary to begin with and was brought on us by the admin's blind obsession with Saddam and Iraq. You surely aren't going to chalk this war into Bush's "win" column are you? What a dishonor that would be to the thousands who have died due to this admin's blundering.

Bill?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

Possibly your worst post ever.

[ QUOTE ]
From Kristol:

[ QUOTE ]
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's ignore all the mistakes and scandals. Good start. <font color="red"> step back != ignore bad start </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, let's look at his terms in their entirety. How he made us safer, reduced the size and scope of govt, and put us on a new course away from nation building. Right, Bill, that's where your good conservative stance is going with this? <font color="red"> why don't you read it instead of interjecting your suppositions? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. But he did have that one attack which called 3000 Americans. <font color="red">that no administration would have stopped in its earliest days </font> And hindsight says the government may have dropped the ball on actionable intel and that Bush ignored some advice from previous admin. <font color="red">bs. speaking of kool-aid drinkers </font> Adn it appears that we now have as big or maybe bigger terrorist problem than before. <font color="red"> oh really? evidence to support that, or more importantly that a different course of action would have less threat than now</font> But oh hell, sure let's call one major attack and 3000 dead a success.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, Bill, I'm confused. Because you'd be first in line to not give credit to a President when the economy booms under say Clinton. Remember, Bill, don't you believe that business leaders and hard-working Americans make the economy tick. <font color="red"> letting the business leaders make decisions and letting everyone keep more of what they earn helps the economy tick. An administration is hard pressed to improve an economy, but they can sure screw one up </font> Seems as though massive govt deficits and ginormous spending increases would be the kind of thing you would frown on in the past. But oh hell, let's not nit pick. <font color="red"> yeah, lets take the liberal line and vote to send the troops in, and then not pay for it </font>

[ QUOTE ]
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Bill, I can't let you get away with this one. This admin has done just about everything possible to screw up this war from the start -- a war that hindsight proves was never necessary to begin with and was brought on us by the admin's blind obsession with Saddam and Iraq. You surely aren't going to chalk this war into Bush's "win" column are you? What a dishonor that would be to the thousands who have died due to this admin's blundering. <font color="red"> what part of "seem to be" and "on course to" can you read as chalking up a win? </font>

Bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleted

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

God this guy is such a hack. Have you ever seen him on TV, he has this stupid little smirk on his face like what he is saying is so smart but nobody can understand it.

The no terriost attack since 9/11 argument reminds me of the Chris Rock skit about people bragging that they aren't in jail. There aren't SUPPOSED to be any terroist attacks!
Low expectation having bastards [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].


It is strange how he doesn't blame Bush for 9/11 but gives him all the credit that it hasn't happened again.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly your worst post ever.

[ QUOTE ]
From Kristol:

[ QUOTE ]
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's ignore all the mistakes and scandals. Good start. <font color="red"> step back != ignore bad start </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, let's look at his terms in their entirety. How he made us safer, reduced the size and scope of govt, and put us on a new course away from nation building. Right, Bill, that's where your good conservative stance is going with this? <font color="red"> why don't you read it instead of interjecting your suppositions? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. But he did have that one attack which called 3000 Americans. <font color="red">that no administration would have stopped in its earliest days </font> And hindsight says the government may have dropped the ball on actionable intel and that Bush ignored some advice from previous admin. <font color="red">bs. speaking of kool-aid drinkers </font> Adn it appears that we now have as big or maybe bigger terrorist problem than before. <font color="red"> oh really? evidence to support that, or more importantly that a different course of action would have less threat than now</font> But oh hell, sure let's call one major attack and 3000 dead a success.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, Bill, I'm confused. Because you'd be first in line to not give credit to a President when the economy booms under say Clinton. Remember, Bill, don't you believe that business leaders and hard-working Americans make the economy tick. <font color="red"> letting the business leaders make decisions and letting everyone keep more of what they earn helps the economy tick. An administration is hard pressed to improve an economy, but they can sure screw one up </font> Seems as though massive govt deficits and ginormous spending increases would be the kind of thing you would frown on in the past. But oh hell, let's not nit pick. <font color="red"> yeah, lets take the liberal line and vote to send the troops in, and then not pay for it </font>

[ QUOTE ]
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Bill, I can't let you get away with this one. This admin has done just about everything possible to screw up this war from the start -- a war that hindsight proves was never necessary to begin with and was brought on us by the admin's blind obsession with Saddam and Iraq. You surely aren't going to chalk this war into Bush's "win" column are you? What a dishonor that would be to the thousands who have died due to this admin's blundering. <font color="red"> what part of "seem to be" and "on course to" can you read as chalking up a win? </font>

Bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey thanks, Copernicus. If that's my worst post ever, then I rule 2+2, because that's a damn good post. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Incidentally, I'd call your post on par with your average.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Possibly your worst post ever.

[ QUOTE ]
From Kristol:

[ QUOTE ]
Let's step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, let's ignore all the mistakes and scandals. Good start. <font color="red"> step back != ignore bad start </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, let's look at his terms in their entirety. How he made us safer, reduced the size and scope of govt, and put us on a new course away from nation building. Right, Bill, that's where your good conservative stance is going with this? <font color="red"> why don't you read it instead of interjecting your suppositions? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- not something we could have taken for granted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. But he did have that one attack which called 3000 Americans. <font color="red">that no administration would have stopped in its earliest days </font> And hindsight says the government may have dropped the ball on actionable intel and that Bush ignored some advice from previous admin. <font color="red">bs. speaking of kool-aid drinkers </font> Adn it appears that we now have as big or maybe bigger terrorist problem than before. <font color="red"> oh really? evidence to support that, or more importantly that a different course of action would have less threat than now</font> But oh hell, sure let's call one major attack and 3000 dead a success.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, a strong economy -- also something that wasn't inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, Bill, I'm confused. Because you'd be first in line to not give credit to a President when the economy booms under say Clinton. Remember, Bill, don't you believe that business leaders and hard-working Americans make the economy tick. <font color="red"> letting the business leaders make decisions and letting everyone keep more of what they earn helps the economy tick. An administration is hard pressed to improve an economy, but they can sure screw one up </font> Seems as though massive govt deficits and ginormous spending increases would be the kind of thing you would frown on in the past. But oh hell, let's not nit pick. <font color="red"> yeah, lets take the liberal line and vote to send the troops in, and then not pay for it </font>

[ QUOTE ]
And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where -- despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless "benchmark" report last week -- we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Bill, I can't let you get away with this one. This admin has done just about everything possible to screw up this war from the start -- a war that hindsight proves was never necessary to begin with and was brought on us by the admin's blind obsession with Saddam and Iraq. You surely aren't going to chalk this war into Bush's "win" column are you? What a dishonor that would be to the thousands who have died due to this admin's blundering. <font color="red"> what part of "seem to be" and "on course to" can you read as chalking up a win? </font>

Bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey thanks, Copernicus. If that's my worst post ever, then I rule 2+2, because that's a damn good post. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

self-delusion won't improve them. Work on it.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
God this guy is such a hack. Have you ever seen him on TV, he has this stupid little smirk on his face like what he is saying is so smart but nobody can understand it.

The no terriost attack since 9/11 argument reminds me of the Chris Rock skit about people bragging that they aren't in jail. There aren't SUPPOSED to be any terroist attacks!
Low expectation having bastards [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

<font color="red">Why would it remind you of CR's routine when CR is talking about something that is under one's own control (not being in jail) vs an unprecedented method of attack by an outside agent? they arent even close </font>


It is strange how he doesn't blame Bush for 9/11 but gives him all the credit that it hasn't happened again.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> Maybe he doesnt give Bush full blame because the prior administration had 8 years to prepare for the attack, and Bush's had 8 months working under restrictions that the prior administration put on our own intelligence? When the next attack comes Bush won't bear responsibility either. It will be the liberals that continue to block effective means of intelligence gathering in the name of big brother paranoia.</font>

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> Maybe he doesnt give Bush full blame because the prior administration had 8 years to prepare for the attack, and Bush's had 8 months working under restrictions that the prior administration put on our own intelligence? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, like the restrictions that led to the FBI being alerted about Arabs who wanted to learn to fly jumbo jets but didn't care about landing them?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

Are you saying that there has not been another attack because of Bush's vigilance and in spite of liberals' trying to put him in handcuffs?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that there has not been another attack because of Bush's vigilance and in spite of liberals' trying to put him in handcuffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I wouldnt give full credit to GWB, just as I wouldn't give full blame to BJC for 9/11. Without the administration's efforts (e.g. continuing to treat terrorism as a criminal problem) there certainly would have been more on our shores, though. I doubt that any of the major plots that have been thwarted would have been under a Janet Reno justice department.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> Maybe he doesnt give Bush full blame because the prior administration had 8 years to prepare for the attack, and Bush's had 8 months working under restrictions that the prior administration put on our own intelligence? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, like the restrictions that led to the FBI being alerted about Arabs who wanted to learn to fly jumbo jets but didn't care about landing them?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, restrictions that might have led to the FBI only being alerted 2 months before the hijackings, and which they had begun to act on. And restrictions that might have expedited the alerting of other relevant agencies and acting upon the information.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

Ah more droppings from General William the Bloody. I've never seen a greater coward more willing to put others in harm's way. Oh wait I have I forgot about his father.

As much as Kristol wants people to forget about the bungling of Katrina, the pointless and bloody war in Iraq, and the decrease of stature and influence the US has, history will not.

I can't believe how far the US has fallen in the eyes of the world. Check out this pew research:

"A 47-nation survey finds global public opinion increasingly wary of the world's dominant nations and disapproving of their leaders. Anti-Americanism is extensive, as it has been for the past five years....."

"Global distrust of American leadership is reflected in increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy. Not only is there worldwide support for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there also is considerable opposition to U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan. Western European publics are at best divided about keeping troops there."


The only person blaming Clinton for Bin Laden has already been proven to be loose with the facts/distortions more than once on these boards. I keep forgetting who was President when the Presidential Daily Briefing with the title " Bin Laden determined to strike in US " was issued on August 6, 2001. Could someone refresh my memory?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]

The only person blaming Clinton for Bin Laden has already been proven to be loose with the facts/distortions more than once on these boards. I keep forgetting who was President when the Presidential Daily Briefing with the title " Bin Laden determined to strike in US " was issued on August 6, 2001. Could someone refresh my memory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we would have already had Bin Laden the Clinton admin would have given the word to take him out when we had him in our sites.... But Slick Willie was a "the buck stops down the hall" type of guy as evidenced by how Janet Reno was hung out to dry after Waco.... and nobody wanted the responsability if something went wrong in the attack.

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.

Absolutly Billy was a great anti terrorist president... that is if you dont count the 1st WTC bombing, the emabassy bombings in Africa, the Uss Cole bombing.... oh wait, maybe he wasnt all that great.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
I meant to post this a while ago. Anyway, this is one of the most delusional pieces of garbage I have ever read. How does anyone take this guy seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the average Lincoln supporter to me.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The only person blaming Clinton for Bin Laden has already been proven to be loose with the facts/distortions more than once on these boards. I keep forgetting who was President when the Presidential Daily Briefing with the title " Bin Laden determined to strike in US " was issued on August 6, 2001. Could someone refresh my memory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we would have already had Bin Laden the Clinton admin would have given the word to take him out when we had him in our sites.... But Slick Willie was a "the buck stops down the hall" type of guy as evidenced by how Janet Reno was hung out to dry after Waco.... and nobody wanted the responsability if something went wrong in the attack.

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.

Absolutly Billy was a great anti terrorist president... that is if you dont count the 1st WTC bombing, the emabassy bombings in Africa, the Uss Cole bombing.... oh wait, maybe he wasnt all that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still want to know what was in the documents Sandy Berger managed to destroy out of what he stole from the National Archives.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I meant to post this a while ago. Anyway, this is one of the most delusional pieces of garbage I have ever read. How does anyone take this guy seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like the average Lincoln supporter to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's gotta be the Non Sequitor of the Week in the Politics forum. Which is really saying something.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it right. I think it was pretty clear even back in the 1980s that Sadam and Osama were the type of people we should not be supplying deadly weapons to. America's policy of allying itself with anyone remotely opposed to communism, no matter how morally repugnant they were, was one of the biggest mistakes in its history.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
Thomas Jefferson

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

In case anyone wants to draw their own conclusions based on primary evidence, here are Clinton's remarks from a speech in 2002:

[ QUOTE ]
We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [Osama bin Laden].

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
(via this NewsMax.com article, which asserts that these statements by Clinton somehow corroborate the claims of "Mansoor Ijaz, the Pakistani-American businessman who says he was rebuffed by the Clinton White House after negotiating a deal for the extradition of Osama bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996.")

In January 2004, Clinton clarified his comments in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour:

[ QUOTE ]
AMANPOUR: You mentioned what you could or might have been able to do. Sometime in 1996 you spoke to a group of people in Long Island about this whole issue of Sudan, was Sudan ...

CLINTON: That was in 2001 ...

AMANPOUR: OK. Was Sudan asked to extradite [bin Laden]? Did you miss the opportunity to have him extradited?

CLINTON: And I miss ... what I said there was wrong. What I said was in error. I went back now and did all this research for my book and I said that we were told we couldn't hold him, implying that we had a chance to get him and didn't. That's not factually accurate.

Here's what is factually accurate. In 1996 and before then, when we found out about bin Laden, we had first thought he was a financier of terrorism but not a ringleader. In the beginning. When he took up residence in Sudan after having been ejected from Saudi Arabia, it is true that at some point during that period, there was some discussion in the Justice Department casting a doubt on how long we could hold him ... on the question of had he committed, or did we have evidence that he committed, an offense against the United States.

But that was never part of the question about whether we could get him. When he left, the idea that the Sudanese offered to hand him over to us is just absurd. The idea that they told us when he was leaving, and he was landing in the Gulf and we could get him at another airport, is absurd, and the idea that they tried to give him to us instead of giving him to Afghanistan is just not true. I have now gone back and reconstructed all the records, read all the documents, and that is just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this "Afghan offer" you're referring to?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

I like the BJC initials. Truthful in every way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Ok, from now on every alliance of every nations shall be permanent and unchangeable. Because you say it isnt right to change them. What a maroon.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
Thomas Jefferson

[/ QUOTE ]

See Madeline Albright's update of that quote to the real world of the 21st century.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

In case anyone wants to draw their own conclusions based on primary evidence, here are Clinton's remarks from a speech in 2002:

[ QUOTE ]
We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [Osama bin Laden].

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
(via this NewsMax.com article, which asserts that these statements by Clinton somehow corroborate the claims of "Mansoor Ijaz, the Pakistani-American businessman who says he was rebuffed by the Clinton White House after negotiating a deal for the extradition of Osama bin Laden to the U.S. in 1996.")

In January 2004, Clinton clarified his comments in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour:

[ QUOTE ]
AMANPOUR: You mentioned what you could or might have been able to do. Sometime in 1996 you spoke to a group of people in Long Island about this whole issue of Sudan, was Sudan ...

CLINTON: That was in 2001 ...

AMANPOUR: OK. Was Sudan asked to extradite [bin Laden]? Did you miss the opportunity to have him extradited?

CLINTON: And I miss ... what I said there was wrong. What I said was in error. I went back now and did all this research for my book and I said that we were told we couldn't hold him, implying that we had a chance to get him and didn't. That's not factually accurate.

Here's what is factually accurate. In 1996 and before then, when we found out about bin Laden, we had first thought he was a financier of terrorism but not a ringleader. In the beginning. When he took up residence in Sudan after having been ejected from Saudi Arabia, it is true that at some point during that period, there was some discussion in the Justice Department casting a doubt on how long we could hold him ... on the question of had he committed, or did we have evidence that he committed, an offense against the United States.

But that was never part of the question about whether we could get him. When he left, the idea that the Sudanese offered to hand him over to us is just absurd. The idea that they told us when he was leaving, and he was landing in the Gulf and we could get him at another airport, is absurd, and the idea that they tried to give him to us instead of giving him to Afghanistan is just not true. I have now gone back and reconstructed all the records, read all the documents, and that is just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this "Afghan offer" you're referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, Sudanese offer, and Afgan rebuff of our request. The "clarification" in the Amanpour interview is horsemanure. In 1995 OBL was directly linked to the WTC bombing. He has given other interviews confirming that, with the CYA that "there wasn't sufficient evidence to extradite him". That is the result of treating terrorism as a criminal problem and not a military one.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Ok, from now on every alliance of every nations shall be permanent and unchangeable. Because you say it isnt right to change them. What a maroon.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a hoot. In your eyes, pointing out that allying and arming ruthless dictators has long term consequences makes you a "maroon". Talk about someone who doesn't know how to learn from history.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Ok, from now on every alliance of every nations shall be permanent and unchangeable. Because you say it isnt right to change them. What a maroon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying the alliance was wrong from the beginning.

Anyone with brain waves could tell that Saddam was a ruthless dictator back in the 80s. I guess that's why Reagan didn't notice.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Ok, from now on every alliance of every nations shall be permanent and unchangeable. Because you say it isnt right to change them. What a maroon.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a hoot. In your eyes, pointing out that allying and arming ruthless dictators has long term consequences makes you a "maroon". Talk about someone who doesn't know how to learn from history.

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of "every" don't you understand? His asinine take was that it is wrong to change alliances, period. In times of crisis you ally yourself with those who can help your cause and deal with the fallout later. If you lose the first crisis because of fear if allying with "strange bedfellows" there may be nothing else to follow.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
The "clarification" in the Amanpour interview is horsemanure. In 1995 OBL was directly linked to the WTC bombing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, in his interview with Amanpour Clinton clearly states that he "was wrong" when he implied "that we had a chance to get him and didn't. That's not factually accurate." That bin Laden was (or was not) "linked" at the time to the first WTC bombing is immaterial.

[ QUOTE ]
He has given other interviews confirming that, with the CYA that "there wasn't sufficient evidence to extradite him".

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you provide these "other interviews"? And what, specifically, do they confirm? Also, what is the source of your "there wasn't sufficient evidence to extradite him" quote?

[ QUOTE ]
That is the result of treating terrorism as a criminal problem and not a military one.

[/ QUOTE ]
How you make this conclusion is beyond me.

If I recall correctly, this particular talking point (that Clinton was handed bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudan in 2004, but he chose not to extradite him) was very popular amongst right-wing media outlets in 2004, specifically NewsMax.com and Sean Hannity's radio and TV program.

I think this claim had been fairly conclusively debunked, but for anyone still interested I've provided primary evidence for you to draw your own conclusions.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clinton claims he knew what a bad guy Bin Laden was, yet when offered him by another govt, Billy says no thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

link?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. just being the usual obstinate snowman? You must have seen/read this 100 times

whats left out is the added fact that by 1995 the Clinton administration knew of OBLs links to the first WTC bombings. The Afghan offer was in 1996.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least he didn't give aid to him like Reagan did with Osama and Sadam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do understand that throughout military and political history as far back as its written, alliances change over time, and that will be the case forever?

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. Ok, from now on every alliance of every nations shall be permanent and unchangeable. Because you say it isnt right to change them. What a maroon.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a hoot. In your eyes, pointing out that allying and arming ruthless dictators has long term consequences makes you a "maroon". Talk about someone who doesn't know how to learn from history.

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of "every" don't you understand? His asinine take was that it is wrong to change alliances, period. In times of crisis you ally yourself with those who can help your cause and deal with the fallout later. If you lose the first crisis because of fear if allying with "strange bedfellows" there may be nothing else to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your asinine take is that there's no problem allying and arming with ruthless dictators like Saddam (even though it goes against all the principles your country supposedly stands for).

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "clarification" in the Amanpour interview is horsemanure. In 1995 OBL was directly linked to the WTC bombing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, in his interview with Amanpour Clinton clearly states that he "was wrong" when he implied "that we had a chance to get him and didn't. That's not factually accurate." That bin Laden was (or was not) "linked" at the time to the first WTC bombing is immaterial.

[ QUOTE ]
He has given other interviews confirming that, with the CYA that "there wasn't sufficient evidence to extradite him".

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you provide these "other interviews"? And what, specifically, do they confirm? Also, what is the source of your "there wasn't sufficient evidence to extradite him" quote?

[ QUOTE ]
That is the result of treating terrorism as a criminal problem and not a military one.

[/ QUOTE ]
How you make this conclusion is beyond me.

If I recall correctly, this particular talking point (that Clinton was handed bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudan in 2004, but he chose not to extradite him) was very popular amongst right-wing media outlets in 2004, specifically NewsMax.com and Sean Hannity's radio and TV program.

I think this claim had been fairly conclusively debunked, but for anyone still interested I've provided primary evidence for you to draw your own conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your standard for "debunking" is apparently quite low. What do you expect an arrogant pathological liar and serial sexual predator who is more concerned about his legacy than the safety of the American people to do, admit he let the poster boy for terrorism go?

It is not immaterial that he claims that in 1996 OBL had committed no crime against America when he knew damn well that OBL was directly linked with the WTC by 1995.

Are you so gullible that you actually think that those events werent so ingrained in his memory that it took reconstructing things when writing his book to get the facts straight?

Youve provided primary evidence from a convicted perjurer. Forgive those of us who don't buy his backpedaling.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
...an arrogant pathological liar and serial sexual predator ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about federal level or state level Republican congressmen here?

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...an arrogant pathological liar and serial sexual predator ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about federal level or state level Republican congressmen here?

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, just a Democratic Guvnah of a state so small it didnt prepare him well for any higher office than BBQ chef.

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

You're such a clown. You continually peddle Newsmax crap from 2002. I actually think you believe your own bs.

I don't know if the 911 Commission is a good enough source for you but here goes:

" Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all."

Staff Statement No. 5
www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're such a clown. You continually peddle Newsmax crap from 2002. I actually think you believe your own bs.

I don't know if the 911 Commission is a good enough source for you but here goes:

" Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all."

Staff Statement No. 5
www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never read Newsmax unless it was a link that was posted here, and I don't watch or listen to talk tv/radio except in passing. I read books, newspapers and original sources voraciously.

I prefer the man's own words and inept attempts at backpedaling to any hack "bipartisan" commission's intepretation. You do realize that the commission, by virtue of it being "bipartisan" was doomed to present only a sanitized compromise version of reality, dont you?

Re: Did you see this Bill Kristol column a couple of weeks ago
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're such a clown. You continually peddle Newsmax crap from 2002. I actually think you believe your own bs.

I don't know if the 911 Commission is a good enough source for you but here goes:

" Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all."

Staff Statement No. 5
www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never read Newsmax unless it was a link that was posted here, and I don't watch or listen to talk tv/radio except in passing. I read books, newspapers and original sources voraciously.

I prefer the man's own words and inept attempts at backpedaling to any hack "bipartisan" commission's intepretation. You do realize that the commission, by virtue of it being "bipartisan" was doomed to present only a sanitized compromise version of reality, dont you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so because the 9/11 commission was "bipartisan" you think they had clear evidence of the Sudanese offering OBL to Clinton and decided to lie about it?

What are the odds that they are telling the truth about it? I guess 0 makes sense since the comission was "bipartisan" and of course Clinton is lying because he got a BJ once.