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

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another one who needs a lesson in logic. Knowing that the output is sanitized tells you nothing about the input. I dont know nor care whether they had clear evidence or not. In an effort to avoid the "blame game" there isnt a chance in hell that they would have reached a compromise finding that included that conclusion. That is why I prefer to rely on Clinton's own words and attempts to cover up his own words, which is the game he constantly played. It has nothing to do with a BJ, it has to do with his narcissism, his willingness to assassinate the character of anyone who dared challenge him and that he couldnt buy off, including the multiple women he sexually harrassed, including an out and out rape, and his numerous lies that were eventually caught.

He lied to his staff numerous times, he lied to his wife, he lied to Congress. It took DNA evidence to get him to finally tell the truth.

[Max Raker]

Why you feel the need to respond in such detail to obvious jokes is beyond me.

You did not answer my only serious question. The 9/11 commission stated that they never saw any evidence of the Sudan deal. In your opinion what is the probability this statement is true?
In your opinion what is the probability that Clinton was lying (or mistaken) about being offered OBL by Sudan?


LOL at you not caring if they had evidence . It would basically prove correct everything you have said in this thread.

I'm not sure the worg logic means what you think it does.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why you feel the need to respond in such detail to obvious jokes is beyond me.

You did not answer my only serious question. The 9/11 commission stated that they never saw any evidence of the Sudan deal. In your opinion what is the probability this statement is true?
In your opinion what is the probability that Clinton was lying (or mistaken) about being offered OBL by Sudan?


LOL at you not caring if they had evidence . It would basically prove correct everything you have said in this thread.

I'm not sure the worg logic means what you think it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the jokes are obvious to you, I still don't see them.

I have no basis to assess a "probability" of what evidence they had or didnt have, when there is a 100% probability that such evidence wouldn't be reflected in a compromise report.

Your question re Clinton isnt clear, it could be referring to the initial statement on Long Island or his subsequent attempts to explain that statement away, so I'll address them both.

His statement on Long Island....there is no chance that it was a lie. Narcissists don't lie for the sake of lying, they lie to make themselves look better. A statement that he was offered OBL and said no would not serve that purpose.

What chance is there that it was a mistake? Very low. If he is anything, he is a slick politician who measures his words very carefully. Except in the embarrassing television interview where he lost his cool (last year? the year before?) he sticks carefully to his scripts. There was no such challenge in Long Island, it was a friendly audience, so no, I dont think it was a mistake.

His statement that OBL was not a known criminal in 1996? Almost certainly a lie. After 9/11 any normal person (ok, 90% lie, 10% he isn't normal) would have examined every single event in his career that could have prevented it. OBLs involvement was known in 1996, he knew it, and lied to cover his decision.

His claim that he didnt examine the details until he was writing his book...same 90% lie 10% he's deranged.

I'm a mathematician, I know precisely what logic is, the construction of logical arguments, logical fallacies, and most importantly what I meant by my statement.

If A => B and !A => B, B !=> A or !A. Set up the truth table and post it if you disagree.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why you feel the need to respond in such detail to obvious jokes is beyond me.

You did not answer my only serious question. The 9/11 commission stated that they never saw any evidence of the Sudan deal. In your opinion what is the probability this statement is true?
In your opinion what is the probability that Clinton was lying (or mistaken) about being offered OBL by Sudan?


LOL at you not caring if they had evidence . It would basically prove correct everything you have said in this thread.

I'm not sure the worg logic means what you think it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the jokes are obvious to you, I still don't see them.

I have no basis to assess a "probability" of what evidence they had or didnt have, when there is a 100% probability that such evidence wouldn't be reflected in a compromise report.

Your question re Clinton isnt clear, it could be referring to the initial statement on Long Island or his subsequent attempts to explain that statement away, so I'll address them both.

His statement on Long Island....there is no chance that it was a lie. Narcissists don't lie for the sake of lying, they lie to make themselves look better. A statement that he was offered OBL and said no would not serve that purpose.

What chance is there that it was a mistake? Very low. If he is anything, he is a slick politician who measures his words very carefully. Except in the embarrassing television interview where he lost his cool (last year? the year before?) he sticks carefully to his scripts. There was no such challenge in Long Island, it was a friendly audience, so no, I dont think it was a mistake.

His statement that OBL was not a known criminal in 1996? Almost certainly a lie. After 9/11 any normal person (ok, 90% lie, 10% he isn't normal) would have examined every single event in his career that could have prevented it. OBLs involvement was known in 1996, he knew it, and lied to cover his decision.

His claim that he didnt examine the details until he was writing his book...same 90% lie 10% he's deranged.

I'm a mathematician, I know precisely what logic is, the construction of logical arguments, logical fallacies, and most importantly what I meant by my statement.

If A => B and !A => B, B !=> A or !A. Set up the truth table and post it if you disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was asking you a question, IF you thought that the comission lied about the evidence. I never said that you thought that they did. I didn't realize that you think that you can tell nothing about what the 9/11 comission knew about this based on the report until you posted that. Most normal people would disagree with that even if they had some distrust of the comission. I personally think it is very likely that if they had this information it would have been leaked even if they tried to hide it. Do you really have a Phd in math?

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why you feel the need to respond in such detail to obvious jokes is beyond me.

You did not answer my only serious question. The 9/11 commission stated that they never saw any evidence of the Sudan deal. In your opinion what is the probability this statement is true?
In your opinion what is the probability that Clinton was lying (or mistaken) about being offered OBL by Sudan?


LOL at you not caring if they had evidence . It would basically prove correct everything you have said in this thread.

I'm not sure the worg logic means what you think it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the jokes are obvious to you, I still don't see them.

I have no basis to assess a "probability" of what evidence they had or didnt have, when there is a 100% probability that such evidence wouldn't be reflected in a compromise report.

Your question re Clinton isnt clear, it could be referring to the initial statement on Long Island or his subsequent attempts to explain that statement away, so I'll address them both.

His statement on Long Island....there is no chance that it was a lie. Narcissists don't lie for the sake of lying, they lie to make themselves look better. A statement that he was offered OBL and said no would not serve that purpose.

What chance is there that it was a mistake? Very low. If he is anything, he is a slick politician who measures his words very carefully. Except in the embarrassing television interview where he lost his cool (last year? the year before?) he sticks carefully to his scripts. There was no such challenge in Long Island, it was a friendly audience, so no, I dont think it was a mistake.

His statement that OBL was not a known criminal in 1996? Almost certainly a lie. After 9/11 any normal person (ok, 90% lie, 10% he isn't normal) would have examined every single event in his career that could have prevented it. OBLs involvement was known in 1996, he knew it, and lied to cover his decision.

His claim that he didnt examine the details until he was writing his book...same 90% lie 10% he's deranged.

I'm a mathematician, I know precisely what logic is , the construction of logical arguments, logical fallacies, and most importantly what I meant by my statement.

If A => B and !A => B, B !=> A or !A. Set up the truth table and post it if you disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was asking you a question, IF you thought that the comission lied about the evidence. I never said that you thought that they did. I didn't realize that you think that you can tell nothing about what the 9/11 comission knew about this based on the report until you posted that. Most normal people would disagree with that even if they had some distrust of the comission. I personally think it is very likely that if they had this information it would have been leaked even if they tried to hide it. Do you really have a Phd in math?

[/ QUOTE ]

It all depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.

[MrMon]

Just to inject some facts into the argument, heaven forbid, bin Laden was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the WTC bombing as early as 1995. The CIA and FBI set up "Station Alex" to track bin Laden in Jan. 1996 and a grand jury began investigating him in 1996. Bin Laden left Sudan in May 1996. Whether or not bin Laden was offered by Sudan, or they merely gave info as to where he was and when he was leaving is a matter of contention, but he was certainly known well within the government by the beginning of 1996. If the opportunity to pick him up was missed, the reasons given are pretty lame, police pick up criminals in danger of flight all the time before indicment and hold them on some lame charge until the grand jury can get its act together. But whether that opportunity existed is rather confused, and I somehow think some of the people involved want it to be that way, as if it's true, it's an error of huge magnitude.

For a great documentary on exactly who knew what when, you can watch Frontline's "The Man Who Knew" on the PBS website, which also contains other documentation.

Frontline: The Man Who Knew

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Have you uncovered any of these "other interviews" yet? Or the source of your "there wasn't sufficient evidence to extradite him" quote?