|
|
#21
08-08-2007, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#22
08-08-2007, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#23
08-08-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#24
08-08-2007, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#25
08-08-2007, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#27
08-08-2007, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#28
08-08-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#29
08-08-2007, 10:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#30
08-08-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
