|
|
#31
08-08-2007, 10:57 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 ] 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. 
|
|
#32
08-08-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#33
08-08-2007, 11:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#34
08-08-2007, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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).
|
|
#35
08-09-2007, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#36
08-09-2007, 12:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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]
|
|
#37
08-09-2007, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#38
08-09-2007, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#39
08-09-2007, 02:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#40
08-09-2007, 02:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
