Hear The 9-11 Spin?

[stepnw1f]

Boy oh boy are they in trouble. New spin: 9-11 is Clinton's fault.

These right wingers and their media are criminally complicit for what has happened to this country of ours. We have to make them accountable for the damage they have done.

[newscott]

1. I am so pissed about this I can barely type a coherent post

This crap has got to stop.
9/11 didn't happen on Clintons' watch. Period.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Democrats_win]

2. Yep. I think this new stuff is complete fabrication.

They've had four years to revise history.

[ailsagirl]

3. "Blaming Clinton is the last refuge of the scoundrels"

(With apologies to Samuel Johnson for altering his original
quote)

Blaming Clinton has always seemed to me what they do when
they're plumb out of excuses.

What a bunch of effing loonies

:puke:

[comsymp]

6. Yup, I think we should establish the Clenis Corollary to Godwin's Law

The first one to bring up The Mighty Clenis® in an Internet debate / discussion, automatically loses.

[ailsagirl]

120. Love it: "What fresh hell is this?"

[tuvor]

4. Oh, so you mean they're now accepting responsibility for Timothy McVeigh..

...and Terry Nichols?

What a noble bunch!

[louis-t]

5. Hannity spent last night on this.

Listened for a minute on my way to work. Had to turn it off before my dinner came back up on me.

[TWiley]

7. Discovery channel is airing "Inside 9/11"

on August 21 and 22 I believe. I do not have a clue what the content will be, but maybe, just maybe, they will get it mostly right.

Whenever a republican has no evidence to back their spurious claims, they always invoke Clinton. Or, they get all fuzzied up and tell you to get out of "their" country.

[jaxx]

8. I hope they don't show that shot of dubya on the pile of rubble with tears

in his beady little eyes. That's the kind of bs he's banking on to spread his war.

[TWiley]

17. Did you notice how he hugged that Fireman to use him as

his "Human Shield"?

I see the bushtapo elite do that often. They whip up an emotional frenzy and PRESTO .... the right to lifers, veterns, religious folks, and lost "patriotic" souls who are struggling to become part of any group, all throw reason to the wind and place their lives in front of him.

[Catherine Vincent]

9. Yes, I hear it.

It proves how desperate they are. Apparently the "blame Clinton" talking point didn't sink in to some of the bushies after Sept. 11th happened (or they forgot), so they are sending out their brainwashing alert to the masses.

[ScamUSA.Com]

10. unfortunately this argument has merit

Clinton did slack on bring Osama to justice, when he was already a threat.

[stepnw1f]

12. Ahhhh.... NO (nt)

[ScamUSA.Com]

14. Ahh YES

I know its easier to be totally partisan on the issue, but Osama should have been killed on Clintons watch

[JohnnyBoots]

15. W's dad was part of the team that provided the young Osama

with training and guns. Why don't we bring up this point.

[stepnw1f]

18. So You Blame Bush for 9-11

That happened on his "watch"?

[ScamUSA.Com]

19. the blame isn't 100% on anyone.

just a bunch of collosal fuckups, including under Clintons watch, and certainly continuing under Bush's watch

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dinger]

47. Exactly

Yee hah!

[ScamUSA.Com]

52. nope...

no troll at all.

rawhide though.

[SpiralHawk]

46. Bush should have put down his children's book, My Pet Goat

And done something, anything on 9/11. He and his crew of sychophants ignored dozens of warnings that 9/11 was coming, including the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in USA"


But Bush stayed on vacation for a month. And then he read a children's book and looked bewildered and terrified for a 1/2 hour after hearing for the second time that the USA was under attack.

BushCo MIHOP. End of story.

(Footnote: Bin Laden has never, to my knowledge, claimed any involvement or responsiblity with 9/11, although the sick shiek did rejoice over the tragedy; meanwhile, BushCo has never given the US public any evidence that Bin Laden was involved. If they have, I have yet to see it.)

[aasleka]

13. What Clinton didn't do

Clinton acted appropriately and required proof and solid intelligence that who he wanted to get would be there when the bombs came. Clinton took an active participation and "shook the trees" to get the people out of their offices and digging.

Blame Clinton for following the rule of law and making coherant responsible decisions.


YeeeHaaa is not a good foriegn policy.

[ScamUSA.Com]

16. nah, he 'tried' to bomb Osama, but it was an asprin factory

proving, Clinton knew Osama was a threat, considering he bombed the embassies, but of course noone knew exactly how big of a threat he actually was.

Osama was on the FBIs most wanted under clintons watch, and he had the opportunity to capture him at a couple points.

the facts are the facts folks

[stepnw1f]

20. What 'Points' are Those?

Please tell us specifically what you mean.

Looks like Clinton actually made the effort, but Bush ignored the intelligence Clinton had. Bush made no effort and let Bin Laden escape. This we do know as "fact".

[ScamUSA.Com]

21. Sudan tried to turn over Osama to the FBI, but they declined

for example.

Clinton DID FUCK UP on Osama. Bush FUCKED UP even worse.

[Liberal In Texas]

22. That's a MYTH..That story is NOT TRUE and you should stop spreading

it around like it's gospel. This is a RW story made from whole cloth.

[ScamUSA.Com]

24. I respectfully disagree

its not a myth

[stepnw1f]

25. Yes It Is Myth. (nt)

[ScamUSA.Com]

27. So a fact you dont believe in or recognize is now a MYTH?

wow, interesting grasp of reality!

[Liberal In Texas]

28. WHAT FACT?

Where are you getting your information? Rush Limpballs or Shame Hannity?

[ScamUSA.Com]

32. thats insulting

I know you think this is all about partisan politics, but Clinton could have and should have killed Osama.

bottom line.

end of story.

[jasmeel]

33. Tora Bora anyone?

[ScamUSA.Com]

35. yeah and it pisses me off to no end that bush doesn't seem to care about

killing Osama either.

Why the fuck does this motherfucker even still breathe?

[stepnw1f]

Gee I Know... Huh?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

34. Provide a Link to Your Sources....

We'll be waiting right here.

[ScamUSA.Com]

38. sources are from like 98-99...

I did a basic search and you know how hard it is to find legit links to press from back then?

All the articles have been removed or archived from mainstream media.

My memory serves me well though.

[stepnw1f]

40. Yuh... Bye Bye (nt)

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

50. Buy?Bye... buh bye! (nt)

[Liberal In Texas]

44. "Hard to find legit links" huh. That should tell you something. n/t

[ScamUSA.Com]

48. but you know Clinton 'tried' to bomb Osama right?

he just didn't succeed.

[frazzledmom]

51. Clinton was offered Osama but the fact is he had

no legal grounds to accept the offer. Maybe if you had some lying thieves in office they might have illegally murdered Osama but Clinton chose to stay within the law. The other thing is I'm not totally convinced Osama was responsible for 9/11. I haven't seen any evidence at all. If he is a suspect he should be caught and tried. America has lowered itself to the point where we no longer hold any type of moral high ground. We need to get back to following the Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights that our fearless leaders are supposed to be defending.

[ScamUSA.Com]

53. point taken

thats exactly how I remember it.

However, Osama was definlty on the US most wanted for bombing the embassys

[Liberal In Texas]

55. He was NOT OFFERED Osama by ANYBODY. This is a RW rewriting

of history.

Do some research!

[fujiyama]

104. This story has been completely distorted

There is no evidence for an "offer" of any sort. In 1996 bin Laden was released by the Sudanese government. At that time he had not yet committed any crimes against the US so there was no basis to capture him.

------------------------------------------------------------
"No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5," issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim:

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.
"
---------------------------------------------------

[Ms. Clio]

80. That is just completely bogus--google: Whitewater Ken Starr

You will find tons of legit links to that bullshit still very much alive on the Web.

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/30/ic.history/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june99/starr_4-14.html

Etc. Etc. Etc.

[Zenlitened]

84. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

:rofl:

[Liberal In Texas]

41. Take it as you like. Clinton's own words:

Clinton: To the best of my knowledge it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese even though they later claimed it. I think it's total bull. Mr. Absurabi, the head of the Sudanese government was a buddy of bin Laden's. They were business partners together. There was no way in the wide world this guy who was in business with bin Laden in Sudan was going to give him up to us.

-CBS News June 21, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/21/eveningnews/main625205.shtml

[jayctravis]

77. Apparently there is a recording of Clinton-

where he says he was offered Osama but had no legal justification to take him. I don't know the details, perhaps someone can illuminate further?

[fujiyama]

97. It's bullshit and it has been DISCREDITED

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

The "evidence" to which Hannity referred is the 9-11 Commission report's statement: "ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States." But the report immediately continued: "Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

--------------------------------------------

"No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5," issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim:

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.
"


It's bullshit and there has been no evidence to back it up. So unless you have any take this shit elsewhere.

[skygazer]

39. Yes, it is a myth

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008

CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them . We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. 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.


No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement No. 5," issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim:

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.

[frylock]

70. and i would respectfully disagree with your assertions..

March 1996: US, Sudan Squabble over bin Laden's Fate


The US pressures Sudan to do something about bin Laden, who is currently based in that country. According to some accounts, Sudan readily agrees, not wanting to be labeled a terrorist nation. Sudan's defense minister engages in secret negotiations with the CIA in Washington. Sudan offers to extradite bin Laden to anywhere he might stand trial. Some accounts claim that Sudan offers bin Laden to the US, but the US decides not to take him because they do not have enough evidence at the time to charge him with a crime (Village Voice, 10/31/01; Washington Post, 10/3/01) Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” for both Clinton and George W. Bush, calls this story a “fable” invented by the Sudanese and Americans friendly to Sudan. He points out that bin Laden “was an ideological blood brother, family friend, and benefactor” to Sudanese leader Hassan al-Turabi, so any offers to hand him over may have been disingenuous. (Clarke, 2004, pp 142-43) CIA Director Tenet later denies that Sudan made any “direct offers to hand over bin Laden.” (9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 10/17/02) The US reportedly asks Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to accept bin Laden into custody, but is refused by all three governments. (Coll, 2004, pp 323) The 9/11 Commission later claims it finds no evidence that Sudan offers bin Laden directly to the US, but it does find evidence that Saudi Arabia is discussed as an option. (9/11 Commission Report, 3/23/04) US officials insist that bin Laden leave the country for anywhere but Somalia. One US intelligence source in the region later states: “We kidnap minor drug czars and bring them back in burlap bags. Somebody didn't want this to happen.” (Village Voice, 10/31/01; Washington Post, 10/3/01)

People and organizations involved: Osama bin Laden, Sudan, George Tenet, Hassan al-Turabi, Richard A. Clarke, Central Intelligence Agency, United States, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=50#a0396sudansquabble

Now post your source.

[Zenlitened]

83. That's been debunked about a million times over.

Starting with Richard A. Clarke... who was there in the White House at the time.



Thanks for playing.. :eyes:

[skygazer]

26. His people specifically told Bush's people

That bin Laden was by far the biggest threat to national security that we had at the time during the transition. Richard Clarke reported that this view was brushed off and completely ignored for the most part, Bush's team preferring instead to focus on missile defense.

"Opportunity to capture him" at a couple of points? Link? Facts to back up that assertion? You make it sound like it would have been some kind of cakewalk to waltz into Afghanistan and come back out in a couple of hours with Osama's head on a platter. If that's the case, why is he still at large?

The facts ARE the facts. I'd like to see some documentation of yours.

[ScamUSA.Com]

29. sorry I wont check your facts for you

good luck though.

[skygazer]

45. MY facts?

You're the one who said that Clinton had the opportunity - YOU provide the facts. All I'm asking is for you to document the bullshit you're posting and you can't seem to do that. Without documentation, it's just your opinion.

[ScamUSA.Com]

49. like I said... Clinton trying to bomb Osama but hitting an asprin factory

stands out in my memory.

You try finding press archives to quote from the late 90s.

If someone has a lexis-nexis login, lets research this issue.

[skygazer]

54. And that's an opportunity how?

What are you saying? That they missed him on purpose? I have no idea what you're trying to say here - it seems to me that this was an effort to kill him that failed, . How does it translate into "the opportunity to capture him at a couple points"?

[ScamUSA.Com]

58. simple point I'm trying to make

1) Clinton recognized Osama was a threat
2) Osama blew up 2 US embassies!
3) Osama was added to the FBI's most wanted list
4) Clinton tried to kill Osama by cruise missiling Afghanistan
5) Clinton failed to kill Osama


any fuckin questions?

[skygazer]

61. Yeah

Why do you hate America?

No, seriously, I'm not a blanket apologist for anyone but I don't see that you've proven your point. Clinton tried to kill Osama and failed but at least he tried. I'm unsure of why you blame him when he was trying to do something about it. His people warned the Bush administration about Osama but they refused to even listen. You spoke of opportunities to catch him at a couple of points but then only mention the one try to kill him and nothing about any opportunities to catch him except for the (false) story of the offer from Sudan, one which I and another person have posted links debunking.

Your list -

1) Clinton recognized Osama was a threat - this is a good thing. Bush did not

2) Osama blew up 2 US embassies!

3) Osama was added to the FBI's most wanted list

4) Clinton tried to kill Osama by cruise missiling Afghanistan - yes, he tried. Another good thing. At least he was doing SOMETHING, which Bush failed to do even after receiving a PDB which stated clearly that bin Laden wanted to use airplanes to attack america and even after being alerted to suspicious activity at flight training centers. Duh!

5) Clinton failed to kill Osama - so this makes 9/11 his fault? He tried but failed. He TRIED. You don't get it, do you?

[ScamUSA.Com]

63. you really need to step off

accusing me of hating america is the most offensive thing you could say to me

I think I have clearly outlined why Clinton bears some responsiblity for 9-11.

[skygazer]

65. Oh, for pete's sake

Step off yourself. That was a response to your very rude remark about "fucking questions" to a post that in no way said anything rude or personal. It was, quite obviously by the way I started the next sentence, a joking response.

You may think you've clearly outlined it but you hadn't - all you do is keep repeating the same things and avoiding answering any direct question.

Any fucking questions?

[ScamUSA.Com]

66. interesting strategy for discussion

Am I actually conversing with another human here?

[skygazer]

68. You are not discussing

You are simply repeating the same thing ad nauseum and when questioned too closely resorting to belligerence. Now that I have gotten sick of being stonewalled, I have responded in kind and you think I'M the one with the problem? I might have made the same comment about you "any fucking questions" remark. Instead, I tried once more to ask the same questions which you have yet to answer.

Every post I've directed to you has been clear and logical and contained questions which you've refused to address except by repeating the same stuff over and over with no links or proofs or confirmation other than your own opinion.

Yeah, I'm a real human and I'd love to discuss the issue but that appears to be a pipe dream.

[Liberal In Texas]

62. Yeah, I have a "fuckin question" as you so elegantly put it...

Does this post mean you're backing down on your previous statement, "...he opportunity to capture him at a couple points..."?

Because that is absolutely NOT TRUE and neither you nor anyone else can offer evidence that it is.

[ScamUSA.Com]

64. Clinton had the full US military at his disposal

He knew Osama was a threat, but didn't follow through to be successful unfortunately.

[Liberal In Texas]

69. What ? He was supposed to launch the army to go looking for Osama

(one of MANY terrorists in the world) because he had some prescient knowledge that he would cause 9/11?

Osama did not become public enemy #1 until AFTER 9/11. He was considered a threat, but so were many others. AND he warned the incoming administration about him and they ignored it.

And you might remember that the WTC was bombed by terrorists and Clinton and his administration hunted them down and put them in prison. We didn't even have to invade a country to do it. Now compare that with what the chimp president has done.

So far in all of your posts you have offered no proof of your revisionist history. We're waiting for facts, not just your wild assertions.

[ScamUSA.Com]

72. bullshit... 911 wasn't when Osama became public enemy #1

that happened when the US Embassies were bombed... of course under clinton's watch.

some short sighted motherfuckers here... I wont play this game.

[Liberal In Texas]

78. Yes, you might want to find other websites/boards where people swallow

these mythologies hook, line, and sinker. But I'm (and others here) are not letting you have a pass on it.

[ScamUSA.Com]

81. sorry but at least half the readers will know I'm speaking truth

I wouldn't even bother if I was trying to play you, but come on... you want to ignore the facts, thats beyond my capability to discuss.

Check my posts, check my history. I'm not trolling here at all.

If you want to drink the purple kool-aid and not the red stuff... more power to ya!

[Liberal In Texas]

85. You haven't presented any FACTS!

And I'm not the one drinking the purple kool-aid.

[Zenlitened]

121. "Osama became public enemy #1 ... when the US Embassies were bombed"

Also not true. He became public enemy #1 in the wake of 9-11.

Up to then, he was one threat in a world of many threats. Too bad the repukes were focusing so much attention, energy and resources on Monica Lewinsky at the time.

[stepnw1f]

71. You Didn't Answer The Question AGAIN!!!

Jesus... give up already and move on.

"Clinton had the full US military at his disposal"

... ahhhh so? What the hell does that mean.

Answer the question: Does this post mean you're backing down on your previous statement, "...he opportunity to capture him at a couple points..."?

Stop changing the course of dialogue. I'm putting on the spot.... we will all wait and watch to see how you respond. Thanks for understanding!

[ScamUSA.Com]

75. to answer your question, even though you want to hide your ears

Opportunity is being president and knowing theres a terroristic threat.

Damn that realy does sound like some right wing bullshit.

[Zenlitened]

87. That's an answer? Really covering yourself in glory here, aren't you!

:spray:

[ScamUSA.Com]

88. make a point sir

hecklers are ignored by definition

[Zenlitened]

90. It's not sir, although I'm not surprised by your inability...

... to do even the simplest of research.

And here's the point: Your are repeating a lie.

Further, you are offering no substantiation whatsoever.

Instead you merely repeat yourself, insisting ever more shrilly that you are right, you are right you are right.

How pathetically weak.

Educate yourself:



Orjust disappear, that'd be fine too.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScamUSA.Com]

94. quote the lie, dont just call names

the truth hurts

[Zenlitened]

Hahahaha!!

Could your techniques be any more lame? :rofl:

[skygazer]

99. What the fuck does that mean?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fujiyama]

116. You're the one making the claim

Therefore, you're the one that's supposed to show the evidence.

Up until now all you have stated the same thing over and over again. That's not evidence. Several of us have pointed out there is literally no evidence of the Sudanese claim. The 9/11 commission DISCREDITED IT as well in the report.

It's been spread by the likes of NewsMax and Sean Hannity, neither of which I consider reliable sources.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScamUSA.Com]

105. calling names is nothing to be proud of

You've thrown the book at me.. I've been abused like never before on DU.

I hope you're proud of yourself.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScamUSA.Com]

110. no idea what you're talking about

I was discussing 911 and Clinton.... your hate is not what I bargained for.

[Liberal In Texas]

112. Sounded to me like you were BLAMING Clinton. Repeating RW talking

points from the desk of KKKarl.

[Zenlitened]

114. Another RW technique: Shooting down repuke nonsense is "hating"

You've got the whole bag of tricks open, don't you?

[Ms. Clio]

117. We know exactly what you are doing

I wasn't bargaining for the gratuitous misogyny, however, that was a nasty little bonus.

[stepnw1f]

113. I Notice My American Flag in your Avatar

Please stop hiding behind it.

[Zenlitened]

123. You might note that you got the ball rolling by making a threat...

... based on your own miscomprehension of the statement "you are repeating lies."

But now you're the victim?

Yeah, pretty transparent. Could you trot out a few more techniques for muddying the water, diverting discussion, and undermining the truth?

[Ms. Clio]

111. THE FACT is he said "The estrogen in here is overwhelming"

The mods know it, too.

[ScamUSA.Com]

115. another interesting fact

you have greatly offended me worse than that, so get real.

In the future I guess I'll just go along with the party line....

nah.

[Zenlitened]

118. Playing the victim card pretty boldly, aren't you?

:spray:

[Liberal In Texas]

119. Just to set you straight on ANOTHER point. Not everybody who is

disagreeing with you here is female.

But that FACT might have gotten in the way of your insult.

[skygazer]

95. "Opportunity is being president and knowing theres a terroristic threat."

That doesn't even make sense. Not only that, it does not correspond with what you said before which was that he had more than one opportunity to capture bin Laden. You have never explained what those opportunities supposedly were and now you are telling us that they weren't exactly opportunities as any rational person would term them but simply the fact that he was president and knew bin Laden was a threat means he had the opportunity to capture him.

I don't blame bush so much for not capturing bin laden before 9/11 so much as I blame him for not even recognizing the threat. For not even making an effort. Clinton recognized the threat, had people working on ways to counter it, did make the bombing attempt in Afghanistan that failed, tried to convince the Saudi government to do something about him, captured the people responsible for the bombing of the WTC... Your logic is severely flawed.

[ScamUSA.Com]

98. nah its more like you want to not believe what I'm saying

Clinton was president... he recognized Osama was a threat... he tried to kill him.. Clinton failed to kill Osama.

how much clearer do you need this illustrated?

OK... banging head against wall at this point.

[skygazer]

Perhaps that will knock some sense into it

But I doubt it.

Okay, once again v . e . r . y s . l . o . w . l . y ...

how does Clinton recognizing the threat, working to do something about it, trying to kill the bastard, jailing the bombers of the WTC and warning the incoming administration about the threat (which was ignored) make him at fault at all for 9/11?

[never cry wolf]

122. "No bombs for Monica, No bombs for Monica!"

Mr. Clinton did not exactly have the full support of his country OR his military.

[Liberal In Texas]

103. There you go, being logical. Logic doesn't fit Scam's story.n/t

[ScamUSA.Com]

107. hecklers get ignored by definition

please

[skygazer]

108. It really is like arguing with a brick wall

Except a brick wall makes more sense.

[Ms. Clio]

89. Well, then, why don't you try providing some FACTS of your own?

Can't find a web link to this complete nonsense for some extremely odd reason? Well, then, hie ye to one of these sweetly-quaint institutions known as a library.

Find just one reputable cite.

You have to provide a genuine fact before I can check it.

[JohnnyBoots]

37. Why did we fly out members of the Bin Laden family after

911, when they entire country was ordered to be grounded? Isn't that a bit odd to anyone? If you were a detective and there was a murder and then you sent posible leads/witnesses etc. out of the country immediatly how would you expect to solve the crime?

[Ms. Clio]

76. Especially since they immediately started hassling and deporting

and extraordinarily renditioning thousands of completely unrelated people.

[comsymp]

31. Yup, facts are facts. However, I'd like to hear more about the

"opportunity to catch him at a couple points"

You will lose much K, however, if you mention the bogus claims of Faux News' Mansoor Ijaz, or the words "Sudan" or "silver platter."

[comsymp]

23. "YeeeHaaa is not a good foreign policy"

That needs to be on a bumper sticker - short, sweet and so damn true!

And BTW, welcome to DU~

[jayctravis]

74. I'm not sure this is true...

The guest on Hannity (I know, I flip on the drive home) said that Clinton says he was offered Osama, but somehow there was no legal justification with which he could do it. Apparently he tried to get...I think the Saudis to take him since they could to no avail. Of course Hannity still calls foul on this, because the rightwingers really take things like the rule of law for granted.

Maybe someone can correct my view on this--I have a lot more trust in Clinton than I do in many of these other politicians. If he had a legitimate opportunity to make the world safer, he would have done so.

[Liberal In Texas]

92. Not true. It's Repuke spin. See posts 41, 70 and perhaps 39. n/t

[JohnnyBoots]

11. I heard that on Rush yesterday, I think he said it when

a repub caller said he wanted to know what Bush knew and when he knew it. The Oxymoran was flabbergasted when he heard one of his own actually put Bush and accountability in the same call.

[flyarm]

30. please get this out there...this was a pre-emptive attack on clinton

a white wash!!!!!!!!!

it was a pre-emptive attack to make it look like it was clintons fault but that is all bull!!!!!!!!..this is the real story and it is about to come out..so the liars in this admin are hoping you miss the real facts..or are they counting on the media not telling you the real story?? i would bet on the later!



http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/08/con05285.html


Cong. Weldon's Preemptive Strike Against the CIA
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Mark G. Levey


snip:

Republican Cong. Curt Weldon's disclosure that U.S. Army Intelligence watched four al-Qaeda hijackers inside the U.S. before 9/11 is a GOP attempt to deflect a long-expected report by the CIA's Inspector General's office. Like the FBI IG report into the Bureau's pre-9/11 "intelligence failure" released in June, the CIA's internal audit is expected to contain shocking new details of errors and negligence by senior Bush Administration officials that led to the "catastrophic success" of the al-Qaeda attacks.

Weldon's widely-publicized campaign of disinformation has spun the story so that blame is laid at the feet of the Clinton Administration for the 9/11 attacks eighteen months after the CIA and DoD failed to notify the FBI about the presence inside the U.S. of terrorists known to have entered the country in late 1999 and early 2000.

The CIA IG report is reportedly complete, and is currently being reviewed by former DCI George Tenet and other Agency officials who are the subject of highly damaging accusations that the CIA withheld information and misled U.S. law enforcement about the 9/11 hijackers.

Cong. Weldon's remarks have fueled controversy over responsibility for the failure by US government agencies to prevent the 9/11 hijackings.

Weldon first spoke publicly about the issue on 27 June in a little-noticed speech on the House floor, and to a local paper in his Pennsylvania constituency.

snip:


Weldon claims that course of action was rejected in large part because the four al-Qaeda operatives were in the US on valid entry visas.

He asserts Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally.

That claim is simply inconsistent with the law as it existed at the time. That was not and is not government policy. For one thing, the Pentagon's lawyers whom Weldon claims made the decision to withhold information from FBI knew full well that the four suspects were not "U.S. persons" (citizens or lawful permanent residents, aka "green card" holders.)

The matrix the Army Able Danger unit had compiled was based on data from entry records provided by INS, which clearly showed the four al-Qaeda operatives had all entered the U.S. as non-immigrants with visas.

Warrant requirements under the Foreign Intelligence Survellance Act (FISA) and information-sharing restrictions simply did not apply to the 9/11 hijackers. This is basic national security and immigration law. Anyone who's familiar with FISA warrant and information sharing guidelines in place at that time knows Weldon's version is a most implausible cover story.

In fact, CIA, DOD and other intelligence agencies could do all the electronic monitoring they wanted on the al-Qaeda suspects, AND SHARE IT WITH THE FBI, because the subjects of wiretaps were all non-resident aliens, exempt from FISA warrant requirements.

snip::

It is time that the public learns why things got complicated, and stickies might have been applied. In 2000, the surveillance of the incoming al-Qaeda cells was just part of an enormous, ongoing multi-agency monitoring operation of international terrorism, WMD proliferation, arms and drug dealing, political influence peddling, and money laundering. The Army's Able Danger Intelligence unit apparently had indiscriminate access to a lot of this data, which also included data gained from warrantless NSA taps of the communications of US persons and non-US persons, alike.

Intelligence analysts are supposed to separate this out, and obtain FISA warrants where US persons are involved to authorize continuation of these intercepts. But, the agencies by and large didn't bother to seek warrants -- which is a violation of the law. That made this data the fruit of illegal searches, and the FBI didn't want to touch it, for fear that it would ruin its criminal investigations that overlapped the CIA and DIA's domestic operations.

Meanwhile, over at the J. Edgar Hoover Building, FBI national security managers were attempting to cover a maelstrom of terrorist groups, Saudi financiers, Israeli espionage agents, corrupt politicians, and corruption within the US intelligence agencies. This is what Sibel Edmonds has tried so hard to blow the whistle about. This job was immensely complicated by the fact that the al-Qaeda ranks were riddled with double-agents serving multiple intelligence agencies, all of which were simultaneously spying on each other inside the U.S. The whole thing got too hot, and the bureaucracy overloaded. Bad decisions were made to allow operations to continue for fear of stepping on the toes of the CIA and foreign agencies working both with and against U.S. interests.

After the 2000 election, national security managers put the brakes on investigative lines that were touching on subjects that might get people fired. For its own reasons, the Bush Administration shut down much of the remaining counter-terrorism apparatus. By early 2001, it was widely known within law enforcement and intelligence circles that some strange things were going on at DoD, the FISA court, and within FBI counter-terrorism. The number of FISA warrant requests actually declined during the 18 months leading up to the 9/11 attacks, and few new applications were filed during the summer before the attacks. Recall, this is at a time that Tenet's hair was said to be "on fire". For more on the chaos of US counterterrorism in 2001, please see: "THE CRIMES OF 9/11 (Part 4):
Bush White House, CIA, FBI Bungled Risky Warrantless Surveillance Operation - 3,000 Died."

9/11 could have been avoided. The al-Qaeda cells could have been rolled up, if the order had been given by President Bush. Without that order, nobody was going to be arrested.

Finally, everyone knew there was a serious problem and nobody wanted to create more of paper trail than they had to. Warrants create paper trails, which might get people fired, subpoenaed before hostile committees, and indicted by grand juries. As a result, given the choice, people stopped requesting warrants. Had the agencies complied with the law regarding FISA warrants, Mohamed Atta and his buddies would have had to be arrested, given what was being learned from illegal wiretaps and consensual monitoring. This is an area, not surprisingly, the 9/11 Commission didn't even begin to touch on.

The CIA Inspector General's Report does not exonerate Tenet and other Agency officials for withholding information from the FBI on the basis that Cong. Weldon claims. The law clearly allowed CIA, DoD and FBI to share information about Mohamed Atta and the Al-Qaeda suspects who would carry out the hijackings. They did. The so-called FISA Wall did not cause the failure of US counterterrorism that led to their "catastrophic success" on 9/11.

Weldon's accusations are what's known as a "limited hangout" in intelligence jargon. It is an attempt to poison the well of public discourse for the far more damaging revelations about Bush Administration incompetence and obstruction of U.S. counter-terrorism that is about to be made public.

Instead, the CIA report will detail a much more complex picture of bad decisions by Agency policymakers who tried to comply with Bush White House orders that interfered with management of a mounting crisis.

[jaxx]

56. This is how the kool-aid gets stirred

Put out a bogus smear ( a la the swifties tactics ) and then sit back and watch it become fact to the ones who believe the first thing they read. Rebutals become lies to them, instead of showing the truth. It's the bushco's well worn approach to getting the sheep in the corral. This Clinton thing is all over the web, and all propagndists are using the exact same phrasing to spread the lie. Then telling you to look up the stories.........knowing they don't exist in any media form except the right wing variety. Pathetic little creatures aren't they?

I always ask them to tell me one good thing dubya has done for this country.........just one. So far I've never gotten a response.

[Liberal In Texas]

59. I know...this rebutting the mythology spread by the RWers gets real

tedious. They're very cleaver though. If you keep telling the lie enough, it eventually gets legs and finally becomes accepted fact.

One website parrots another then another. One guy tells the story in the bar who repeats it to another buddy, and all of sudden the lie is common knowledge and accepted as real.

I get so tired of this, all I want to do is throw up my hands and say, "Have it your way, then." But I suppose that's what they want.

[stepnw1f]

73. Good Job Though

:toast:

[Liberal In Texas]

82. And you.

:toast: back at ya.

[TheFarseer]

57. That's old spin

Clinton should ahve invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran and Syria and Yemen long before 9/11 happened. And furthermore, if the democrats in Congress wouldn't have help up bush's cabinet appointments, they would have been in place and been able to stop 9/11, and the cabinet officer who told staffers to "quit bothering me with all these terrorism reports" would have REALLY been able to stop the terrorists. :sarcasm:

[Iris]

60. A link?

Is this some new stuff?

[stepnw1f]

79. Not New... Just Re-Circulating Garbage

I have come across a forum where this crap has reared it's ugly head once again.

Here's a link to what I refer to: http://boston.craigslist.org/pol/90668235.html

[Uncle Joe]

67. Damn, here I was thinking it was Woodrow Wilson's fault. n/t

[sakabatou]

86. DO they say why it's "clinton's fault"

let me guess: the clenis.

[Catholic Sensation]

96. they've been spouting this bullshit for years

only before it was some bullshit about clinton not accepting a trade with sudan for bin Laden and a terrorist to be named later.

[Moderator]

124. Locking...

This has become inflammatory. I think
everyone who participated in this thread
should check the DU rules regarding
personal attacks.



DU Moderator