Bill Clinton is a little defensive about Bin laden.

[De Novo 0]

Sorry, not one of you have explained what Clinton was talking about.

 

How did I not answer your question?

[TeNt 0]

The point is clinton had a piss fit over it, and then said wallace lured him into it... wallace asked one ###### question about it, clintons the fool with the panties all in a bunch who dragged it on for an hour, and wallace even asked to talk about the enviroment stuff... but clinton kept going.

 

I think both Clinton and Bush both want Bin Faget with a passion. I also think bush has done a better job... osama hasnt done anything since the invasion, and he may be dead. (I think he is, I highly doubt he could go this long without a video tape in the middle of the afganistan thing, the iraq thing, and the israel - lebonan thing)

[jerryskids 6,813]

The point is clinton had a piss fit over it, and then said wallace lured him into it... wallace asked one ###### question about it, clintons the fool with the panties all in a bunch who dragged it on for an hour, and wallace even asked to talk about the enviroment stuff... but clinton kept going.

Exactly. The conversation has changed from "Bush's fault" to "as much Bush's as Clinton's fault." Nice job, Willy.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How did I not answer your question?

 

Um, you didn't tell us what Clinton was talking about when he said they wanted us to take him "but we had no reason to hold him" AND "I pleaded with the Saudis to take him".

 

I'll ask again: How can Clinton say he didn't take him because we had no reason to hold him if he wasn't offered? Under what other circumstances would Clinton say that?

 

How could Clinton plead with the Saudis to take him if he wasn't there for the taking? Under what other circumstances would Clinton say that?

 

Basically, explain why Clinton said those things if he wasn't offered Bin Laden.

[Guest Davaco]

Exactly. The conversation has changed from "Bush's fault" to "as much Bush's as Clinton's fault." Nice job, Willy.

 

it was 1 question in 4 parts, 1993, the embassy bombings and the cole and he stood tall, ripping state run tv a new ahole on every aspect.

 

this was all planned to rile up the dems and faux news took the bait

 

[De Novo 0]

Um, you didn't tell us what Clinton was talking about when he said they wanted us to take him "but we had no reason to hold him" AND "I pleaded with the Saudis to take him".

 

I'll ask again: How can Clinton say he didn't take him because we had no reason to hold him if he wasn't offered? Under what other circumstances would Clinton say that?

 

How could Clinton plead with the Saudis to take him if he wasn't there for the taking? Under what other circumstances would Clinton say that?

 

Basically, explain why Clinton said those things if he wasn't offered Bin Laden.

Maybe the conversation went like this?

 

Random intelligence guy, "I might be able to get you Bin Ladin. Do you want him?

Clinton: "I'd love to have him but no, I have nothing to hold him on. Let me call the Saudis."

 

Clinton: "Hey, we know a guy who might be able to bring in Bin Ladin. Please take him. We can't hold him."

Saudis: "Fukc no!!"

Clinton: "Dammit"

 

You could encounter something on a smaller scale in your daily life....

Friend : "Hey Recliner Pilot, I might be able to get tickets to a dinner at Bush's table. You want them?"

Recliner: "No, I can't. I would love to but I can't. I'm having anal sex with my wife tonight. Let me call a friend."

 

Recliner: "Hey, my friend might be able to get tickets. If he does, can you go and get Bush's autograph for me?"

Friend: "Hell no. I hate Bush."

Recliner: "pleaaaaaase?"

Friend: "No"

 

Do you see how that could play out?

[Guest Davaco]

Um, you didn't tell us what Clinton was talking about when he said they wanted us to take him "but we had no reason to hold him" AND "I pleaded with the Saudis to take him".

 

I'll ask again: How can Clinton say he didn't take him because we had no reason to hold him if he wasn't offered? Under what other circumstances would Clinton say that?

 

How could Clinton plead with the Saudis to take him if he wasn't there for the taking? Under what other circumstances would Clinton say that?

 

Basically, explain why Clinton said those things if he wasn't offered Bin Laden.

 

the CIA refused to connect him to the plots. you just cant make up laws to take people, unless you are dubya who just walks all over the constitution and creates even more terrorists

[Boz/BoFan 0]

the CIA refused to connect him to the plots. you just cant make up laws to take people, unless you are dubya who just walks all over the constitution and creates even more terrorists

 

Ur a power phag dude. Put the granola down, trade in those Birks for some dress shoes, cut you faux dreds, get a job, a CPA, some responsibility and self respect, pay some taxes, sell the Tommy Chong "Phuk leaving the house today" edition glass bong and call me in the morning. I will then explain to you why the ladies have that little hole betwixt thier legs and what you should do to it.

[De Novo 0]

Ur a power phag dude. Put the granola down, trade in those Birks for some dress shoes, cut you faux dreds, get a job, a CPA, some responsibility and self respect, pay some taxes, sell the Tommy Chong "Phuk leaving the house today" edition glass bong and call me in the morning. I will then explain to you why the ladies have that little hole betwixt thier legs and what you should do to it.

Lamest post evah! Why the fock would you tell him to get a CPA?

[Cruzer 1,995]

as complicated as the issue is, there are parts of it that are simple:

 

* bot clinton and bush let us down, they both failed us.

* clinton did not do all he could have to connect the early dots.

* bush did not take and run with the information passed on to him as he should have. if he had put as much effort into stopping al-qaeda (before 9/11) as he did in getting tax cuts, the wtc would still be standing.

* As early as 95' Clinton's administration knew of a plot to use planes as missles. Murad's confession to Phillipino Col. Mendoza and FBI agents Francis Pellegrino & Thomas Donlon prove this.

* It's hard to believe who is telling the truth: Bush, Condi, Clinton and 'S.Burglar' are seasoned liars.

[Korben Dallas 0]

as complicated as the issue is, there are parts of it that are simple:

 

* bot clinton and bush let us down, they both failed us.

* clinton did not do all he could have to connect the early dots.

* bush did not take and run with the information passed on to him as he should have. if he had put as much effort into stopping al-qaeda (before 9/11) as he did in getting tax cuts, the wtc would still be standing.

* As early as 95' Clinton's administration knew of a plot to use planes as missles. Murad's confession to Phillipino Col. Mendoza and FBI agents Francis Pellegrino & Thomas Donlon prove this.

* It's hard to believe who is telling the truth: Bush, Condi, Clinton and 'S.Burglar' are seasoned liars.

 

 

Thank you Cruzer, I think you are dead on here. It's nice to have hindsight and know that not going ballsout for Bin Laden in 93' would lead to huge screwups.

 

It has been very well documented that Clinton's ability to "get" Bin Laden was tenuous at best. But, perhaps Clinton should have taken a page out of the Bush Presidency and used the CIA to just get him and hole him up in Eygpt. The GOP would have howled and demanded impeachment had he of done it, but maybe it would have saved our later problems.

 

I'm also not afraid to say that, had Clinton kept his d1ck in his pants or at least been smarter about it, he would of had substantially more political capital and focus time to build on his strategy. I don't care what the Clinton's say, that had to be massively distracting...and every time he did act, the GOP would yell about wagging the dog. Lets not forget that the RIGHT was the "no war" crowd in the 90's.

 

It also would have been helpful if his first major hit against the relatively unknown Al Queda wouldn't have been hitting a baby formula factory.

 

Rice was clearly wrong to not hold a single meeting on terrorism, despite the Cole attack and Clarke sending pleading emails from the first day in office until 5 days prior to 9/11. I don't blame Bush for this really, he told us he was going to focus on NMD and we knew he had as much foreign policy knowledge as an 8yr old from Iowa, but plenty voted for him anyway. I remember thinking, at least Cheney has a clue. Oops. She was wrong to demote the only US expert on AL Queda and maginalize and ignore him, she was wrong to fight and stop using unmanned drones in Afganistan.

 

Clinton certainly has a right to be defensive. He had at least started to focus on them. Getting Predator drones up in the air to spy, developing a political and military strategy against them, using Bush I's principles committee to focus on terrorism.

 

Lets be honest with ourselves. No one saw it coming. I know, I know, the briefing document. But we lived in a pretty insulated world until 9/11 and no one would have believed you.

 

However, Clinton has said his piece, he's right. Now he can stop talking.

 

What I can't figure out is why the admin put Rice out in front of the camera's. Of every single political official in the world, she is probably the most to blame. She actually stopped much of the activities, and standing up and lying, when the reality is well documented was just stupid. Almost nothing she said was true. Better to just have kept her mouth shut than bring it all back up. I think the conversation has been dead on that for a while.

[Flashover 0]

Great commentary on Clinton Fox interview:

 

http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15...terview512k.wmv

[Cdub100 3,924]

Thank you Cruzer, I think you are dead on here. It's nice to have hindsight and know that not going ballsout for Bin Laden in 93' would lead to huge screwups.

 

It has been very well documented that Clinton's ability to "get" Bin Laden was tenuous at best. But, perhaps Clinton should have taken a page out of the Bush Presidency and used the CIA to just get him and hole him up in Eygpt. The GOP would have howled and demanded impeachment had he of done it, but maybe it would have saved our later problems.

 

I'm also not afraid to say that, had Clinton kept his d1ck in his pants or at least been smarter about it, he would of had substantially more political capital and focus time to build on his strategy. I don't care what the Clinton's say, that had to be massively distracting...and every time he did act, the GOP would yell about wagging the dog. Lets not forget that the RIGHT was the "no war" crowd in the 90's.

 

It also would have been helpful if his first major hit against the relatively unknown Al Queda wouldn't have been hitting a baby formula factory.

 

Rice was clearly wrong to not hold a single meeting on terrorism, despite the Cole attack and Clarke sending pleading emails from the first day in office until 5 days prior to 9/11. I don't blame Bush for this really, he told us he was going to focus on NMD and we knew he had as much foreign policy knowledge as an 8yr old from Iowa, but plenty voted for him anyway. I remember thinking, at least Cheney has a clue. Oops. She was wrong to demote the only US expert on AL Queda and maginalize and ignore him, she was wrong to fight and stop using unmanned drones in Afganistan.

 

Clinton certainly has a right to be defensive. He had at least started to focus on them. Getting Predator drones up in the air to spy, developing a political and military strategy against them, using Bush I's principles committee to focus on terrorism.

 

Lets be honest with ourselves. No one saw it coming. I know, I know, the briefing document. But we lived in a pretty insulated world until 9/11 and no one would have believed you.

 

However, Clinton has said his piece, he's right. Now he can stop talking.

 

What I can't figure out is why the admin put Rice out in front of the camera's. Of every single political official in the world, she is probably the most to blame. She actually stopped much of the activities, and standing up and lying, when the reality is well documented was just stupid. Almost nothing she said was true. Better to just have kept her mouth shut than bring it all back up. I think the conversation has been dead on that for a while.

 

 

NO WAR FOR MONICA!!!

[parrot 789]

Lamest post evah! Why the fock would you tell him to get a CPA?

Duh, because CPAs are cool.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Lamest post evah! Why the fock would you tell him to get a CPA?

 

Ur right, he's got no chedda.

[TeNt 0]

Great commentary on Clinton Fox interview:

 

http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15...terview512k.wmv

 

that guy is a complete retard.

[DanXIII 8]

as complicated as the issue is, there are parts of it that are simple:

 

* bot clinton and bush let us down, they both failed us.

* clinton did not do all he could have to connect the early dots.

* bush did not take and run with the information passed on to him as he should have. if he had put as much effort into stopping al-qaeda (before 9/11) as he did in getting tax cuts, the wtc would still be standing.

* As early as 95' Clinton's administration knew of a plot to use planes as missles. Murad's confession to Phillipino Col. Mendoza and FBI agents Francis Pellegrino & Thomas Donlon prove this.

* It's hard to believe who is telling the truth: Bush, Condi, Clinton and 'S.Burglar' are seasoned liars.

 

I agree with part of this, but I honestly don't directly blame any of our leaders for 9/11. The failure on our part was one of imagination. We had never been hit that hard, that close to home before.

 

I've said it before but it's worth mentioning here again: I am a firm believer that, if our various government law enforcement/intel agencies simply shared information then the way they do now, 9/11 never would have happened. No need for a Patriot Act. No need for anal probes at the airport. No need for any of these knee-jerk responses to phantom "terror alerts" we have nowadays (which by and large are completely worthless).

 

Trying to blame Clinton or Bush, or trying to blame ANYONE other than those responsible, is nothing more than partisan hackery at its worst.