Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.

[Mr Sparkle]

Yeah, yeah, every president is accused of being PAINFULLY CORRUPT. Yet no evidence is ever provided. Just blind partisan accusations and wild unfounded speculation.

Republicans did that to Clinton and Carter, and democrats did that to Reagan, Bush Sr and now Bush Jr.

As to where he put his focus, as I said - NO ONE COULD HAVE PREDICTED 9/11 OR THE LEVEL OF DEVASTATION IT CAUSED, PERIOD.

As to the whole focus on terrorism, Clinton was just as guilty for not taking it seriously enough. Clinton had EIGHT YEARS to take it seriously. Bush had only EIGHT MONTHS.

no, see, because Evidence has been presented, and frankly, I have seen the info, and I'm not a democrat, how can what everyone else in the world sees be "blindly partisan" do you really think that Clinton was more liked all over the world because we're all secretly democrats?
you have gotta be kidding me there laz.
as to where he put his focus I say AGAIN, he deprioritize an innitiave that the previous administration had taken a great focus on (wether you believe it or not, I read about it back in 98) and ignored anti-terrorism advice from a guy that had worked for the last 3 administrations, and given the climate (as most republican critics tend to mention) how could he give himself that luxury? clinton pursued Bin Laden the last 3 years of his 8 and since 93 actively pursued terrorism (but like I have said over and over, he did silently) Bush Ignored all of this, and only after the fact did he do anything about it, with the main focus (iraq) having NOTHING ot do with 9-11.

again, you must be joking.

 

[sinewave]

Then who is????

whoever the heads of those organizations are. clinton can't go against written law. if there wasn't enough evidence, there wasn't enough evidence.

 

[cass]

whoever the heads of those organizations are. clinton can't go against written law. if there wasn't enough evidence, there wasn't enough evidence.

Who answer to him, okay. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[sinewave]

Yeah, George Tenet, appointed by Clinton, the same guy who said there were, without question, WMDs in Iraq?

Now I remember.

Funny how Tenet's voice is only paramount when we're talking about bailing Clinton out, but not Bush .

i'm not trying to bail anyone out, winky. they said there wasn't enough evidence and couldn't justify retaliation against bin laden. i know were used to presidents breaking international law nowadays, but back then, i guess clinton didn't find it justifiable enough.

 

[sinewave]

Who answer to him, okay. Thanks for proving my point.

you're right, i misspoke. my apologies. my main argument was that the intelligence agencies couldn't find enough evidence to pin those attacks on bin laden. and wouldn't authorize the creation of a military base in uzbekistan, which was critical to the retaliation effort.

 

[lazur]

no, see, because Evidence has been presented, and frankly, I have seen the info, and I'm not a democrat, how can what everyone else in the world sees be "blindly partisan" do you really think that Clinton was more liked all over the world because we're all secretly democrats?
you have gotta be kidding me there laz.
as to where he put his focus I say AGAIN, he deprioritize an innitiave that the previous administration had taken a great focus on (wether you believe it or not, I read about it back in 98) and ignored anti-terrorism advice from a guy that had worked for the last 3 administrations, and given the climate (as most republican critics tend to mention) how could he give himself that luxury? clinton pursued Bin Laden the last 3 years of his 8 and since 93 actively pursued terrorism (but like I have said over and over, he did silently) Bush Ignored all of this, and only after the fact did he do anything about it, with the main focus (iraq) having NOTHING ot do with 9-11.

again, you must be joking.

Like I said - partisan.

Clinton had a few opportunities to capture Bin Laden if he really wanted to. He OPENLY ADMITTED to begging Saudi to "take Bin Laden", and this was AFTER the 93 WTC attack.

Quit blindly defending Clinton.

And I'd love to see this "evidence" of corruption on Bush. Why? Because if it existed and the media had it, we'd have a different president right now.

But no, just wild speculation and unfounded accusations.

And, mind you, that's not just some guy "defending Bush". I had the same issues with republicans for going after Clinton the way they did.

My whole point in all of this is - when are people going to stop taking sides and actually try to RESOLVE the issues. WE, not Bush and not Clinton and not whomever else becomes President, are who determine the course of our own country. WE are who elect these people into office. As much as you hate Bush, he was elected not once, but TWICE into office. As much as republicans hated Clinton, he was elected not once, but TWICE into office.

So what's the point of *****ing and whining about it? Really? Will it change anything?

The only thing I have left to do is to be POSITIVE about the future and HOPE FOR THE BEST. I'm not going to let you or any other anti-Bush or anti-Clinton fanatic change that about me.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Yeah, George Tenet, appointed by Clinton, the same guy who said there were, without question, WMDs in Iraq?

Now I remember.

Funny how Tenet's voice is only paramount when we're talking about bailing Clinton out, but not Bush .

But didn't Clinton want to go into Iraq since before 9-11? didn't the republicans say that he didn't have the "moral authority" to do this.
didn't Bush run on a no foreign intervention/nation builkding platform and said "I don't think the US should tell the world how things are" or somethign like that.


a year later "I'm a war president" no kidding folks, this happened, in real life.

 

[lazur]

i'm not trying to bail anyone out, winky. they said there wasn't enough evidence and couldn't justify retaliation against bin laden. i know were used to presidents breaking international law nowadays, but back then, i guess clinton didn't find it justifiable enough.

As opposed to saying there IS enough evidence, you mean?

Again, put very simply, one president relied on the intelligence of Tenet, even though it was wrong, and is bailed out for doing so, while another president relied on the intelligence of Tenet, even though it was wrong, and wasn't bailed out, but is blamed for everything bad that happens in the world. EVEN THOUGH Tenet was appointed by the guy who was bailed out!

How does that make sense?

 

[cass]

Here's the thing. Clinton himself saying how he tried to kill bin Laden during the time possibly would be regarded as an assassination, which was illegal at the time. There is a loophole around that, but by using that loophole, it also disqualifies Clinton's claim that he couldn't hold bin Laden when Sudan offered him.

Clinton himself admitted that he was offered bin Laden in a speech when he says they did not take him because they did not think they had anything to hold him on.

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.

The words here do match the words in the 9/11 Report. In that report it is said that the Clinton officials believed that killing an individual that was an imminent threat to the US would be viewed as self defense, not an assassination:

Senior legal advisers in the Clinton administration agreed that, under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense, not an assassination. As former National Security Adviser Berger explained, if we wanted to kill Bin Ladin with cruise missiles, why would we not want to kill him with covert action? Clarke’s recollection is the same.

If bin Laden was an imminent threat worthy of killing, why could we not hold him? He must have done something to be an imminent threat. Bin Laden was also picked up on video by a predator drone. The drone was armed and could have taken him out and yet the order to kill him was not given despite the assertions in the 9/11 Report cited above. This video shows that the administration was seeking bin Laden but the fact that he is alive shows they did not do anything once they found him. This was one of the questions the 9/11 Commission had to tackle, and that is, if we found him why did we not get him? Clinton was closer then, than anyone has been and still he did not pull the trigger. Bill Clinton might have come closer to having the chance of getting bin Laden than anyone else since but he did not take anywhere near the actions that those who followed him have taken to get the top terrorist.

 

[lazur]

But didn't Clinton want to go into Iraq since before 9-11? didn't the republicans say that he didn't have the "moral authority" to do this.
didn't Bush run on a no foreign intervention/nation builkding platform and said "I don't think the US should tell the world how things are" or somethign like that.


a year later "I'm a war president" no kidding folks, this happened, in real life.

Last I checked, the campaigning happened pre-9/11, not post. Post-9/11, **** hit the fan.

And since your memory is so good, you should also recall that Kerry, Kennedy and everyone else on the dems side ALSO agreed that we should go into Iraq.

Of course, this all goes back to faulty intelligence provided by a Clinton appointee. But hey, who's keeping score anyway?

 

[cass]

Last I checked, the campaigning happened pre-9/11, not post. Post-9/11, **** hit the fan.

Exactly.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Like I said - partisan.

Clinton had a few opportunities to capture Bin Laden if he really wanted to. He OPENLY ADMITTED to begging Saudi to "take Bin Laden", and this was AFTER the 93 WTC attack.

Quit blindly defending Clinton.

And I'd love to see this "evidence" of corruption on Bush. Why? Because if it existed and the media had it, we'd have a different president right now.

But no, just wild speculation and unfounded accusations.

And, mind you, that's not just some guy "defending Bush". I had the same issues with republicans for going after Clinton the way they did.

My whole point in all of this is - when are people going to stop taking sides and actually try to RESOLVE the issues. WE, not Bush and not Clinton and not whomever else becomes President, are who determine the course of our own country. WE are who elect these people into office. As much as you hate Bush, he was elected not once, but TWICE into office. As much as republicans hated Clinton, he was elected not once, but TWICE into office.

So what's the point of *****ing and whining about it? Really? Will it change anything?

The only thing I have left to do is to be POSITIVE about the future and HOPE FOR THE BEST. I'm not going to let you or any other anti-Bush or anti-Clinton fanatic change that about me.

I'm blindly defending Clinton, there's nothing to defend, there was no tie for the WTC 93 attacks, hence the "no way of getting him" are you purposefuly ignoring those facts? or the fact that he infact captured the ones responsible and kept going at it, years later?
again, explain to me how someone who doesn't live in your country could be "partisan"? sure, I'm so partisan it hurts.

you keep saying I "hate" Bush, why do you think I dislike him?
seriously? the thing is that you keep sayin he got elected twice as some sort of panacea for failure.
since he has gotten elected things have gone pretty sour, yet, some people still BILNDLY defend a man, whose foreign , evironmental and economic policies are INDEFENSIBLE.

you want to shroud your obvious blindness and partisanship in a layer of feigned "optimism" hey, that's your right. just don't throw around labels without expecting people to point out how two-faced your ideals are.

 

[sinewave]

As opposed to saying there IS enough evidence, you mean?

Again, put very simply, one president relied on the intelligence of Tenet, even though it was wrong, and is bailed out for doing so, while another president relied on the intelligence of Tenet, even though it was wrong, and wasn't bailed out, but is blamed for everything bad that happens in the world. EVEN THOUGH Tenet was appointed by the guy who was bailed out!

How does that make sense?

you're trying to place all the blame on tennet, when other intelligence agencies corroborated their stance on it.

 

[lazur]

you're trying to place all the blame on tennet, when other intelligence agencies corroborated their stance on it.

Right, the same way other intelligence agencies corroborated the intelligence about WMDs in Iraq?

I'm somewhat puzzled about why you can't see the double standard here.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Last I checked, the campaigning happened pre-9/11, not post. Post-9/11, **** hit the fan.

And since your memory is so good, you should also recall that Kerry, Kennedy and everyone else on the dems side ALSO agreed that we should go into Iraq.

Of course, this all goes back to faulty intelligence provided by a Clinton appointee. But hey, who's keeping score anyway?

LOL, yet, and here's the catch, when Clinton was president I DISAGREED with him going into Iraq.
go figure, I guess I'm not as partisan as you might think.


and again, was Bush not privvy to the sme intelligence about Osama and Al-quaeda that Clinton was? shouldn't he have listened as intently, as he listened to the Iraq intelligence (which initially he also dismissed).

again. go figure.

 

[sinewave]

i get tired of having to say the same things over and over. i'll let you guys duke it out. i gotta get some work done. have fun guys!

 

[cass]

I'm blindly defending Clinton, there's nothing to defend, there was no tie for the WTC 93 attacks, hence the "no way of getting him" are you purposefuly ignoring those facts? or the fact that he infact captured the ones responsible and kept going at it, years later?

He didn't get those responsible. Example: Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. The man who gave them financing. Later the man who planned 9/11. To make that claim is false.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

He didn't get those responsible. Example: Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. The man who gave them financing. Later the man who planned 9/11. To make that claim is false.

[FONT=Bookman Old Style,Arial] On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001. Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.






:factsninja:

[/FONT]

 

[cass]

KSM was responsible as well. Clinton didn't get him. End of story.

:superfactsninjathinkssparklesdenseandretardedokayhe'snotsuperfactsninjahe'sthegoddamnbatman:

 

[Mr Sparkle]

KSM was responsible as well. Clinton didn't get him. End of story.

:superfactsninjathinkscassissimpossibly missinformedbutnotduetoretardationhe'sjustasoreloserlolrtof:

LOL, I love your argument.

but, no.

and THAT is the end of story.

 

[cass]

LOL, I love your argument.

but, no.

and THAT is the end of story.

Yeah, end of story. You and Clinton are liars.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Yeah, end of story. You and Clinton are liars.

No, because if you see the above post is goes like

Me: facts

you: nu uh!!


t:

 

[cass]

LOL, I love your argument.

but, no.

and THAT is the end of story.

No that Clinton didn't get him? Because he didn't. You're a liar, you claim to be unbiased, you're clearly not, you see facts in front of you, you retreat into your routine.

"Denial, denial, denial, moron!

Funny picture. I'm right while I have nothing to back it up."

 

[Mr Sparkle]

No that Clinton didn't get him? Because he didn't. You're a liar, you claim to be unbiased, you're clearly not, you see facts in front of you, you retreat into your routine.

"Denial, denial, denial, moron!

Funny picture. I'm right while I have nothing to back it up."

lol, can i see your facts please? you have only posted YOUR OPINION so far.
(this is going to be good)t:

in other words, please "back up your statements"

 

[cass]

He didn't get those responsible. Example: Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. The man who gave them financing. Later the man who planned 9/11. The man Clinton didn't capture. To make that claim is false.

Again. Facts, not opinions. Thank you, dumbass.