Bill Clinton smacking down Chris Wallace.

[Mr Sparkle]

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

LOL, link to your sources braintrust.:heart:

 

[Mr Sparkle]

so, here we'll see that THOSE RESPONSIBLE (those who comitted it and planned it) where captured. see, because cass doesn't know that in fact KSM wasn't a know player untill 1996, when he became one of the 2 or 3 most wnated terrorists world wide, and that infact Clinton did capture those responsible, but cass has troubles with logic.:heart:t::heart:


two separate jury trials in Manhattan federal court, half a dozen men were later convicted of direct roles in the bombing. Mamed Salameh, Ahmad Ajaj, Mahmud Abouhalima and Nidal Ayyad were found guilty in March 1994. In November 1997, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of masterminding the plot, and Eyad Ismoil was convicted for driving the rented Ryder truck into the garage.
Each man was sentenced to 240 years in prison, or one year for every year of expected life they deprived their victims.

 

[cass]

LOL, link to your sources braintrust.:heart:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ksm.htm

He had a role in the plan. He knew about it. He gave $660 dollars to it. And Clinton didn't even try to get him. Your claim that Clinton got all of those responsible, is false.

Oh. Where's your source, "braintrust"?

 

[cass]

so, here we'll see that THOSE RESPONSIBLE (those who comitted it and planned it) where captured. see, because cass doesn't know that in fact KSM wasn't a know player untill 1996, when he became one of the 2 or 3 most wnated terrorists world wide, and that infact Clinton did capture those responsible, but cass has troubles with logic.:heart:t::heart:

Not all of them, "logicking". He gave them tips, money, and retained knowledge of it. Even if he wasn't a known player until 1996, Clinton still had 4 years to get him. He didn't even try.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Not all of them, "logicking". He gave them tips, money, and retained knowledge of it. Even if he wasn't a known player until 1996, Clinton still had 4 years to get him. He didn't even try.

the people "responsible" for the WTC of 93 where aprehended.
sorry if you still can't grasp that.

oh and BTW I'm sure he "didn't even try"

cuz he is evil and stuff, and that's why he made them one of the most wanted terrorists, cuz he wasn't trying.t:

 

[cass]

the people "responsible" for the WTC of 93 where aprehended.
sorry if you still can't grasp that.

oh and BTW I'm sure he "didn't even try"

cuz he is evil and stuff, and that's why he made them one of the most wanted terrorists, cuz he wasn't trying.t:

Some were and others weren't. I never said Clinton was evil. He just did not try. It's very plain and simple. Considering how you're the "master of logic", that was an incredibly weak follow up to FACTS.

 

[cass]

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!

So when confronted with facts you can't counter and shows everything you've said's been wrong, you tuck tail and run off to another thread without responding to it.

You make your party proud.

 

[Darthphere]

So when confronted with facts you can't counter and shows everything you've said's been wrong, you tuck tail and run off to another thread without responding to it.

You make your party proud.

I saw that coming...

 

[Super_Ludacris]

smh@ the republi****s and Fox News

There gonna insinuate and blame Clinton now after 5 years of failing to get him?

What will these crackity cracks think of next?

 

[cass]

smh@ the republi****s and Fox News

There gonna insinuate and blame Clinton now after 5 years of failing to get him?

What will these crackity cracks think of next?

Thanks for your brilliant contribution.

 

[sinewave]

So when confronted with facts you can't counter and shows everything you've said's been wrong, you tuck tail and run off to another thread without responding to it.

You make your party proud.

i answered everything you guys threw at me before i left. what, i can't step away for a little while and take a break? don't be petty.

 

[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.

Just wanted to carry this one over.

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Thanks for your brilliant contribution.

Your welcome,

I'm sorry but this administration and there propaganda news are a joke (but that's nothing new but every year they never cease to amazes me, they got me feeling like Lewis Black out this bytch and I live in DC! lol) but they've been reduced to this? Blaming Clinton? Now? The funny thing is they wont do something like ask Bush sr. why didnt he get Saddam out in 91 and rebuild and intergrate democracy in Iraq when the oppurtuinity was there.

man in the immortal words of Iceberg slimm: "these crackers dont play fair"

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Some were and others weren't. I never said Clinton was evil. He just did not try. It's very plain and simple. Considering how you're the "master of logic", that was an incredibly weak follow up to FACTS.

I'm sure you think that "the people responsible where captured" is a weak follow up.

:masteroflogic:

 

[cass]

They asked the same question they've asked the current administration. No one logically can call that propaganda.

 

[cass]

I'm sure you think that "the people responsible where captured" is a weak follow up.

:masteroflogic:

lol, you're so pathetic. It's just funny now.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Just wanted to carry this one over.

what did the 9-11 report say again? Just wanted to carry that one over.t:

 

[Mr Sparkle]

lol, you're such a moron. It's just funny now.

again , I can see how you'd think it's funny.
too bad, those responsible where still captured huh?

 

[cass]

what did the 9-11 report say again? Just wanted to carry that one over.t:

If you knew how to read, you could see that it refers to the 9/11 report and what Clinton said in it.

 

[cass]

again , I can see how you'd think it's funny.
too bad, those responsible where still captured huh?

Not ALL of them.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

CW: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?
WJC: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many
people in the Bush administration you’ve asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked ‘Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?’ I want to know how many you asked ‘Why did you fire Dick Clarke?’ I want to know…
CW: We asked…
WJC: [..]
CW: Do you ever watch FOX News Sunday, sir?
WJC: I don’t believe you ask them that.
CW: We ask plenty of questions of…
WJC: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth.
CW: About the USS Cole?
WJC: Tell the truth…
CW: I…with Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s plenty of stuff to ask.






LOL, Wallace tries to sidestep it and fails. "About the USS Cole?"

no chris, obviously about Osama.t:
Wallace is one of the better journalists on the Fox network (that's why I watch him on sundays) but he is still under the rule of his fox overlords.

LOL, Oh cass, you poor fool, Darthphere, here's cass's link

from cass's link

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Dick Clarke.
Wallace replied that such questions had been asked. Clinton replied: “I don’t believe you asked them that.”



however, cass missed this little tidbit....



here's the question asked of him



"CW: …but the question is why didn’t you do more? Connect the dots and put them out of business?"


here's the question asked to the Bush admin:


"— what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?"


anyone with half a brain would understand the one difference that made Clinton angry.


why didn't you do more?

do you THINK you SHOULD'VE done more?


anyone notice a difference?


yeah, pretty much.t:


so in the end, no, Cass, you fail.

It's not even the same question really. "Why didn't you do more" is accusatory in tone. While "Do you think you should have done more" is more pensive, more recollective. It doesn't accuse him of not doing enough, but it gives him the opportunity to say "I wish we knew then what we know now, as I would have done so much more."

Anyone who believes that Fox News is fair and balanced like they claim to be should watch "Outfoxed", a documentary about Fox News and their bias.

:factsninja:

 

[Super_Ludacris]

Damn that's a powerful sonning

 

[Mr Sparkle]

If you knew how to read, you could see that it refers to the 9/11 report and what Clinton said in it.

oh, I read the report t: hence WHY your claims are sooooo funny

Not ALL of them.

fine, cass, semantics.....but whatever, dance around naked in your apartment screaming I won, or whatnot.
truth is , financing was not taken into account in 9-11 when they listed "those responsible" (because it's not just osama but hundreds of people that finnace Al-quaeda, and not all of them are part of the organization itself) so, again, fine, have your victory.

that only means that even if Bush captures Osama and dismantles al-quaeda he will never get all of those "responsible" for 9-11.

as

you

wish.

 

[cass]

I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?

. . . .

What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?

. . . .

Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.

And another of Clinton's lies:

P.S. Clinton said today:

They had eight months to try and they didn’t….. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke.

Let me remind you what Dick Clarke once said about what Clinton left behind, and whether the Bush Administration tried to do anything in eight months:

[T]here was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Now, Clarke did say that there was a “strategy” in place, if not a “plan” — and in the spring of 2001, Bush ordered a review and some changes to the strategy, which had essentially been stale since October 1998. Fox’s Jim Angle summed it up this way, and Clarke agreed:

ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you’re saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of ‘98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That’s right.

:factspirate:

 

[cass]

oh, I read the report t: hence WHY your claims are sooooo funny.
truth is , financing was not taken into account in 9-11 when they listed "those responsible" (because it's not just osama but hundreds of people that finnace Al-quaeda, and not all of them are part of the organization itself) so, again, fine, have your victory.

Funny, other people read the report too. That specific piece was all about 9/11 report findings. So, you have no point.

Financing was taken into account considering how assets have been frozen and Muslim "charities" which contributed are being shut down and arrested.