posted on September 26, 2002 01:24:46 PM new
Raw - Bin Laden was offered to clinton on a silver platter, during his administration. He and his administration felt we didn't have enough evidence of his intentions to do our country harm, and turned down the opportunity to have him sent here. No blame....just facts.
That's a point I'm trying to make...each administration acts or doesn't act in a way they feel will be in the best interests of our country. Turns out bin Laden did have bad intentions. Bush and his administration feel the same way about Saddam....and are choosing to act before he uses his bio, germ [or gains use of WOMD] warfare on us or anyone else.
posted on September 26, 2002 01:37:33 PM new
OK. Based on that premise....say they had accepted Bin Laden and brought him here. If they had not enough evidence to keep him and kept him anyway just how would that have played out? How could we have done anything to him without evidence? At that time we were still playing by the rules of law and the constitution. We could not have done anything without evidence. Could we? Just asking. Maybe they were trying to GET the evidence they needed to prosecute him and bring him in legitimatly? That could be why they had the drone following his movements etc? I dunno, I can see where bringing him in without the proper evidence could have caused even more trouble.NOW we have evidence.
posted on September 26, 2002 01:40:30 PM new
Helen - You're right, he did say that. Our world changed on 9-11. We are now very much aware that those who, in the past, have only attempted small attacks against our government mean to do us real harm now. It's a wake up call. And it's my belief that this won't only be a long term project under a Bush administration. But will continue to be where we will need to place our resources and energy even when we're not under a republican administration.
And all this debating we're going through now is exactly what was going on before we invaded and disrupted the terrorist cells in Afghanistan. Yes, it probably will continue for years as they've [not our current administration] have let us know, in no uncertain terms, what they have in store for us.....until we're all destroyed....or convert.
posted on September 26, 2002 01:52:27 PM new
Raw - I tried to say that in my last post. They believed there wasn't enough. Clinton said he was obsessed with him. I'm sure a lot of that had to do with the thought 'what can we do...what if this is true?' The thinking then was how could he protect us when there was only unreliable hearsay evidence? Just like there is now. But now we're more aware of the intentions of a lot of muslim states. We have to act. One by one...we must deal with stopping what they have in store for us. Why wait? What would we be waiting for? For Saddam to gain WOMD and be able to then treaten us with them? Why not inforce what the UN has not....the decision that these weapons should not be in his hands.
IMO, if the UN had been doing their job [the inspections and destruction of any arms Iraq wasn't support to have], and pressure had stayed constant for the UN regulations to be followed, until they were, we wouldn't be in this position right now.
But we are fighting terrorists....all around the world...and maybe some cells here in our own country. We have to do something about it. Their intentions are clear.
posted on September 26, 2002 03:42:28 PM new
"Bin Laden was offered to clinton on a silver platter, during his administration"
Not.
Bin laden was offered up by a crackpot sometimes arms dealer/sometimes drug dealer who ws claiming that he could produce bin laden if "certian concessions" were offered to Sudan who supposedly could place bin laden in custody at will. The Clinton administration refused to enter into such nefarious dealings as they smacked too loudly of the sorts of things which went on during Iran -Contra with Reagan, Bush, and Ollie North.
That crackpot has co-authored books and made lawsuits against clinton and others in vain attempts to wipe away the mud on his face with republican media support even to this day, all without success.
By the way, Linda, if you read Gore's speech itself, you may be able to understand him enough to see that he has not said that he does not think that Saddam should be overthrown. I keep waiting to see if you ever go answer your dumbass questions by yourself, but rush and that ilk are good enough for you, aren't they.
posted on September 26, 2002 04:02:13 PM new
LindaK is correct. Krs is wrong. (and of course the obligatory link..)
In the 1990s, Washington repeatedly spurned olive branches from Khartoum, including an offer in 1996 to turn over Osama bin Laden, who was being expelled from the country because of pressure from the United States, Egypt and other nations. Sudan also offered the U.S. government its intelligence files on Bin Laden associates who were seen by Sudanese agents in the summer of 1997, the year before twin bombings destroyed American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Indeed, according to a senior Sudanese official, Gutbi al-Mahdi, until very recently American officials still refused to look at the files. Al-Mahdi, the former head of Sudan’s intelligence bureau, told MSNBC in an interview that the files offered to Washington included information on five of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the entire leadership of al-Qaida had been under very close surveillance in Sudan because of tips passed on by Saudi Arabia. The Clinton administration spurned Sudanese help on two other occasions as well. In 1999, MSNBC.com reported that Sudan offered to turn over to the United States two men who arrived on an airliner from Nairobi the day the U.S. Embassy there was bombed. The United States declined, and the men were allowed to travel on to Pakistan. http://www.msnbc.com/news/684869.asp
Of course it always comes down to "oil", and the Clinton administration wasn't immune to it either.
posted on September 26, 2002 10:04:43 PM new
Another dumbass. Sudan has been considered to be a rogue state by several US administrations, and only the current administration opens intriguing relationships with Sudan and other untrustworthy arab persons and states, re: http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=67
It's not surprising that entreaties or promises from rogue states would be ignored by the US, now is it? Why would any intelligent person expect us to play footsies with countries which clearly turn toward whichever side of the toast has the most butter? Until now, no one would expect that, but now it's a daily occurance. Did you hear that the Taliban have moved back into Afganistan with US assistance through the puppet president of one city?
posted on September 27, 2002 11:05:28 PM new
I say dumbass, you say moron. Either way Katy fills the bill. Katy, meet Linda. Backtracking? You idiot, the post I left reiterates my earlier, as does yours. I THOUGHT that that was pretty clear, but no. See: 1)Sudan is bad. Do you get the first part? 2) Clinton knows that 3) no dealing with rogue states is policy - they lack credibility and trustworthiness - they deal both sides of the fence - they support terrorists - la,la,la. (why, even bush says that) 4)bush listens to Sudan in desperation (your post: "until very recently American officials still refused to look at the files".) 5) suddenly Sudan is trustworthy - media reports Sudan claims as true 6) dumbasses latch on, as usual, in another vain attempt to credit Clinton with bush's ineptitude, but fail to see that such a thing would offer Bill no challenge at all and so ne path to a fullfilling sense of accomplishment or pride.
I know that "duh" is no new language for you, and was an easy early learning lesson for you, so now I'll simply say to you - duh, do you get it yet? I know that you can understand the first part.
posted on September 28, 2002 12:04:32 AM new
LOL! Yep, backtracking. Face it sweetums, Bill Clinton f*cked up bigtime. Heck, I'm not placing blame. Just stating the facts. And it IS a fact, whatever names you want to call me or whatever "spin" you need to put on it.
I do believe it's time to increase your medication, Kennyboy. You're getting cranky in your old age.
