Guest Guest Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 I've got three words for you ......Clinton Effed Up. The Sudanese offered Bin Laden to Clinton . The Sudanese had Bin Laden in custody and offered to turn him over to the U.S. Clinton refused to take him, Total, pure bullshit. That never hapened. Your lies aren't proof of anything except that your kind deserves no power at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 ... though the tentative information about hijacking planes included in that memo was collected during If you overlook Iraq's almost-daily attempts to shoot down our planes in the no-fly zone implemented as part of the Gulf War ceasefire, I suppose. Shooting at somebody isn't really attacking them, though. Right? BFD, half assed 'attacks' from a third rate power. That's what B-52s are for, no need for a full scale invasion/occupation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 Total, pure bullshit. That never hapened. Clinton said it did. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...1819.shtml?s=ic Make sure to download the mp3 so that you can listen to Clinton describe the situation in his own words. This version even has a fumbling attempt to explain it away (sounds like Sen. Clinton to me, though I could be wrong). My favorite part is "it's hard for us now to remember." Now, maybe he was lying about it. That's always possible. Do you think he was lying? Your lies aren't proof of anything except that your kind deserves no power at all. Did you vote for Clinton? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted March 24, 2008 Report Share Posted March 24, 2008 Total, pure bullshit. That never hapened.Your lies aren't proof of anything except that your kind deserves no power at all. Google: "Sudan/Bin Laden Connection". Bin Laden moved to Sudan in 1991 and lived there until 1996 when he was forced out. He then moved to Afganistan. Before the Sudanese government forced Bin Laden out, he was offered to the U.S. Clinton refused, he was probably too busy with Monica to care. Bin Laden thanked Clinton by beginning the planning for 9/11. The plans were in the development stage for years, the U.S. never uncovered them because Clinton had signed an order forbidding the FBI and the CIA to talk and share information. When Bush became President most of the plans were already in place. One of the first things Bush did was to order the FBI and CIA to begin sharing intelligence but it was already too late. If Clinton had locked up Bin Laden there's no question 9/11 would have never occured. The Loonys hate to hear this and they'll never admit it but it's the undeniable truth. Fast forward to 2008, the Loony Left want to put another bleeding heart leftist in the White House. God forbid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Google: "Sudan/Bin Laden Connection". Bin Laden moved to Sudan in 1991 and lived there until 1996 when he was forced out. He then moved to Afganistan. Before the Sudanese government forced Bin Laden out, he was offered to the U.S. Clinton refused, he was probably too busy with Monica to care. Bin Laden thanked Clinton by beginning the planning for 9/11. The plans were in the development stage for years, the U.S. never uncovered them because Clinton had signed an order forbidding the FBI and the CIA to talk and share information. When Bush became President most of the plans were already in place. One of the first things Bush did was to order the FBI and CIA to begin sharing intelligence but it was already too late. If Clinton had locked up Bin Laden there's no question 9/11 would have never occured. The Loonys hate to hear this and they'll never admit it but it's the undeniable truth. Fast forward to 2008, the Loony Left want to put another bleeding heart leftist in the White House. God forbid. If a Dem does end up in the White House then you only have yourself and 8 years of Bush to blame. Maybe if your boy was a better steward of the office we wouldn't be in this mess, but here we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 (another load of neocon bullshit) Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a proud american Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 If a Dem does end up in the White House then you only have yourself and 8 years of Bush to blame. Maybe if your boy was a better steward of the office we wouldn't be in this mess, but here we are. No it's always going to Clintons fault. W can do no wrong. The press is finally getting around to talking a little bit about the Rev's Parsley and Hagee. And for the professor who doesn't like using ask.com google the names instead. I can't wait for Mc Cain to explain to us how he is going to continue to fund the was without raising taxes on us while cutting taxes for the Corporations to stimulate the economy. We see how great that's worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart. Reagan, Bush or McCain would have gone into Sudan and taken him. Semper Fi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Reagan, Bush or McCain would have gone into Sudan and taken him. Semper Fi. Nope, they'd only go to countries where there is oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Reagan, Bush or McCain would have gone into Sudan and taken him. Semper Fi. Well gee whiz Rambo, what are ya waitng for? Why do you just go over there and "git r done" then? Take Chuck Norris with you, he could use the work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fact Finder Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Reagan, Bush or McCain would have gone into Sudan and taken him. Semper Fi. LOL, you mean like Bush went into Afghanistan and took him? Oh wait, THAT'S right...Bush GAVE UP on getting Osama in order to direct our military's efforts INSTEAD into attacking a country that NEVER ATTACKED US! Retard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Reagan, Bush or McCain would have gone into Sudan and taken him. Semper Fi. "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 All your woulda, coulda, shouldas aren't worth a plugged nickel. As usual from patRat, Semper Lies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02All your woulda, coulda, shouldas aren't worth a plugged nickel. As usual from patRat, Semper Lies Speaking of lies, I don't think your quotation of President Bush is accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 LOL, you mean like Bush went into Afghanistan and took him?Oh wait, THAT'S right...Bush GAVE UP on getting Osama in order to direct our military's efforts INSTEAD into attacking a country that NEVER ATTACKED US! Retard. Why do I bother responding to non-military doofises, but I will. The Sudan is not Afganistan. Sudan is a small country with a coastline. Their small militia is pro-U.S. and would quickly have led us to Bin Laden. A marine expiditionary force landing on the beach would have quickly located Bin Laden and taken him out by hilo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Speaking of lies, I don't think your quotation of President Bush is accurate. I agree that you don't think but what else ya got? That quote appears in a number of places, what do you have to disprove it? Some blther from Ruh GasBag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Why do I bother responding to non-military doofises, but I will. The Sudan is not Afganistan. Sudan is a small country with a coastline. Their small militia is pro-U.S. and would quickly have led us to Bin Laden. A marine expiditionary force landing on the beach would have quickly located Bin Laden and taken him out by hilo. And if my Aunt Tillie "woulda" had testicles she "woulda" been my Uncle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 I agree that you don't think but what else ya got?That quote appears in a number of places, what do you have to disprove it? Some blther from Ruh GasBag? Never mind. If it appears in a number of places then it must be real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamK Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 I agree that you don't think but what else ya got?That quote appears in a number of places, what do you have to disprove it? Some blther from Ruh GasBag? There are many questionable, erroneous, or just plain bogus quotes that appear in lots of places. It's a good idea to check the accuracy of a quote before citing it no matter how often it appears. It's an even better idea to check the accuracy before defending one that has been challenged. The one in question is most likely a paraphrase of this: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." and this: "And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Both of these appear in their full context here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020313-8.html. The paraphrase is reasonably accurate if expressed as a paraphrase. But it is inaccurate to cite it as a direct quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 There are many questionable, erroneous, or just plain bogus quotes that appear in lots of places. It's a good idea to check the accuracy of a quote before citing it no matter how often it appears. It's an even better idea to check the accuracy before defending one that has been challenged.The one in question is most likely a paraphrase of this: "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you." and this: "And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Both of these appear in their full context here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020313-8.html. The paraphrase is reasonably accurate if expressed as a paraphrase. But it is inaccurate to cite it as a direct quote. Good work, WilliamK. It's also worth pointing out that presenting the quotation as though Bush really doesn't care about Osama bin Laden at all is probably misleading (see the context of the exchange). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Never mind. If it appears in a number of places then it must be real. Or, in other words, you may not 'think' it's accurate but there's no reason for that thought. Face it, The Shrub doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but his own personal agenda, THAT included Saddam, not bin Laden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Good work, WilliamK.It's also worth pointing out that presenting the quotation as though Bush really doesn't care about Osama bin Laden at all is probably misleading (see the context of the exchange). Seeing that Bush chose to pursue his personal bete noire rather than the ringleader of the murders of 3,000 Americans I don't think it's misleading at all. The recent FronLine show Bush's War showed just how ingrained feelings about Iraq were, on 9/11 Rumsfeld was asking peoplke to seek ways of connecting the attacks with Saddam Hussein, too bad he wasn't as anxious to pursue the truth, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Or, in other words, you may not 'think' it's accurate but there's no reason for that thought. Heh. See WilliamK's post. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=84608 In expecting your apology, where shall I mark my calendar? Face it, The Shrub doesn't give a rat's ass about anything but his own personal agenda, THAT included Saddam, not bin Laden. Unfortunately we don't yet have an effective treatment for Bush Derangement Syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 Heh. See WilliamK's post.http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=84608 In expecting your apology, where shall I mark my calendar? Unfortunately we don't yet have an effective treatment for Bush Derangement Syndrome. A new president, preferably democratic, will be the first step in recovery. A very, very long recovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 A new president, preferably democratic, will be the first step in recovery. A very, very long recovery. Acknowledging your stupidity is the first step. Good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 Seeing that Bush chose to pursue his personal bete noire rather than the ringleader of the murders of 3,000 Americans I don't think it's misleading at all. Saddam Hussein repeatedly defied the UN--not Bush personally. The Iraq War was undertaken in addition to the effort to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan, just like D-Day did not take place instead of attacking Japan in the Pacific theater. Start with a flawed premise and you end with a flawed conclusion. The recent FronLine show Bush's War showed just how ingrained feelings about Iraq were, on 9/11 Rumsfeld was asking peoplke to seek ways of connecting the attacks with Saddam Hussein, too bad he wasn't as anxious to pursue the truth, You should identify that segment of the program that supposedly supports what you're claiming. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.