I am not a Muslim GTech, I was born a Catholic. When did Clinton have Bin Ladin surrounded like Bush did when he sent rent a Afgan after him in Tora Bora?
You mean when the drone flew over and seen the "tall guy in the white robe" GTech, but since we are good guys we did not shoot? So it is all Clinton's fault when Bush was in Power on 9/11 and Clinton's fault that Saddam was not taken out in the first Gulf war by Cheney and Bush Senior?
Replacments? Read back a post or two. What are you talking about? Forget it, I'm not sure I want to know.
Bin Laden was handed to Clinton 3 times during his admin. He was most recently held captive after the Cole bombing and offered up to the US. Clinton ignored that offer, as he did with the other two offers in the past. These of course are the ones we know of.
Really, why don't you show us your source of that information where Clinton had Bin Ladin under arrest and let him go?
I do recall that Clinton had a missile sent to the location where Bin Laden supposedly was, but the information was late, as always. I don't know where I heard that. I certainly never heard three times. I think this was Afghanistan around 1998 or 1999
nevetS this thread is like the war on terror, it seems to never end man You have to quit starting these blockbusters man
Sudan repeatedly told the Clinton administration they would arrest Bin Laden, and hand him over, along with information about his terror network. "U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when Bashir was persuaded to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI." This was first reported in the LA Times, a rather liberal publication
He was training there and I think that is where they flew the drone over but did not shoot. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Drone+Bin+Laden&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt
GTech Pretty much the pot caling the kettle black, isn't it? You are the one who makes assumptions, and then acts on those assumptions as if they were true. then Anthony, and your reply HUH? What's this:Like I said, I didn' think it would matter. You didn't give any examples for him to ignore, so how do you know if it didn't matter? Nothing happened yet for you to compare your assumption with to see if came true! Let's have those examples. mia: Hell yes, things would have been different, but it is all acedemic isn't it, and there is no way to say. That is not an argument - "supposing something happened then this would have happened'. You have no way of knowing that, let alone drawing conclusions on your assumptions. As a matter of fact, Hussein's forces would have been badly depleted in Kuwait, and there was Iraqs clearly illegal aggression in invading Kuwait. I wondered why they didn't finish the job then, and I am sure others would have seen more justification then than now. Besides which, this time, the forces were rebuilt, and they knew it was coming. That is a far cry from the situation in 1991. From some earlier reading here, there seems to be some dispute about the events on 9/11 and who the US blamed. They blamed Al Qaeda, but they tried to turn that into the reason they were going into Iraq after it was realized there were no WMDs turning up. They used 9/11 as an excuse after the fact, as part of the 'war on terrorism', even though no terrorists based in Iraq ever had anything to do with the States. Thus, most people in the US still think the reason the US invaded Iraq is because of 9/11. (Her, Gtech, just like your NYTimes link, you have to purchase the the article to read it LMAO The Bush administration cited links between Saddam Hussein and the 11 September hijackers as a main reason for invading Iraq. CIA links terror threat to Iraq I also want to point out that the magnitude of Bin Laden's campaign of terror was only developing staring in 95, and it took a few years before it really became a threat - as has been pointed out that both Clinton and Bush never took it seriously enough. All this has nothing to do with Iraq, however, and that remains as an invasion that was not to fight terrorists from anywhere, but to unseat Suddam Hussein. Oh yeah: Yes, Bush lied, yes, most of the US population (Last survey I saw) thinks the US invaded Iraq to fight Al Qeaeda, YES, that is what the US SAID The press is absolutely rife with reports about all this, the lies, the changing of 'stories' and the fact that there were no WMDs to be found, and that was why the world, except for Britain basically, did not sanction the war. It is iffy at best that any sort of stable government will be able to operate in Iraq, there is so much corruption already and intimidation, and distaste for the US. It was, and is, a gigantic mistake, and no excuses can make up for it.
36 pages and growing. Instead of making another reply I suggest reading everything mia has written here. His posts are full of great info a lot of which I myself was not aware of until now. Sure there are always 2 sides to every story and a lot of facts do leave room for interpretations. But as often in life, the ones who are not in power are putting a lot more energy into trying to discredit those who are. After all the ones in power have a job to do and positive support is going to benefit everyone a lot more than put downs.
Here, anthony, this is what you are looking for? The Weekly Standard, a rather right wing publication It hardly looks at this point either, that Clinton would turn down offers of arresting OBL. I would like to see the LATimes article, a rather liberal publication. What's liberal mean, slightly to the left ot deep right field? Kerry is considered to be more conservative than any republicans since Barry Goldwater, save Reagan. I always wonder what the 'Liberal' means, or why it is so important to label anything with that adjective. Hmmmm? Here is some interesting stuff, whether Clinton had the chance to arrest OBL or not, the Bush administration clearly mishandled the warnings available from pre and post 2000: The National Security archive, a rather right wing publication - Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified
The best we can hope for is that the Iraq government can put together enough forces to defend their land. Seems like the USA will always have a base or two in Iraq so we will never leave, might as well get use to it, we are there for good or bad depending on who you ask NATO will take over in the end like they did in Afghanistan when all is said and done.
sitetutor, I see your opinion, but as usual, you are wrong: But as often in life, the ones who are not in power are putting a lot more energy into trying to discredit those who are. After all the ones in power have a job to do and positive support is going to benefit everyone a lot more than put downs. Funny, I was sure that Bush put just about all he could into discreditting Kerry, and also made 'Liberal' synonymous with 'traitor'. I faisl to see your reasoning about 'giving support to the ones in power' having positive effects. Isn't that what the Shia did to saddam, hmmmm? And the 'as usual' comment, care to tell me where you got the conclusion you reached, like what does "spending more energy trying to discredit the ones in power" mean. It is not even a complete sentence, dang it :O)
sitetutor What he meant to say is that he agrees with mia, and he thinks we just don't get it, in spite of the overwhelming links and info the others have provided as well