Why did Clinton ignore Bin Laden?
Harry Dope
up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
--
Eight years before 9/11, on Feb. 26, 1993, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida
terrorist network declared war against the United States with a deadly
attack on the World Trade Center. Al-Qaida continued to wage war on the U.S.
throughout the Clinton administration, attacking Khobar Towers in 1996, two
U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998, and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
Mike
"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote in message news:46b64d5b$0$20563$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
3666 Dead
<HHhates...@aol.com> wrote:
> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for blowing
>up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
>to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
Why hasn't Putsch caught the man he says murdered 3,000 Americans
after six years?
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
ffr...@mailandnews.com
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:20:44 -0400, "Harry Dope"
>
> > Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for blowing
> >up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
> >to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
>
> Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>
> Why hasn't Putsch caught the man he says murdered 3,000 Americans
> after six years?
> --
>
> One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
> President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
> and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
>
> --from interview broadcast on NPR
>
> Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
>
> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Because the Central Front in the War on Terror is in Iraq, it isn't
bin Laden.
z
> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for
> blowing
> up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do
> anything to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years
> of his 2 terms?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Why has Bush ignored him for the last six years?
Rich Hutnik
> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for blowing
> up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
> to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
He wanted to get Dubya a reason to attack Iraq after 9/11 hit.
Remember, when Clinton did operation Desert Fox, it was said to be
"Wag the Dog"? Well, guess what, by ignoring al Qaeda, he allowed
9/11 to happen so you could get Desert Fox II.
Hey Loyal Bushie, I will call the White House to make sure Rove CC's
you the next time they have some bullet points.
- Rich
Foxtrot
>"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for blowing
>>up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
>>to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
>
>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links and Schlepp still denies
the truth. He refuses to admit that his hero BJ had many years to get
bin Laden but didn't bother. Too busy getting his dick sucked.
Here goes again Schlepp. Let it burn in real good. Your hero Billy
was incompetent. Truth hurts eh?
**************************************************************
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958
In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.
In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.
Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm
Attacks linked to Bin Laden
1993 World Trade Centre bomb
1996 Killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia
2000 Attack on USS Cole in Yemen
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/15/osama-qna.htm
The bin Laden file
2000: USS Cole in Yemen; 17 killed.
1998: U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania; 224 killed.
1996: U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; 19 killed.
1995: U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; six
killed.
1993: World Trade Center, New York; six killed; U.S. soldiers in
Somalia; 18 killed.
1992: Aden, Yemen hotel; two killed.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/etc/cron.html
OSAMA BIN LADEN
A Chronology of His Political Life
February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
**************************************************************
ThePhisherKIng
news:1186354448.8...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
Wouldn't have been if we hadn't bungled our way into Iraq. We could have
finished the job in Afghanastan.
Charles Aulds
> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for blowing
> up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
> to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
Yes, as a Republican voter for 28 years in the Deep South Bible Belt
states of Tennessee and Alabama, I'd like to know why Bill Clinton didn't
do more to prevent al-Qaeda from rising to a position of strength that
allowed it to perpetrate (very successfully) the WTC tower attacks in NYC.
Actually, as a former Republican voter (from 1976 to 2000) in the Deep
South states of Tennessee and Alabama, I'm certainly not comfortable with
defending Clinton; God knows I offered up more than my fair share of
criticism during his administration.
I might not jump to the defense of William Jefferson Clinton, but I will
defend the truth. All of us should stand up for the truth, at all times.
The World Trade Center in New York was first attacked on February 26,
1993, only 38 days after Bill Clinton took office ... 38 days.
38 days.
I think that attack has since been attributed to elements of al Qaeda ...
or men associated (if loosely) with that terrorist organation. Clinton
could very well have blamed that attack on the inattentiveness and
inaction of the former Republican incumbent. He did not. There was no
attempt to shift the blame to the Republicans. None. Instead, Clinton took
responsibility, like a US President should, and he took immediate and
decisive action. All the perpetrators of that attack were captured, all
were tried, all were convicted and all were imprisoned. All of them, Ramzi
Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, Wali Khan Shah; they are all still behind bars.
All of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
I think the contrast is glaring, between the action our new President took
in 1993 and the actions of our current President, who has diverted troops
from what WAS a successful mission in Afghanistan, of capturing and
destroying terrorist leaders (like bin Laden, Taliban leader Mohammed
Omar, and Zayman al Zawahiri who are all still free while we're
approaching the 6th anniversary of the 2nd WTC attacks).
It has been 2154 days since the horrific attacks on the WTC towers in NYC.
2154 days. Half a decade.
38 days. 2154 days. Big difference. Do the math.
Charles
GWB- President of Hate
"Hairy Pedophile" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:46b64d5b$0$20563$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Why did Reagan give Saddam wmds?
GWB- President of Hate
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:v1qcb31d6grei8sns...@4ax.com...
> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for
>>> blowing
>>>up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do
>>>anything
>>>to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2
>>>terms?
>>
>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>
> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links and Schlepp still denies
> the truth.
Reagan supported bin Laden.
GWB- President of Hate
"Charles Aulds" <cau...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.06....@hiwaay.net...
It didn't start with CLinton and it won't end with Bush.
Ron O'Neal
"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:46b64d5b$0$20563$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Once again, an unwillingness to do a little reading before you post your
statements has shone forth in your post. Read the following:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
RO
chess
> up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
> to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2
> terms?
>
When Clinton went after OBL you repug said he just wagging the dog
BY DAVID CORN | WASHINGTON -- It took only a few minutes for one of the
reporters in the Pentagon pressroom to ask Secretary of Defense William
Cohen the question on many minds: "Have you seen the movie?" He was
referring to "Wag the Dog" and the unsettling coincidence between Thursday's
military strikes and a movie in which political fixers concoct a war to
distract public attention from a presidential sex scandal.
Cohen adopted a steely expression as he replied, "The only motivation
driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the
American people."
But cynicism could not be avoided. I was eating lunch with a prominent
Republican official when his office called to inform him of the
Clinton-ordered attacks on terrorist installations in Afghanistan and a
supposed chemical-weapons factory in Sudan. The official immediately asked
the caller, "Is CNN airing video footage of a young girl running with a
kitten?" -- a direct reference to a scene in the film. He got up to leave,
noting, "Clinton will do anything to get away from Hillary."
It's inevitable. After what seems a week of media elites venting about The
Speech -- and it's only been three days! -- nothing Bill Clinton says can be
taken at face value in this town. Some of us have long believed he is a
fellow not to be trusted, based on his policy decisions on campaign finance
reform, global warming, budget politics, Lani Guinier, welfare legislation,
mass murder in Rwanda and other matters. But now the core of Washington's
ruling class appears to have turned on the man, as well.
It's tough to argue that he doesn't deserve this. But Republicans ought to
be careful about going too far in dismissing Clinton. When Sen. Dan Coats,
R-Ind., questioned Clinton's motives in launching the attacks -- "Why did he
wait until now?" -- reporters at a press conference (which Coats
opportunistically called minutes after the news broke) harshly
cross-examined the senator. Didn't he take Bill Cohen, an ex-senator and
Republican with whom Coats served, at his word? Coats had to pause before
continuing his anti-Clinton spin.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also rushed before television cameras to suggest
that Clinton may have had more than national security on his mind in
deciding to bomb. Oddly, two days ago, the president's critics were arguing
that his scandalous behavior rendered it difficult for him to act
decisively. Then when he did move forcefully, that aggravated his
antagonists.
But there were different takes among Republicans. House Speaker Newt
Gingrich stated plainly the assault "was the right thing to do." And Sen.
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, remarked, "We should all back the president of the
United States." Clearly, Republicans were unable to get all their voices in
tune with one message. Some simply couldn't resist the urge to whack at the
president -- an impulse that could help Clinton should the public become
annoyed with GOP eagerness to exploit Monicagate.
Monica Lewinsky aside, there is always reason to worry that military actions
are motivated by political needs. Two days after a 1983 terrorist bombing at
the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon killed 241 Americans, President Reagan
invaded the tiny island of Grenada in a move that seemed designed to
substitute a military romp for a deadly disaster.
President Bush's invasion of Panama in 1989 was questioned as a politically
convenient operation aimed to dispose of an embarrassment to the U.S.
government: the drugged-up, onetime C.I.A. asset Manuel Noriega. The Panama
action also afforded Bush the opportunity to counter criticism that he was a
bit of a wimp.
In 1993 Clinton ordered the air strike on Iraqi targets in retaliation for
an alleged assassination plot against former President George Bush. At that
time, I asked a senior White House aide what justified this act of war. "If
we don't do anything, the media will be all over us," he replied. The
bombing appeared to work. Afterward, the Christian Science Monitor ran a
piece that noted, "By slamming cruise missiles into Baghdad in retaliation
for a plot to kill his predecessor, President Clinton has struck a blow that
may help overcome his public image of wavering leadership."
"Wag the Dog" has merely given a name to what has always been true:
Presidents, when they assume their commander-in-chief duties, do not ignore
political considerations. Skepticism is always warranted when a president
orders a unilateral military action (particularly since the Consitution
delegates the power to declare war to Congress, not the chief executive).
But the best skepticism is that which is guided by principle. Was the
evidence strong enough to justify the possible loss of life? Will this
action prompt more or less terrorism? How does this strike affect the
international rule of law? Might it have been more effective to continue
pushing Afghanistan to turn over suspected terrorist kingpin Osama bin
Laden?
In this summer of scandal, however, that kind of skepticism takes a back
seat in Washington to the widespread desire to score a cheap political hit.
Aug. 21, 1998
drew
no definitive evidence that bin laden was involved. Read what you posted.
GWB- President of Hate
"chess" <che...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nxuti.5042$Pv4....@newsfe19.lga...
>
> "Hairy Queer" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:46b64d5b$0$20563$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for
>> blowing
>> up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do
>> anything
>> to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2
>> terms?
>>
>
>
> When Clinton went after OBL you repug said he just wagging the dog
When Bush allows 25000 Americans to die it's okay.
Jim E
>
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
No fool, thank a vetreran
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Pay your taxes, millions of worthless people depend on your earnings.
Jim E
Jeff
> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for blowing
>>>up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
>>>to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
>>
>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>
>
> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links and Schlepp still denies
> the truth. He refuses to admit that his hero BJ had many years to get
> bin Laden but didn't bother. Too busy getting his dick sucked.
>
> Here goes again Schlepp. Let it burn in real good. Your hero Billy
> was incompetent. Truth hurts eh?
George Tenet in his auto biography states that al Qaeda was unknown to
him in '93 and the connection wasn't made until some years later. His
auto bio is a nice read (and refutes much of the conjecture in the below
links) and if you want to get the story on what really happened in the
war against al Qaeda then you should at least read his book and Richard
Clarkes (the chief of counter terrorism). Both of these republicans
where held over by George W Bush. Both state that Clinton did everything
that was asked of him. There was never a time when if there was a chance
presented to Clinton to get Bin Laden that he refused. Irregardless of
what urban myths you guys believe because you heard it from some
wingnut. Particularly from '98 on alQaeda had the full and immediate
attention of Clinton. When power transferred to George W Bush, they were
fully briefed on the alQaeda threat and told they would spend more of
their time on it than anything else. They also passed on the
confirmation they had gotten that December that they had confirmed the
alQaeda link to the Cole bombing.
So what happened? Tenet was running around with his hair on fire.
Clarke was trying to get meetings with Bush (Clarke used to sit in with
the cabinet meetings during Clinton) and the attention of Bush (and
Ashcroft) was directed elsewhere. In fact Condoleeza Rice (then NSA) had
scheduled a speech on terrorism for either 9/11 or 9/12. Nowhere in that
speech was Bin Laden or al Qaeda to have been mentioned.
Certainly there are things Clinton could have done better, but his
effort was honest and lewinski gate never interfered. There's an
interview with Newt Gingrich, of all people, where Newt states that on
the day he voted to impeach he talked with Clinton (earlier that day)
about terrorism and Clinton was focussed on that, not the impeachment.
(I'll post the transript if I can find it)
Now, W's failing to get bin Laden has been described recently in some
depth in these groups. If need be I can post up here what has been
discussed in other threads.
It's time for you guys to realize that Clinton has been out of office
for 6 1/2 years. Surely W must be responsible for something that
happened in the last 6 1/2 years?
Jeff
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>>
>> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links and Schlepp still denies
>> the truth. He refuses to admit that his hero BJ had many years to get
>> bin Laden but didn't bother. Too busy getting his dick sucked.
>>
>> Here goes again Schlepp. Let it burn in real good. Your hero Billy
>> was incompetent. Truth hurts eh?
>
>George Tenet in his auto biography states that al Qaeda was unknown to
>him in '93 and the connection wasn't made until some years later. His
>auto bio is a nice read (and refutes much of the conjecture in the below
>links) and if you want to get the story on what really happened in the
>war against al Qaeda then you should at least read his book and Richard
>Clarkes (the chief of counter terrorism). Both of these republicans
>where held over by George W Bush. Both state that Clinton did everything
>that was asked of him. There was never a time when if there was a chance
>presented to Clinton to get Bin Laden that he refused. Irregardless of
>what urban myths you guys believe because you heard it from some
>wingnut. Particularly from '98 on alQaeda had the full and immediate
>attention of Clinton.
Proof? To the contrary, BJ had an opportunity to get bin Laden AFTER
he was involved in the 1993 WTC attack but he didn't bother. That
disastrous mistake caused 3,000 deaths on 9/11.
Plan to Capture Bin Laden Before 9/11 Was Called Off
May 21 [2003] - The FBI made secret plans to capture and arrest
Osama bin Laden [in 1998], long before the terror leader's deadliest
plan came to fruition.
But when the plan went up the chain of command for approval, it was
killed by then-Attorney General Janet Reno.
>When power transferred to George W Bush, they were
>fully briefed on the alQaeda threat and told they would spend more of
>their time on it than anything else. They also passed on the
>confirmation they had gotten that December that they had confirmed the
>alQaeda link to the Cole bombing.
>
> So what happened? Tenet was running around with his hair on fire.
>Clarke was trying to get meetings with Bush (Clarke used to sit in with
>the cabinet meetings during Clinton) and the attention of Bush (and
>Ashcroft) was directed elsewhere. In fact Condoleeza Rice (then NSA) had
>scheduled a speech on terrorism for either 9/11 or 9/12. Nowhere in that
>speech was Bin Laden or al Qaeda to have been mentioned.
>
>Certainly there are things Clinton could have done better
You would be surprised how few Dems would admit that much.
> but his
>effort was honest and lewinski gate never interfered.
That's debatable.
> Now, W's failing to get bin Laden has been described recently in some
>depth in these groups. If need be I can post up here what has been
>discussed in other threads.
The failure to capture bin Laden is a non issue. The Unabomber was
not captured for years. Many years later he was finally was caught,
not because of some crack detective work, but because his brother
turned him in. That was right here in the US.
> It's time for you guys to realize that Clinton has been out of office
>for 6 1/2 years. Surely W must be responsible for something that
>happened in the last 6 1/2 years?
Sure. I'm perfectly willing to admit that Bush should have done more to
prevent the 9/11 attack in the less than eight months he was in office
beforehand.
BJ should have done much more to prevent it too. Unlike Bush who
only had less than eight to prevent the attack, BJ had MANY YEARS
to prevent 9/11, including chances to actually nab OBL but he didn't
bother. Bush didn't have the opportunities that Billy Jeff did.
I'm being objective and willing to accept some blame on my side.
For the most part, Dems are not, and only blame Repubs. Agreed?
Jeff
Did you just miss your own reference "killed by then-Attorney General
Janet Reno"? Actually Tenet has more to say about that his auto bio, I'd
quote it here if I hadn't lent my copy out.
>
>
>>When power transferred to George W Bush, they were
>>fully briefed on the alQaeda threat and told they would spend more of
>>their time on it than anything else. They also passed on the
>>confirmation they had gotten that December that they had confirmed the
>>alQaeda link to the Cole bombing.
>>
>> So what happened? Tenet was running around with his hair on fire.
>>Clarke was trying to get meetings with Bush (Clarke used to sit in with
>>the cabinet meetings during Clinton) and the attention of Bush (and
>>Ashcroft) was directed elsewhere. In fact Condoleeza Rice (then NSA) had
>>scheduled a speech on terrorism for either 9/11 or 9/12. Nowhere in that
>>speech was Bin Laden or al Qaeda to have been mentioned.
>>
>>Certainly there are things Clinton could have done better
>
>
> You would be surprised how few Dems would admit that much.
>
>
>>but his
>>effort was honest and lewinski gate never interfered.
>
>
> That's debatable.
True though. You debate it because the awfull failure of W is too much...
>
>
>> Now, W's failing to get bin Laden has been described recently in some
>>depth in these groups. If need be I can post up here what has been
>>discussed in other threads.
>
>
> The failure to capture bin Laden is a non issue. The Unabomber was
> not captured for years. Many years later he was finally was caught,
> not because of some crack detective work, but because his brother
> turned him in. That was right here in the US.
It is when the opportunity is blown. Note the thread on moving the UAV
and the agents out of Afghanistan (that were tracking Bin Laden) into Iraq.
>
>
>> It's time for you guys to realize that Clinton has been out of office
>>for 6 1/2 years. Surely W must be responsible for something that
>>happened in the last 6 1/2 years?
>
>
> Sure. I'm perfectly willing to admit that Bush should have done more to
> prevent the 9/11 attack in the less than eight months he was in office
> beforehand.
>
> BJ should have done much more to prevent it too. Unlike Bush who
> only had less than eight to prevent the attack, BJ had MANY YEARS
> to prevent 9/11, including chances to actually nab OBL but he didn't
> bother.
An absolute lie. Pony up your fake proof. Tenet and Clarke both say that
the war on terrorism had Clintons full attention. Remember Clarke sat in
on Clintons cabinet meetings but was not allowed in Bush's. There was no
opportunity get UBL that had enough of a chance that it was recommended
to Clinton. Once more Tenet has quite a bit to say on this in his recent
auto bio.
The intel on an impending attack was great in the months before 9/11.
Bush pushed it off. And unlike Reno, Ashcroft didn't wan't to be
bothered with pushing through the FISA warrants. It's one such FISA
warrant that sat on Ashcrofts desk that was for the search of the
Moussaoui computer, Reno alway went the extra mile to get those done.
I'nm surprised you don't know that, here's something on it.
<URL: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0503c.asp />
Yet, in Ashcroft’s view, the FBI’s failures on Moussaoui are irrelevant
because the agency did not have unlimited surveillance power. But the
New York Times reported that prior to the terrorist attacks, “Ashcroft
had resisted signing emergency warrants that would have allowed
eavesdropping in terrorism investigations, apparently because he had
only a rudimentary knowledge of how the warrant process worked,”
according to 9/11 commission officials.
...
Ashcroft apparently had scant interest in the terrorist threat before
9/11. FBI acting chief Thomas Pickard informed the 9/11 commission staff
that though he briefed Ashcroft once a week, “after two such briefings
the Attorney General told him he did not want to hear this information
[on the danger of terrorist attacks] anymore.” (Ashcroft denied making
this statement to Pickard.)
...
FBI agents in Minneapolis could have easily gotten a regular search
warrant from a federal judge — if they had not been hogtied by FBI
headquarters. Ashcroft told the 9/11 commission that FBI agents “sought
approval for a criminal search warrant to search his [Moussaoui’s]
computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared
breaching the wall.” Actually, FBI agents in Minneapolis asked FBI
headquarters for permission to request a search warrant from a federal
judge in Minnesota (which would not have involved “the wall”).
Bush didn't have the opportunities that Billy Jeff did.
He sure did. But Ashcroft was more interested in evangelical
interests. And W himself never injected himself into this no matter how
many times Tenet and Clarke tried to push this forward.
>
> I'm being objective and willing to accept some blame on my side.
> For the most part, Dems are not, and only blame Repubs. Agreed?
You should be well aware of this as it is the transcript from the FOX
interview with Clinton.
<URL:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden//>
WJC: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a
finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him.
I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were
still President, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill
him. Now I never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is
useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is
1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with
that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard
Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way
to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little
smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…
CW: [Laughs]
WJC: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried
and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try. And I did
everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was
against sending Special Forces into Afghanistan and refueling by
helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise. We could not
get the CIA and the FBI to certify that al Qaeda was responsible while I
was President. [Not] until I left office. And yet I get asked about
this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I
did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.
From everything I've read, and I've read everything from the W White
House insiders, I believe Clinton's assessment is accurate. Yes there
were things he could have done, if he known about them. And he could
have pushed the FBI and Tenet harder on somethings, but he tried.
George W Bush is our first MBA president. In business like fashion he
offloaded all the details of government to his inner circle minions (the
gang he brought with him from Texas).
Now, every W insider that has spoken out has said the same thing (I'm
Including Paul O' Neal who had a long record of service in previous
White Houses) that they kept waiting for the policy discussion that they
always had in previous administrations. They never came, policy was
never discussed. These decisions were already made, it now appears
Cheney had a heavy in this, and it was the job of the cabinet to carry
them out, not to help form them. That is different than the way every
other White House (particularly when Cheney was chief of staff during
Ford) has ever operated. It is flat out wrong and it is to this day
contributing to the fiascos that history will remember George W Bush for.
I think the W White House record stands for itself.
Jeff
>
Charles Aulds
> Once again, an unwillingness to do a little reading before you post your
> statements has shone forth in your post. Read the following:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
>
> RO
Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered
the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky
scandal."
Criticized by whom?
By us. By me. I was Republican voter from 1976 through most of George W.
Bush's first term.
I remember (with great shame) how the Republican Party refused to support
Clinton in his attempts to deal with a terrorist threat he perceived as
likely to commit a major attack on US soil.
Clinton was, of course, proven right, tragically so.
But those who are trying to pin the blame for the WTC tower strikes which
occurred on another president's watch are not only being dishonest, they
are upholding the crimes that our leadership has committed, in taking the
nation to war with false claims.
Charles
P.Henry
> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for blowing
>>>up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
>>>to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
>>
>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>
> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links
Your ridiculous fantasies don't really about to much.
Now tell us why bush ignored the warnings of an imminent attack.
The bottom line is that republicans created Bin Laden, republicans refused
to give Clinton the tools he needed to capture Bin Laden and then
republicans sat back with their thumbs up their collectives asses ,
ignoring literally dozens of warnings of an imminent attack in 2001. Then
to add insult to injury , republicans have been joyfully dancing on the
bodies of the 911 dead ever since.
Bottom line is that you boy in the oval office and his congressional lap
dogs are traitors.
It's no wonder that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't trust cons
with national security.
kyl...@yahoo.com
Here's a better question: why did Ronnie Reagan create him?
Hatto von Aquitanien
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:20:44 -0400, "Harry Dope"
> <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for
>> blowing
>>up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
>>to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2
>>terms?
>
> Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
But the FBI was.
> Why hasn't Putsch caught the man he says murdered 3,000 Americans
> after six years?
Because bin Laden had nothing to do with it. He also said that in the only
authenticated statement he made.
--
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ek5w_wtc7-the-smoking-gun-of-911-updated
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://vehme.blogspot.com
Virtus Tutissima Cassis
P.Henry
>
Why hasn't bush captured or killed Bin laden? He's been in office for seven
years?
3670 Dead
wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 17:19:36 -0700, Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden and blame a blind man for blowing
>>>>up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
>>>>to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2 terms?
>>>
>>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>>
>> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links
Fauxy, obsessivly repeating false trivia doesn't work.
That's why your movement has collapsed.
Never mind what Goerring said; propaganda alone isn't enough.
>
>Your ridiculous fantasies don't really about to much.
>
>Now tell us why bush ignored the warnings of an imminent attack.
>
>The bottom line is that republicans created Bin Laden, republicans refused
>to give Clinton the tools he needed to capture Bin Laden and then
>republicans sat back with their thumbs up their collectives asses ,
>ignoring literally dozens of warnings of an imminent attack in 2001. Then
>to add insult to injury , republicans have been joyfully dancing on the
>bodies of the 911 dead ever since.
>
>Bottom line is that you boy in the oval office and his congressional lap
>dogs are traitors.
>
>It's no wonder that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't trust cons
>with national security.
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>>
>> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links
>
>Your ridiculous fantasies don't really about to much.
>
>Now tell us why bush ignored the warnings of an imminent attack.
As I said in another thread to an idiot just like you who asked the same
thing:
We already knew bin Laden was determined to strike us because he
had already done it in the 1993 WTC attack. The report didn't say
WHEN, WHERE WHO or HOW about the attack. Without knowing any
of those things, WTF could Bush have done? Declare nationwide
martial law indefinitely?
(The other idiot didn't have a cogent answer. Neither do you.)
BTW the 9/11 terrorists took flight lessons while BJ was getting his dick
sucked in the Oval Office. Why didn't he stop them, Pee Hiney?
>The bottom line is that republicans created Bin Laden, republicans refused
>to give Clinton the tools he needed to capture Bin Laden and then
>republicans sat back with their thumbs up their collectives asses ,
>ignoring literally dozens of warnings of an imminent attack in 2001.
Yeah "imminent" without saying when, where, who or how. So WTF could
have been done?
>Then
>to add insult to injury , republicans have been joyfully dancing on the
>bodies of the 911 dead ever since.
The Dems have been bashing Bush for it with the "on his watch" shtick
all along.
>Bottom line is that you boy in the oval office and his congressional lap
>dogs are traitors.
>
>It's no wonder that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't trust cons
>with national security.
Americans are fed up with Bush's enormous blunder trying to "build
democracy" in Iraq. But they know that bed wetting libs will try to hold
hands and make friends with terrorists who want to behead all of us.
Foxtrot
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>>>
>>> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links
>
>Fauxy, obsessivly repeating false trivia doesn't work.
Schlepp is convinced that he, a bitter left wing foreigner, knows more
than PBS, BBC, MSNBC and USA Today. LOL, such arrogance.
>That's why your movement has collapsed.
Really? Your fellow left wing boob accuses Repubs of blocking all of
the wonderful things that Dems want to do. How could they have the
power to do such things if the movement collapsed?
>Never mind what Goerring said; propaganda alone isn't enough.
Godwin.
Hatto von Aquitanien
Tim Ossman AKA Usama bin Laden has been dead since December 2001. It is
very difficult to capture a dead man. Furthermore, he had nothing to do
with 9/11.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1588753413691360179
Hatto von Aquitanien
Hatto von Aquitanien
> "P.Henry" <P.He...@revolution.org> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>>>
>>> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links
>>
>>Your ridiculous fantasies don't really about to much.
>>
>>Now tell us why bush ignored the warnings of an imminent attack.
>
> As I said in another thread to an idiot just like you who asked the same
> thing:
>
> We already knew bin Laden was determined to strike us because he
> had already done it in the 1993 WTC attack.
bin Laden was a CIA connected drug and arms dealer.
> BTW the 9/11 terrorists took flight lessons while BJ was getting his dick
> sucked in the Oval Office. Why didn't he stop them, Pee Hiney?
That was a diversion to distract attention for the disclosures coming out
about the BFEE drug-running in Mena Arkansas.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-918379652414555399
>>The bottom line is that republicans created Bin Laden,
No, it was Zbigniew Brzeznski.
> Yeah "imminent" without saying when, where, who or how. So WTF could
> have been done?
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2006/09/alex-jones-predicted-major-false-flag.html
>>Then
>>to add insult to injury , republicans have been joyfully dancing on the
>>bodies of the 911 dead ever since.
>
> The Dems have been bashing Bush for it with the "on his watch" shtick
> all along.
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/310707_pelosi_911.html
>>Bottom line is that you boy in the oval office and his congressional lap
>>dogs are traitors.
>>
>>It's no wonder that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't trust
>>cons with national security.
>
> Americans are fed up with Bush's enormous blunder trying to "build
> democracy" in Iraq. But they know that bed wetting libs will try to hold
> hands and make friends with terrorists who want to behead all of us.
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/08/clean-break-plan-conspiracy-of-theories.html
EFill4Zaggin
>We already knew bin Laden was determined to strike us because he
>had already done it in the 1993 WTC attack. The report didn't say
>WHEN, WHERE WHO or HOW about the attack.
Are you sure?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational
threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that
Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of
"Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of
suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for
hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of
federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations
throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the
FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying
that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks
with explosives."
Lamont Cranston
"Harry Dope" <HHhates...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:46b64d5b$0$20563$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Why did Bubba Clinton ignore Bin Laden
He didn't.
Jeff
> 3670 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>>
>>>>3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>>>>
>>>>Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links
>>
>>Fauxy, obsessivly repeating false trivia doesn't work.
>
>
> Schlepp is convinced that he, a bitter left wing foreigner, knows more
> than PBS, BBC, MSNBC and USA Today. LOL, such arrogance.
No. All you have in those links is that alQaeda was linked to a series
of events. And an implication that Clinton could have done something.
Well alQaeda was not known to have been linked until after '96 and
you should have already seen what Clinton did do (it's elsewhere in this
thread):
<URL: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm />
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.
On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an
American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of
Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian
authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to
the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or
question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.
On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of
explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex
which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia,
killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once
again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi
officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would
have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted
thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar
Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach
of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty
with the U.S.)
On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the
United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants
with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal
court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001.
Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three
more are fighting extradition in London.
On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden
skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen,
blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37
others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The
investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to
allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in
custody in Yemen.
(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential
election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that
the investigation could have been completed before the end of President
Clinton's term of office three months later.)
In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against
targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been
linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the
attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a
few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had
ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica
Lewinsky scandal.
>
>
Peacenik
blowing
> up a truck bomb at the WTC in 1993? Why did Clinton failure to do anything
> to stop the growth of Al Qaeda during the following 8 years of his 2
terms?
Clinton attacked bin Laden in 1998, and wanted to fight against al-Qaeda
then. But the Refucklicans whined about him "wagging the dog" and didn't
give him any support in his anti-terrorism efforts. You fuckheads even went
so far as to claim that bin Laden didn't exist and was just an invention of
Clinton's to divert attention from Monica Lewinsky.
Funny how you pigfucking Republiclans changed your tune on September 12,
2001. Suddenly bin Laden was real then.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Lamont Cranston
"Foxtrot" <fox...@null.com> wrote in message
news:ppaeb39q7bo7mvcl5...@4ax.com...
> "P.Henry" <P.He...@revolution.org> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>> 3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>>>
>>> Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links
>>
>>Your ridiculous fantasies don't really about to much.
>>
>>Now tell us why bush ignored the warnings of an imminent attack.
>
> As I said in another thread to an idiot just like you who asked the
> same
> thing:
>
> We already knew bin Laden was determined to strike us because he
> had already done it in the 1993 WTC attack. The report didn't say
> WHEN, WHERE WHO or HOW about the attack. Without knowing any
> of those things, WTF could Bush have done? Declare nationwide
> martial law indefinitely?
>
> (The other idiot didn't have a cogent answer. Neither do you.)
>
> BTW the 9/11 terrorists took flight lessons while BJ was getting his
> dick
> sucked in the Oval Office.
CLINTON PENIS ALERT!!!
"But, Clinton...but, Clinton..."
rotfl
Jeff
> "P.Henry" <P.He...@revolution.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>
>>>3666 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bin Laden wasn't involved in WTC93.
>>>
>>>Sigh. MANY times I have posted these links
>>
>>Your ridiculous fantasies don't really about to much.
>>
>>Now tell us why bush ignored the warnings of an imminent attack.
>
>
> As I said in another thread to an idiot just like you who asked the same
> thing:
>
> We already knew bin Laden was determined to strike us because he
> had already done it in the 1993 WTC attack. The report didn't say
> WHEN, WHERE WHO or HOW about the attack. Without knowing any
> of those things, WTF could Bush have done?
Oh, the low expectations of George W Bush. Other presidents have been
noted for their ability to reach into bureaucracies to shake things up.
W just didn't want to be disturbed by these details. He certainly did
nothing about the memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US". When
Clinton handed him the assessment that binLaden was behind the Cole
bombing (remember this was only confirmed after the election). W did
nothing about that, he could have cared less untill after 9/11.
Declare nationwide
> martial law indefinitely?
He could hae done something. He made no effort. That's pretty much
the claim you make against Clinton although that has been widely refuted
in this thread. You think just because W did nothing than the inferior
democrat Clinton must have also done nothing also.
Now, I don't know whether he could have stopped 9/11, but getting his
AG to focus on it rather than obscenity issues would have been a start.
But he did zippo, nothing, nada..
>
> (The other idiot didn't have a cogent answer. Neither do you.)
>
> BTW the 9/11 terrorists took flight lessons while BJ was getting his dick
> sucked in the Oval Office. Why didn't he stop them, Pee Hiney?
That is a systemic fault that should have percolated through the
system. Certainly Clinton himself was unaware of that.
What he did do is amply described in Clarkes and Tenets books.
And my how you are obsessed with blow jobs.
>
>
>>The bottom line is that republicans created Bin Laden, republicans refused
>>to give Clinton the tools he needed to capture Bin Laden and then
>>republicans sat back with their thumbs up their collectives asses ,
>>ignoring literally dozens of warnings of an imminent attack in 2001.
>
>
> Yeah "imminent" without saying when, where, who or how. So WTF could
> have been done?
He could have done something. He did nothing. He never said, lets
make some progress on this. He never did any follow ups and he never
even let his counter terrorism chief discuss issues with him that he
urgently wanted.
But, if your only point is that W was not told by Cheney or Rove to
do something. Then you win that one.
>
>
>>Then
>>to add insult to injury , republicans have been joyfully dancing on the
>>bodies of the 911 dead ever since.
>
>
> The Dems have been bashing Bush for it with the "on his watch" shtick
> all along.
He did zippo, and much of what he did do after 9/11 has unravelled.
That's why the NIE assessment is that alQaeda has rebuilt it's pre 9/11
strength. W was more obsessed with Saddam than he was with finishing the
job in Afghanistan.
>
>
>>Bottom line is that you boy in the oval office and his congressional lap
>>dogs are traitors.
>>
>>It's no wonder that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't trust cons
>>with national security.
>
>
> Americans are fed up with Bush's enormous blunder trying to "build
> democracy" in Iraq. But they know that bed wetting libs will try to hold
> hands and make friends with terrorists who want to behead all of us.
There never has been a real campaign to build democracy in Iraq. That
is just one of many diversions. Remember it started with WMD, then it
was democracy. The real reason is the oil. Oil stains everything in the
White House. Do you deny that?
We want to kill bin Laden. We do not want want to be creating more
terrorists than we destroy. Iraq is one huge recruiting poster against
the "infidel americans". We think W has completely failed. You know that
lie about us wanting to "hold hands and make friends with terrorists".
The one you back up with wishfull analysis. You do know that thee is a
pragmatic shift in on the ground tactics. We are now arming men who in
the past have killed americans. How does that jive with you?
Jeff
>
Peacenik
news:pan.2007.08.06....@hiwaay.net...
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:59:47 -0500, Ron O'Neal wrote:
>
> > Once again, an unwillingness to do a little reading before you post your
> > statements has shone forth in your post. Read the following:
> >
> > http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
> >
> > RO
>
>
> Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered
> the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky
> scandal."
>
> Criticized by whom?
>
> By us. By me. I was Republican voter from 1976 through most of George W.
> Bush's first term.
Thank you for waking up to the ugly reality of the GOP.
Kurt Nicklas
I would have thought that a matter between Momma Laden and Pappa
Laden.
Did your parents not explain some basic facts of biology to you,
Dolton?