Clinton Lied, Bin Laden Didn't Die

busybody said:
The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s. In September 2006, during a famous encounter with Fox News anchor Wallace, Clinton erupted in anger and waived his finger when asked about whether his administration had done enough to get bin Laden. “What did I do? What did I do?” Clinton said at one point. “I worked hard to try to 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.”

since UD cant read

When Clinton tried to go after bin Laden he was vilified by the right for being "obsessed" with him. Making "wag the Dog" comments about his attempt to kill bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998, and after the bombing of the Sudanese chemical factory. He was accused of trying to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair when in fact several of bin Laden's training camps were hit in an attempt to kill him and as many of his cohorts as possible.

From 9/11 panel testimony:
In the wake of the twin embassy bombings, Former Defense Secretary William Cohen said Clinton gave the military the authority to kill bin Laden if the opportunity arose.

"Whenever there was 'actionable intelligence,' we were prepared to take action to destroy bin Laden or the targets." he said.


I suppose he lied.. :rolleyes:
 
busybody said:
yes!

either he did or the CIA did

I am assuming Cohen did

The CIA has been such a great source of information for the past few years.

Where are those WMDs again?
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
to kill bin Laden if the opportunity arose.

"Whenever there was 'actionable intelligence,' we were prepared to take action to destroy bin Laden or the targets." he said.


I suppose he lied.. :rolleyes:
there is the rub

"actionable"

in Clitmans definition

actionable means OBL was standing all alone in a deserted fiefd waiting to be shot

BUT

if there was a flea next to him,

DONT TOUCH HIM

THE FLEA MAY BE HURT!


Hunting bin Laden
I am currently reading through the Executive Summary of the OIG report (download at bottom) on "CIA Accountability with respect to the 9/11 Attacks." There is lots of information to digest, and I will have a more complete analysis early next week. In skimming through last night I came upon a section on covert action taken against bin Laden.

I would normally say that this information is only relevant in teaching us what went wrong; that second-guessing our actions is pointless, however, given President Clinton's many assertions that he desperately wanted to kill bin Laden I think it's fair to look at the facts.

President Clinton maintains:

But Mr Clinton said he had "worked hard" to try to have bin Laden killed, unlike the Bush administration. "We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," he said.

He told Wallace: "You got that little smirk on your face, but 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."

Did he? An excerpt from page 17 of the Exec. Summary:

The Joint Inquiry charged that US policymakers had wanted Usama bin Laden killed as early as August 1998 and believed CIA personnel understood that. However, the government had not removed the ban on assassination and did not provide clear direction or authorization for CIA to kill Bin Laden or make covert attacks against al-Qa'ida.

And:

The Team believes that the restrictions in the authority given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in later 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations. Ultimately, the Team concludes the failure of the Agency's covert action against Bin Laden lay not in language and interpretation of its authorities, but in the limitations of its covert action capabilities.

In other words, the CIA was halfheartedly directed by President Clinton to kill Bin Laden, and then not given the tools necessary even to carry out the mission. The only conclusion we can reach, based on the facts we now know, is that killing Bin Laden wasn't a top priority for President Clinton, his claims to the contrary.

The media, for the most part, is ignoring this aspect of the report, choosing instead to focus all the blame on the CIA. Now we know why.

Like I said above, I will have a more complete analysis for you on Monday
 
*snort*

How long after a President's term is he to be held accountable and blamed for the ongoing failures of the current administration? I know Bush's answer, he refuses to be held accountable while still in office.

"Clinton did it!" gets old after over half a decade.

Lets talk about current history.

Like Tora Bora. I suppose Clinton let Osama escape there too right?
 
Are you kidding?

The Leftist Press has written articles praising the guy's ability to tell whoppers and get by with it.

Why the hell would it begin to matter just because he's going to install his wife as the next President? He's a Democrat, not a hypocritical Republican. Hell, everyone knows, to get along, you have to lie to people. Lies are part of life. The only time they are wrong is when you believe it is wrong and you get caught doing it...

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the war on terror. This was brought on purely by BUSH administration policies. It's our policies that make us anethma to the rest of the world...
 
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.




http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
*snort*

How long after a President's term is he to be held accountable and blamed for the ongoing failures of the current administration? I know Bush's answer, he refuses to be held accountable while still in office.

"Clinton did it!" gets old after over half a decade.

Lets talk about current history.

Like Tora Bora. I suppose Clinton let Osama escape there too right?
Geez

then 9/11 was not a failure of 8 years under ClitMAN?

The PLOT and all just started

in Jan 2001?

Sorta like Enron, that was BLAMED on Bush, when all the "crimes" were under ClitMAN!

STFU, and have the balls to admit when your "guy" is wrong!
 
Democrats are never wrong for long.

He held a position you disagree with for like 15 minutes.

He's not like some inflexible ideologue from the Christian Right who cannot and will not adjust to changing conditions...

So when he says he never tried harder at anything to get bin Laden, for a while, it WAS the truth. And then it was a legal matter.
 
what does GET mean?

remember, there was evidence that a major discussion was held in the ClitMan WH as what type of CHAIR to use when OBL was captured so he wouldnt be uncomfy

and what type of duct tape to use so it wouldnt hurt OBL's beard

YEAH, HE TRIED REAL HARD!
 
speaking of changing minds

ClitBITCH changed her mind about the surge from ITS NOT WORKING a month ago, to ITS WORKING a few days ago, to its NOT WORKING yesterday!

FUCKING CUNT IS RUNNING FOR PRES AND SOME ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE BITCH!
 
Didn't she once say something to effect that as a member of the minority party, she was obligated to make her position consistent with the news of the day?

I mean, she doesn't know how deep the lie goes from the outside. She'll need to get into the house to not do windows...
 
busybody said:
Geez

then 9/11 was not a failure of 8 years under ClitMAN?

The PLOT and all just started

in Jan 2001?

Sorta like Enron, that was BLAMED on Bush, when all the "crimes" were under ClitMAN!

STFU, and have the balls to admit when your "guy" is wrong!

The current administration received many warnings prior to 9/11, including warnings from the outgoing administration.

Vice President Cheney hadn't had a single meeting with his terrorism task force the entire time.
 
the exact SAME warnings that were in effect since 1996

and who should he meet with?

the same FAILED losers of the ClitMAN administration?

are you saying that MEETINGS woulda STOPPED 9/11?
 
typical LIB LOSER lament

Meetings

MEETINGS we gotta have fucking MEETINGS

THAT'LL show dem terrorists we mean bidness

But FUCK NO ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just meetings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Hideous Rotten ClitBITCH admits DemonDUMZ cant handle TERRORISTS and that the American public knows it


Why do we even permit DemonDUMZ to exist, let alone run for office?

HILL: TERROR WOULD BE GOP BOOST

By GEOFF EARLE
August 24, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday raised the prospect of a terror attack before next year's election, warning that it could boost the GOP's efforts to hold on to the White House.

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP's negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.
 
The real question is why Bush with a mandate from the people and a personal vow to get Osama while getting a Photo Op on the smoking rubble of the WTC still allows OBL to live.

The reason is OBL is a right wing money maker and boogie man. Why destroy a good thing. They can ride the Osama coat tail for years.
 
Saint Boner said:
The real question is why Bush with a mandate from the people and a personal vow to get Osama while getting a Photo Op on the smoking rubble of the WTC still allows OBL to live.

The reason is OBL is a right wing money maker and boogie man. Why destroy a good thing. They can ride the Osama coat tail for years.


Because they relied on the same Clinton-era intel from a typical Clinton appointee that got the Chinese Embassy bombed?

Or because Tora Bora, like the Kurdish Al Qaeda fort near the Turkish border, is in some of the most rugged and heavily defensed terrain in the world; impossible to "sneak" up on?

No wonder Hillary recently scored the lowest of all the candidates among veterans in a poll...
 
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
Because they relied on the same Clinton-era intel from a typical Clinton appointee that got the Chinese Embassy bombed?

Or because Tora Bora, like the Kurdish Al Qaeda fort near the Turkish border, is in some of the most rugged and heavily defensed terrain in the world; impossible to "sneak" up on?

No wonder Hillary recently scored the lowest of all the candidates among veterans in a poll...

Why did Roosevelt "allow" Hilter to live? There is an implied thought that somehow Bush has OBL stashed away somewhere and can throw the switch anytime he wants.

But I do want to take issue with on thought that you're throwing out. It wasn't Clinton that gutted the CIA. It was Sen Frank Church and the Carter administration. Every president since then has been saddled with that albatross.

Ishmael
 
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
Or because Tora Bora, like the Kurdish Al Qaeda fort near the Turkish border, is in some of the most rugged and heavily defensed terrain in the world; impossible to "sneak" up on?
LMAO, or perhaps it was that the US relied more on local troops than US forces?
 
You are correct. I am sorry President Clinton. I know you've never tried harder at anything than you did to keep us safe.

;) ;)

And to this day, he keeps pointing out the wrong trail. Jimmy. Not every broken twig leads to a trail. Please get your ear off the ground...

You'll feel the heavy (healthy) horse long before you ever see it.
 
Back
Top