…yeah, give the US a fair chance on a level playing field, not done too badly up to now.
Holy chorizo! That’s some OP!
And that’ll be my whole addition to it.
In fact, if he did in fact leave Afghanistan in 1999, it was an event of such little importance (of which we have such little conclusive evidence) in retrospect that CNN saw no reason to put it on their timeline here. Nor did PBS. Nor did BCC. Nor did Wikipedia, which actually says “Attempts at assassination and requests for the extradition of bin Laden from the Taliban of Afghanistan were met with failure.[71] In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton convinced the United Nations to impose sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to force the Taliban to extradite him.” Admittedly, Ref. [71] is to an article that predates the OP’s cite by a few months. However, since according to CNN,Clinton imposed the sanctions in July 1999, which is several months after the OP’s cite, this demonstrates that to our knowledge he was still in Afghanistan at that time, despites a claim by the Afghans to the contrary:
It is kind of frightening just how wrong one OP can be!
By the way, if you type “saddam offer bin laden asylum” into google, you get lots of hits…but most of them seem to be to right-wing blogs and magazines repeating the 1999 claim, which seems to have appeared in the CNN article that was dredged up by the OP and an article in The Guardian a week earlier.
Who would Osama need asylum from in 1999? Wasn’t that chicken-hearted, lily-livered, weak-kneed whimp Bill Clinton the US President then? Surely he wouldn’t have been any threat to Osama.
Chuck Norris.
Nah. Had Norris gone after him, the writers would see to it that he would be gotten.
Kind of fun how he can have his cake and eat it too. Now that we’ve reacted how we’ve been expected to react, he feels validated because we “still don’t get it”.
If they did find this memo in Saddam’s palace for some reason, THEN this story would be credible. As this memo never was brought out/never existed in the first place, then it’s useless. Of course, fashioning a memo to validate the past should get you (not you, personally, Don26) exiled or something.
I also second Bosda’s mention of hubris. It’s downright disgusting how hubris-filled some of these neocons have got. We can be assured that in 20 or so years, there are going to be some VERY interesting “tell-all” books about things going on either within/behind this administration.
Just to add some facts to the discussion, the person who supposedly made the offer of asylum was Farouk Hijazi. This story dated 1999, has more.
I haven’t done enough research, but it appears Hijazi is in custody of Coalition Forces and has said the had met OBL before. The entire problem with with the OP, and the right’s, interpretation of events is that every thing is a smoking gun. Even if true, there is no way a simple offer (never accepted) of asylum is sufficient for a invasion of Iraq. Especially in light of prior contacts between the two where nothing was ever done. It appears to me the rights was/is/and forever will be, so desperate for proof, that any little thing, no matter how irrelevant or miniscule, is proof positive that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
Sure, he did. He was on the planet when it happened, wasn’t he?
Reading all your comments really drives home this Euripides quote:
So why you haven’t cried bullshit at some of the things going on with the war is beyond me.
Time is a harsh mistress, in this case no confirmation of what Saddam said is a point that needs to be taken seriously, just as it is the fact that Osama and Saddam remained at odds.
It may be true that Saddam said that, but your conclusion remains in error, kinda sad to still even after it was explained that you still hang on to faulty preconceptions.
Its nice to be able to keep up on the latest right-wing lunatic talking point. They seem to be really scraping the bottom of the barrel this time.
Heh. Just wait. There’s a lot to scrape from the bottom of this particular barrel.
A number of posters, including myself, have offered an analysis of why this offer of asylum was meaningless as proof Saddam had anything to do with bin Laden. Would you care to actually address any of those arguments?
And in turn, this reminds me of the great philosopher - I forget his name - who once said “Nyah nyah nyah, I’m not listening to you, nyah nyah nyah.”
On the other hand, using a remark to mock some purportedly uninvolved person or persons when it is clearly directed as an insult against posters in this Forum is considered a pretty sloppy–but still very real–violation against the rule prohibiting personal insults in Great Debates.
You would be well advised to refrain from repeating this action. . . .
[ /Moderating ]
You would be well advised to refrain from repeating this action. . .
particularly as you have failed to even respond to the numerous factually supported criticisms of your initial remarks, much less provided anything resembling a refutation of those criticisms or support for your initial observation.
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got? No real argument on how this offer of asylum justified an invasion? Anything?