I _would_ bash Bush for this, but i'm not allowed.

[Starving_Artist]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Did it happen on his watch? Yes. If US troops had tracked down and caught bin Laden back in 2001 or 2002 when they should have, I’d have attributed that to Bush, even though his sole contribution would have been giving orders from afar.
[/quote]
Ah, intellectual dishonesty thy name be Firefly!

As part of your effort to show that Clinton “wasn’t exactly doing nothing” about terrorists, you first try to insert McVeigh as a terrorist despite the fact that you know perfectly well not one person in fifty on the street would name U.S. right-wing nutjobs (I’m surprised you didn’t try to include abortion clinic bombers too) when asked about Clinton’s record on terrorism.

Then, as part of your effort to show that Clinton “wasn’t exactly doing nothing” on terrorism (an assertion I’ve never made btw; he blustered some and bombed an aspirin factory), you claimed bald-facedly that Clinton “caught” McVeigh, when he did nothing of the kind. Then when this is outed as b.s., you attempt to attribute McVeigh’s capture to Clinton because it happened “on his watch”, and attempt to give this flimsy explanation weight by stating that Bush similarly would have gotten credit for capturing bin Laden.

Well, bucko, there’s a difference there, you see:

Bush sent troops after bin Laden; Clinton merely answered his phone and heard who the bomber was and that he’d been captured.

There is simply no way any reasonable person would contend that Clinton “caught” McVeigh.

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
When come back, bring cites.
[/quote]
See post #28 in this very thread, which includes cites to an inside account of the negotiations between Clinton and the Sudan regarding bin Laden’s fate, and a book detailing Clinton’s impotent actions regarding bin Laden with supportable, on-the-record, facts.

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
And to the extent that these opportunities occurred prior to the embassy bombings of 1998, include an explanation of why Clinton should have regarded him as a more serious threat then, than Bush did during the first eight months of 2001 when he’d already attacked two of our embassies and one of our naval vessels.
[/quote]
One wonders why is it that you exclude the embassy bombings and subsequent events in your assessment of Clinton’s record on terrorism? Were these bombings – with approximately two years left in Clinton’s administration – not sufficient provocation for action?

As Shodan has elucidated, Clinton gets a pass despite numerous and deadly attacks during his tenure, and Bush gets condemned for not taking action (based on what happened during Clinton’s tenure, no less).

:rolleyes:

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Ah, intellectual dishonesty thy name be Firefly!

As part of your effort to show that Clinton “wasn’t exactly doing nothing” about terrorists, you first try to insert McVeigh as a terrorist despite the fact that you know perfectly well not one person in fifty on the street would name U.S. right-wing nutjobs (I’m surprised you didn’t try to include abortion clinic bombers too) when asked about Clinton’s record on terrorism.
[/quote]

Plots by extreme local right wingers did continue. For some reason even recent captures of guys like that receive very little press.

Then, as part of your effort to show that Clinton “wasn’t exactly doing nothing” on terrorism (an assertion I’ve never made btw; he blustered some and bombed an aspirin factory), you claimed bald-facedly that Clinton “caught” McVeigh, when he did nothing of the kind. Then when this is outed as b.s., you attempt to attribute McVeigh’s capture to Clinton because it happened “on his watch”, and attempt to give this flimsy explanation weight by stating that Bush similarly would have gotten credit for capturing bin Laden.

Well, bucko, there’s a difference there, you see:

Bush sent troops after bin Laden; Clinton merely answered his phone and heard who the bomber was and that he’d been captured.

:rolleyes:

So then Clinton should have sent troops to Oklahoma?

There is simply no way any reasonable person would contend that Clinton “caught” McVeigh.

By that standard there is no reason to congratulate Bush for anything (and there is a related point there, I see no way to give credit to any effort were you are doing everything with credit (no taxes to beat the axis))

See post #28 in this very thread, which includes cites to an inside account of the negotiations between Clinton and the Sudan regarding bin Laden’s fate, and a book detailing Clinton’s impotent actions regarding bin Laden with supportable, on-the-record, facts.

Debunked already:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008

No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan – a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 – has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission “Staff Statement No. 5,” issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim:

Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Laden expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Laden back in their country at all.

One wonders why is it that you exclude the embassy bombings and subsequent events in your assessment of Clinton’s record on terrorism? Were these bombings – with approximately two years left in Clinton’s administration – not sufficient provocation for action?

Apparently not, Bush sat on his tush (did not send troops, as per your requirement of a president doing something) until after 9/11.

As Shodan has elucidated, Clinton gets a pass despite numerous and deadly attacks during his tenure, and Bush gets condemned for not taking action (based on what happened during Clinton’s tenure, no less).

No it is because the originators of the first attack to the WTC were captured and other big plots were stopped. And there is also the fact that points like “Clinton let Bin Laden go” are lies.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: back at ya.

[Starving_Artist]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]

So then Clinton should have sent troops to Oklahoma?
[/quote]
Come on, GIGO. You’re smarter than that. The point is that Bush took affirmative action to go after bin Laden; Clinton did nothing more than receive information that McVeigh was the bomber and that he’d been captured. Surely, you’re not so blinded by partisanship that you’re unable to make that distinction.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Debunked already:

<snip>

quote:

“Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.”

[/quote]

[bolding mine]

Debunked? Hardly!

Clinton is a liar. He was widely known to be a liar even prior to his taking office in '92. I used to listen to Limbaugh in those days and he was busting Clinton’s chops for lying almost daily. I recall in particular one occasion where some university professor who thought he was coming to Clinton’s aid was paraphrased to have said “Of course he can’t tell the truth…he’s running for President!”…meaning, of course, that frankness and honesty are self-defeating when you’re running for president (if your name is Bill Clinton, that is) and that it’s naive to expect him to behave otherwise.

So you’ll pardon me I’m sure if I take the word of such as Mansoor Ijaz and Richard Miniter over that of Bill Clinton and his henchmen. I’m sure Clinton would like nothing better than to get off the hook for letting bin Laden go…after all, it’s a much more serious indictment than a blow-job, and look at all the lying he did to try to get out of that.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Apparently not, Bush sat on his tush (did not send troops, as per your requirement of a president doing something) until after 9/11.
[/quote]
I see. So we’re back to Clinton getting a pass on not going after bin Laden while Bush gets condemned for not going after him virtually as soon as he took office.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
No it is because the originators of the first attack to the WTC were captured and other big plots were stopped.
[/quote]
Not quite! I can think of one plot in particular that was not stopped despite the fact that it was planned, prepared and trained for during Clinton’s administration.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
And there is also the fact that points like “Clinton let Bin Laden go” are lies.
[/quote]
Says you, my friend. In actual point of fact you don’t know this to be the case…and like I alluded to above, when it comes to truthfulness Clinton is rarely in the same room, so I’m sure you’ll excuse me if I don’t buy his alibi hook, line, and sinker.

[Dead_Badger]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I used to listen to Limbaugh in those days and he was busting Clinton’s chops for lying almost daily.
[/QUOTE]
This is without a doubt the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Bravo.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
As part of your effort to show that Clinton “wasn’t exactly doing nothing” about terrorists, you first try to insert McVeigh as a terrorist despite the fact that you know perfectly well not one person in fifty on the street would name U.S. right-wing nutjobs (I’m surprised you didn’t try to include abortion clinic bombers too) when asked about Clinton’s record on terrorism.
[/quote]
Was it, or was it not, an act of terrorism?

Then, as part of your effort to show that Clinton “wasn’t exactly doing nothing” on terrorism (an assertion I’ve never made btw; he blustered some and bombed an aspirin factory), you claimed bald-facedly that Clinton “caught” McVeigh, when he did nothing of the kind. Then when this is outed as b.s., you attempt to attribute McVeigh’s capture to Clinton because it happened “on his watch”, and attempt to give this flimsy explanation weight by stating that Bush similarly would have gotten credit for capturing bin Laden.

Well, bucko, there’s a difference there, you see:

Bush sent troops after bin Laden; Clinton merely answered his phone and heard who the bomber was and that he’d been captured.

There is simply no way any reasonable person would contend that Clinton “caught” McVeigh.

IYHO. It happened on his watch, McVeigh was caught, Clinton didn’t drop the ball.

See post #28 in this very thread, which includes cites to an inside account of the negotiations between Clinton and the Sudan regarding bin Laden’s fate, and a book detailing Clinton’s impotent actions regarding bin Laden with supportable, on-the-record, facts.

What GIGObuster said.

One wonders why is it that you exclude the embassy bombings and subsequent events in your assessment of Clinton’s record on terrorism? Were these bombings – with approximately two years left in Clinton’s administration – not sufficient provocation for action?

Does post #97 have some cybernetic fog around it, so that you can only read certain parts (which you’ver responded to) but not others?

As Shodan has elucidated, Clinton gets a pass despite numerous and deadly attacks during his tenure, and Bush gets condemned for not taking action (based on what happened during Clinton’s tenure, no less).

Pity about your reading problem:

@RTFirefly (post 97)

1996 Khobar Towers bombing: Iran was apparently behind this one, and the ringleaders are apparently there. I’m willing to concede that by the time he left office, four and a half years later, Clinton had failed to bring the ringleaders to justice.

@RTFirefly (post 70)

I was responding to the arguments presented by you and SA, which due to the fact that I was arguing that Clinton was less culpable than you suggested, and Bush more so, apparently got filtered through your brain as a claim that Clinton was blameless and It Was All Bush’s Fault.

But if you notice, I’ve also been asking questions. If we can agree on (a) what each President knew, or should have known, at various times, (b) what they actually did with that knowledge, and (c) at least try to get some semi-agreement on what opportunities they had to do more, and when, we might be able to have a real conversation.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]

Debunked? Hardly!
[/quote]

:rolleyes:

Clinton is a liar. He was widely known to be a liar even prior to his taking office in '92. I used to listen to Limbaugh in those days and he was busting Clinton’s chops for lying almost daily. I recall in particular one occasion where some university professor who thought he was coming to Clinton’s aid was paraphrased to have said “Of course he can’t tell the truth…he’s running for President!”…meaning, of course, that frankness and honesty are self-defeating when you’re running for president (if your name is Bill Clinton, that is) and that it’s naive to expect him to behave otherwise.

So you’ll pardon me I’m sure if I take the word of such as Mansoor Ijaz and Richard Miniter over that of Bill Clinton and his henchmen. I’m sure Clinton would like nothing better than to get off the hook for letting bin Laden go…after all, it’s a much more serious indictment than a blow-job, and look at all the lying he did to try to get out of that.

You really don’t pay any attention do you? The debunking came from the bipartisan 9/11 commission.

“No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan – a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 – has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission “Staff Statement No. 5,” issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim.”

Says you, my friend. In actual point of fact you don’t know this to be the case…and like I alluded to above, when it comes to truthfulness Clinton is rarely in the same room, so I’m sure you’ll excuse me if I don’t buy his alibi hook, line, and sinker.

As you have demonstrated to be inadecuate to read and learn, it is you who is swallowing something else from the right wing propaganda.

[Starving_Artist]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
It happened on his watch, McVeigh was caught, Clinton didn’t drop the ball.
[/QUOTE]
Can you say “damning with faint praise”? Yeah, I thought that you could.

Clinton never had the ball to begin with.

As I said before, there is no way any reasonable person would give credit to Clinton for McVeigh’s capture.

Really lame there, Firebug :rolleyes: !

[Starving_Artist]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
You really don’t pay any attention do you? The debunking came from the bipartisan 9/11 commission.

“No one involved in the 1996 negotiations apart from former officials of Sudan – a country that the U.S. State Department has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 – has verified the claim that Sudan offered bin Laden to the United States. In light of this lack of evidence, the 9-11 Commission “Staff Statement No. 5,” issued in March, rejected the Sudanese claim.”
As you have demonstrated to be inadecuate to read and learn, it is you who is swallowing something else from the right wing propaganda.
[/QUOTE]
Au contraire! I am not only “adecuate” to read and learn, I even anticipated your response.

Merely choosing to reject a claim is not the same as debunking it.

Surely you are capable of making this distinction.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Really lame there, Firebug :rolleyes: !
[/QUOTE]
What’s lame, my friend, is that you apparently haven’t had a thing to say in response to most of what I’ve said here, and then make a big deal over what little you can respond to.

[Starving_Artist]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
What’s lame, my friend, is that you apparently haven’t had a thing to say in response to most of what I’ve said here, and then make a big deal over what little you can respond to.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, there’s quite a bit regarding most of that post that I could take issue with, but as you can probably tell by my uncharacteristically brief responses, time is an issue today. I merely debunked the most obvious of your mistaken claims as it was the easiest to prove and would take the least amount of time. Since then, and contrary to your characterization of my “making a big deal” out of the McVeigh issue, I’ve simply been answering claims and comments that that debunking has generated.

Given that, you can well imagine how I’d be stuck here all day had I ventured into some of the other mistaken aspects of your post.

[gonzomax]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
A little harder to do what? Claim that Clinton was motivated entirely by a concern for terrorism?
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

Who in the fuck ever said Clinton was entirely motivated by terrorism. Look before you or I had a clue what it was about he was acting agressively toward enemies we did not know existed. It was a back burner item for everyone else.

[Starving_Artist]

RTFirefly, I believe I owe you an apology. In reading back over your more recent posts I see the quote from an earlier post wherein you do seem to be trying to find some sort of common agreement as to who knew what and when, and what they could have been expected to do about it, and that you seemed to be striving for a genuine conversation rather than a mere pissing contest.

I confess that I either completely overlooked that statement (or it just didn’t sink in), probably due to haste caused by my being pressed for time today.

I believe that you therefore deserved a more substantive and less insulting response than the one I gave you, and I do apologize to you for that.

[Starving_Artist]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Look before you or I had a clue what it was about he was acting agressively toward enemies we did not know existed.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe he was doing anything of the sort!

He was doing what he always did, which was to do as little as he could get by with while still being able to say he did something.

As Bush has found out, taking aggressive action pisses off a large segment of the population, and Clinton, political animal that he is, wanted no part of that. Much better to bomb pharmaceutical factories (who were given advance warning, as I understand it) and issue a lot of tough but meaningless words and let the next guy worry about the problem…because, you know, to do otherwise would be damaging in the polls and stuff.

[gonzomax]

Why would he do that. explain the motivation.He sent rockets into 3 count them 3 countries to attack terrorists before you even knew they existed. That is nothing. Pols were upset by his agression. That was as little as possible.Rockets now defined as friendly…You are hanging on to a rediculous premise with teeth and claws. Who was he trying to impress with his actions since at that time terrorism was a small part of political discourse. It would make him less popular.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Au contraire! I am not only “adecuate” to read and learn, I even anticipated your response.
[/quote]

That “anticipation” looked like tap dancing with concrete shoes. Amusing, but lame.

Merely choosing to reject a claim is not the same as debunking it.

http://www.answers.com/debunking&r=67

debunk ( ) tr.v. , -bunked , -bunking , -bunks . To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of

Surely you are capable of making this distinction.

I am, you are being shown here that you are not.

On top of that, you need to tell us were the 9/11 commission failed by not deeming credible the testimony coming from a country that was involved in terrorism, but I see now why guys like “curve ball” would be appealing to prop up intelligence that is shaky and ridiculous when it benefits your political view.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

The “evidence” to which Hannity referred is the 9-11 Commission report’s statement: “[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States.” But the report immediately continued: “Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.” Hannity, therefore, endorsed the claims of former officials of Sudan – a country that the U.S. Department of State has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 – rather than the testimony of Clinton administration officials and the findings of the 9-11 Commission.

Like Hannitty, you are really a dunderhead for siding with sponsors of terrorism that more likely were attempting to send us on a wild goose chase.

Looking at the 9/11 report: (PDF file)

staff_statement_5.pdf

These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of
controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to
the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We
have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Now gee, I wonder why we would not trust the info from Sudan? Could it be because Sudan considered the US an enemy?

Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference.
Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that
Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious,
Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and Bin
Ladin about whether they would take Bin Ladin. One was apparently interested. No
handover took place.

Under pressure to leave, Bin Ladin worked with the Sudanese government to procure safe
passage and possibly funding for his departure. In May 1996, Bin Ladin and his
associates leased an Ariana Airlines jet and traveled to Afghanistan, stopping to refuel in
the United Arab Emirates. Approximately two days after his departure, the Sudanese
informed the U.S. government that Bin Ladin had left. It is unclear whether any U.S.
officials considered whether or how to intercept Bin Ladin.

Nice channel you opened there Ijaz! The TV shows are 2 days too late and spoiled! (and what is with the UAEmirates appearing many times in connection with Bin Laden?)

That delay for the call in Sudan does not say reliable to me, guys like Mansoor Ijaz said that they were negotiating “seriously” for Osama’s capture, what actually did happen shows to me how wrong Ijaz was.

[RTFirefly]

SA: apology accepted, and I look forward to your more substantive response.

The Big Dog gets sandbagged by Chris Wallace, but it’s Wallace who gets sandblasted:

Wallace: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I have to say I was surprised, most of them wanted me to ask you this question. Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business when you were president? There’s a new book out, I suspect you may have already read, called The Looming Tower. And it talks about the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

Clinton: OK let’s just –

Wallace: May I just finish the question sir? And after the attack, the book says, that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is always 20/20 –

Clinton: No, let’s talk about it.

Wallace: But the question is, why didn’t you connect the dots and put him out of business?

Clinton: Let’s talk about it. I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right-wing conservative running their little pathway to 9/11, falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 commission report with three things asserted against me directly contradictory to the 9/11 commission report. And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who
now say I didn’t do enough claim that I was too obsessed with bin Laden.

All of President Bush’s neo-cons that I was too obsessed with bin Laden, they had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say I didn’t do enough, said
I did too much, the same people. They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.

OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms, Black Hawk Down, Somalia, there is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down or was paying any attention to it, or even knew al-Qaeda was a going concern in October 93.

Wallace: I understand.

Clinton: No, no, wait. Don’t tell me that – you asked me why didn’t I do more to bin Laden, there was not a living soul, all the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer. But you – secondly …

Wallace: .. bin Laden says, but it showed the weakness of the United States.

Clinton: Bin Laden may have said it – but it would have shown the weakness if we left right away. But he wasn’t involved in that, that’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Muhammad Aidid, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission; we had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or keep anybody out.

And:

Now, look what [Richard Clarke] said – read his book and read his factual assertions – not opinions, assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies, we probably nearly got bin Laden …

Wallace: But what …

Clinton: Now, wait a minute – wait, wait, wait. (CROSS TALK)

No, no – I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet that President (Bush) gave the medal of freedom to, and he said he did a good job setting up all these counter terrorism things. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

Now if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan – which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible. While I was there, they refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in in helicopters, refuel at night.

And:

Wallace: Do you think you did enough, sir?

Clinton: No, because I didn’t get him.

Wallace: Right.

Clinton: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clark[e], who got demoted.

I’d quote the whole thing, but the board has rules about that.