Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30
  1. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #1  
    wonder how clinton and the armchair qb democrats feel about this?

    http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

    "President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year (2000).

    I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

    From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

    Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

    The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

    As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster"...

    ...Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the MOST SERIOUS FOREIGN POLICY FAILURES IN AMERICAN HISTORY...."



    this article says it all, folks. though a republican administration may be imperfect , it is still, BY FAR, better than having a dangerously tolerant, confused, and sanctimonious democratic party posturing around within the oval office during a time of terrorism.

    is this recent democratic bill for bin laden a little too late? could we have prevented 9/11 if the democrats had even the slightest clue what to stand for and had acted as if they had a set? mmm.. yep....methinks so
    Last edited by vw2002; 09/08/2006 at 10:27 AM.
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002 View Post
    wonder how clinton and the armchair qb democrats feel about this?


    "President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year (2000).

    I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

    From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

    Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

    The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

    As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster"

    http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

    interesting article, id say. very interesting.

    is this recent democratic bill for bin laden a little too late? could we have prevented 9/11 if the democrats had even the slightest clue what to stand for and had acted as if they had a set? mmm.. yep....methinks so
    The 9-11 Commission disagrees w/ this.


    Source: 9/11 Commission Report

    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 Ladin 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 Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.
  3. #3  
    Damn vw2002. Reality already smacked this lie down in another thread. hy do you want to start a brand new thread of myth?

  4. #4  
    The self-deception masquerading as smug and savvy omnicience around here is nothing more than ideology viewed through political rose-colored glasses and is pure petrefaction. Seems like lotsa folks are drinking the KoolAid.
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Damn vw2002. Reality already smacked this lie down in another thread. hy do you want to start a brand new thread of myth?

    Actually, to be fair to vw2002, this one was first. He/She did not see it before he/she posted the other, I think. Your post did make me laugh though.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Actually this one was first. He/She did not see it before he posted the other, I think.
    Ah, well either way. Perhaps he/she would like to rethink the posting of myth.

    It appears disney is.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #7  
    Truth is truth and only has one side, where as opinion has many sides.
  8. #8  
    Since we're reposting, I thought it'd be worth going over this again:
    Tom Kean speaking about the Clinton Administration in the New York Times: “The basic fact is that on a number of occasions, they thought they might have been able to get bin Laden, and on those occasions, the plug was pulled for various reasons.”

    The 9/11 Commission Report supports this.
  9. #9  
    I think that until 9/11 neither side (Clinton nor Bush) had a true sense of the threat from the Bin Laden camp.

    I'm no Clinton fan, but yabbering about this stuff (specifically the shoulda-coulda-woulda gone after Bin Laden) is like yabbering about Pearl Harbor before December 7, 1941.

    The only thing that matters is your post-9/11 behavior. I give everyone a hall pass for pre-9/11 obliviousness.

    What you did after 9/11 is a matter for another thread.
  10. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Since we're reposting, I thought it'd be worth going over this again:
    Tom Kean speaking about the Clinton Administration in the New York Times: “The basic fact is that on a number of occasions, they thought they might have been able to get bin Laden, and on those occasions, the plug was pulled for various reasons.”

    The 9/11 Commission Report supports this.


    care to comment on this fact, nrg or dat? im curious as to how you work this point into your idea on what is myth, what is truth, and what is being perceived through rose-colored glasses
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #11  
    vw I am glad you brought this subject up again.

    Did Bush's admin dismantle counter-terrorism in favor of the Military Industrial Complex's wet dreams?

    Mods, this is a press release so it can be posted in full w/ no worries of copyright infringement.

    9/11: Internal Government Documents Show How the Bush Administration Reduced Counterterrorism

    March 22, 2004

    Backgrounder: TRUTH & CONSEQUENCES, The Bush Administration and September 11
    Since September 11, President Bush and his supporters have repeatedly intimated that many of the President's political opponents are soft on terrorism. In his State of the Union address, the President declared: "We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us." In comments aimed at those who seek changes in the Patriot Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft said: "Your tactics only aid terrorists." One recent ad asserts, "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others."

    But the real story is far different, as the following internal Department of Justice (DoJ) documents obtained by the Center for American Progress demonstrate. The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce DoJ's anti-terrorist budget but also shift DoJ's mission in spirit to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in mission were just as critical as the budget changes, with Ashcroft, in effect, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents. And all of this while the Administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks.

    PRE-SEPTEMBER 11 - Reno Makes Counterterrorism DoJ's Top Priority

    5/8/98 – FBI Strategic Plan: Mission statement from internal FBI Strategic Plan dated 5/8/1998 in which the Tier One priority is counterterrorism. This document clearly proves that the FBI under the previous Administration was making counterterrorism its highest priority. As the document states "Foreign intelligence, terrorist, and criminal activities that directly threaten the national or economic security...To succeed we must develop and implement a proactive, nationally directed program."

    4/6/00 – DoJ Budget Goals Memo: Official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Janet Reno to department heads dated 4/6/2000 detailing how counterterrorism is her top priority for the Department of Justice. In the second paragraph, she states, "In the near term as well as the future, cybercrime and counterterrrorism are going to be the most challenging threats in the criminal justice area. Nowhere is the need for an up-to-date human and technical infrastructure more critical."

    PRE-SEPTEMBER 11 – Ashcroft Shifts Direction Away From Counterterrorism

    5/10/01 – Ashcroft New DoJ Budget Goals Memo: Official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Ashcroft dated 5/10/2001 (directly compares to the 4/6/2000 Reno memo). Out of 7 strategic goals described, not one mentions counterterrorism, a serious departure from Reno.

    8/9/01 – Internal Draft of New Ashcroft DoJ Strategic Plan: Internal draft dated 8/9/2001 of DoJ's plans to revamp the official DoJ Strategic Plan strategic in which Attorney General Ashcroft's new priorities for DoJ were highlighted in yellow (because of color constraints with PDF, the items with black boxes were the ones actually highlighted). As it says, highlighted items equal the specific goals of the new Attorney General. Specifically highlighted by Ashcroft are domestic violent crime and drug trafficking prevention. Item 1.3 entitled "Combat terrorist activities by developing maximum intelligence and investigative capability" is passed over. After September 11, Ashcroft quickly amended his plans for DoJ's reorganization. The final strategic mission, which was released in November looks starkly different than Ashcroft's pre-September 11 draft. (to see this reversal, you can compare "stragicplan.pdf" attached to this email with the final strategic mission that is found on the web at http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/strateg.../chapter2.pdf).

    Late August 2001 – Internal FBI FY2003 Budget Request to Ashcroft: Internal FBI FY03 budget request to DoJ dated roughly late August 2001 (FBI submits its request to DoJ, DoJ adjusts and sends a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which then puts it into the final budget). This is not FBI's total request - but only the areas where FBI is specifically requesting increases over the previous year's baseline. In this request, FBI specifically asks for, among other things, 54 translators to translate backlog of intelligence gathered (line 3 under Foreign Language Services, cost of $5.1 million), 248 counterterrorism agents and support staff (line 14 entitled CT field investigations, cost of $28 million), and 200 professional intelligence researchers (line 16, entitled Intelligence Production, at a cost of $20.8 million). FBI has repeatedly stated that it has a serious backlog of intelligence data it has gathered but simply does not have the staff to analyze or translate it into usable information.

    9/10/2001 – Official FY2003 Dept. of Justice Budget Request To White House: Official FY03 DoJ budget request from Attorney General Ashcroft to OMB Director Mitch Daniels, dated September 10, 2001. This document specifically highlights only the programs slated for above-baseline increases or below-baseline cuts. On page 29 of the PDF, Ashcroft outlines the programs he is trying to cut. Comparing this document to FBI's request to DoJ, it shows that Ashcroft ignored FBI's anti-terrorism requests (detailed in this internal FBI document). More specifically, this document shows that Ashcroft was planning to ignore the FBI's specific requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents and researchers, mentioned above. It additionally shows Ashcroft was trying to slash funding from counterterrorism and grants and other homeland defense programs before 9/11.

    POST-SEPTEMBER 11: Ashcroft Still Ignores FBI Counterterrorism Requests

    Post 9/11 – Budget Document Detailing OMB Rejection of FBI Counter-Terror Request: Internal document showing that FBI requested $1.499 billion for counterterrorism for the post-September 11 emergency supplemental but received just $530 million from the White House, despite serious counterterrorism needs.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=39039
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Since we're reposting, I thought it'd be worth going over this again:
    Tom Kean speaking about the Clinton Administration in the New York Times: “The basic fact is that on a number of occasions, they thought they might have been able to get bin Laden, and on those occasions, the plug was pulled for various reasons.”

    The 9/11 Commission Report supports this.
    Kinda like Tora Bora, August 6th, counter terror meetings not happening, etc.? Also please see my post above.

    Can you give me some examples of the plug being pulled? Not saying it did not happen, but facts are a friend to an argument?
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002 View Post
    care to comment on this fact, nrg or dat? im curious as to how you work this point into your idea on what is myth, what is truth, and what is being perceived through rose-colored glasses
    But Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said genre confusion would not be a problem for commission members, several of whom saw part of the miniseries last week.

    “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had,” Mr. Ben-Veniste said. “They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden,” when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had...


    Reality is simple really.

    And also please note:

    In 1998 the now-retired CIA head George Tenet called off a brave plan to abduct Al Qaida chief Osama bin Laden from an Afghan compound, fearing that it was too dangerous to implement according to a report into the September 11 terror attacks.

    Agents set a plan to kidnap bin Laden from a farm in Kandahar, and then transport him to New York or another place where he could be put on trial.

    But Tenet decided to halt the plan amid fears that very dangerous nad might harm many U.S. civilians.

    The plan was devised based on satellite imagery and intelligence about a walled compound called Tarnak Farms.

    “No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation,” the report said.

    “Working-level CIA officers were disappointed” when the plan was axed, it added.

    The U.S. agreed with the Afghan tribal leaders to raid the compound made up of concrete and mud-brick, near Kandahar Airport.

    After that and during the night, Afghan operatives would attack the building where they suspect Bin Laden slept.

    A lot of training has been made in 1997 and 1998 to carry out the plan, the commission reported.

    By 1998 the CIA was ready to introduce the plan to the White House and get the approval for the raid, and Mr Tenet briefed National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

    The plan was for bin Laden to be snatched by a group of Afghan operatives and handed to a group of tribal leaders in the desert outside Kandahar.

    The they would turn bin Laden over to another group of leaders who would then hand him over to the CIA.

    But unfortunately the plan was halted, and that for a number of reasons made by Tenet.

    The crack U.S. military Delta Force was uncomfortable with the fact of having Bin Laden in the hands of tribal leaders for so long, and Mr Berger was worried about the chances of securing a conviction against Bin Laden were he brought to justice.

    The justification that was made for halting this plan was that bin Laden’s loyalists might kidnap U.S. civilians in Afghanistan as a pay back.

    Even the CIA field officer in charge of the operation said the planning - while giving them a 40% chance of success – would not prevent a scenario where “we step back and keep our fingers crossed”.

    Referring to Mr Tenet, the commission said: “He alone had decided to ’turn off’ the operation.” By this time the opportunity to snatch bin Laden had started to shrink.

    “The tribals’ reported readiness to act diminished,” the report said.

    “And bin Laden’s security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.”


    People are getting tired of the neo-con-facists propaganda machine as evidenced by this weeks flop of "we're keeping you safe but your not safe yet".

  14. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    But Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said genre confusion would not be a problem for commission members, several of whom saw part of the miniseries last week.

    “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had,” Mr. Ben-Veniste said. “They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden,” when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had...


    Reality is simple really.

    And also please note:

    In 1998 the now-retired CIA head George Tenet called off a brave plan to abduct Al Qaida chief Osama bin Laden from an Afghan compound, fearing that it was too dangerous to implement according to a report into the September 11 terror attacks.

    Agents set a plan to kidnap bin Laden from a farm in Kandahar, and then transport him to New York or another place where he could be put on trial.

    But Tenet decided to halt the plan amid fears that very dangerous nad might harm many U.S. civilians.

    The plan was devised based on satellite imagery and intelligence about a walled compound called Tarnak Farms.

    “No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation,” the report said.

    “Working-level CIA officers were disappointed” when the plan was axed, it added.

    The U.S. agreed with the Afghan tribal leaders to raid the compound made up of concrete and mud-brick, near Kandahar Airport.

    After that and during the night, Afghan operatives would attack the building where they suspect Bin Laden slept.

    A lot of training has been made in 1997 and 1998 to carry out the plan, the commission reported.

    By 1998 the CIA was ready to introduce the plan to the White House and get the approval for the raid, and Mr Tenet briefed National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

    The plan was for bin Laden to be snatched by a group of Afghan operatives and handed to a group of tribal leaders in the desert outside Kandahar.

    The they would turn bin Laden over to another group of leaders who would then hand him over to the CIA.

    But unfortunately the plan was halted, and that for a number of reasons made by Tenet.

    The crack U.S. military Delta Force was uncomfortable with the fact of having Bin Laden in the hands of tribal leaders for so long, and Mr Berger was worried about the chances of securing a conviction against Bin Laden were he brought to justice.

    The justification that was made for halting this plan was that bin Laden’s loyalists might kidnap U.S. civilians in Afghanistan as a pay back.

    Even the CIA field officer in charge of the operation said the planning - while giving them a 40% chance of success – would not prevent a scenario where “we step back and keep our fingers crossed”.

    Referring to Mr Tenet, the commission said: “He alone had decided to ’turn off’ the operation.” By this time the opportunity to snatch bin Laden had started to shrink.

    “The tribals’ reported readiness to act diminished,” the report said.

    “And bin Laden’s security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.”


    People are getting tired of the neo-con-facists propaganda machine as evidenced by this weeks flop of "we're keeping you safe but your not safe yet".

    The failure to act STILL took place under the watch of the democrats. why didnt clinton meet with tenet to try to persuade or override his "so-called" green light? why didnt other democrats step up in their omniscience to tell tenet that bin laden was too dangerous to let go? i guess we`ll blame the neocon - fascist - racist - whatever-ists for that too, huh? its simple really. the point remains, no action was taken.
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002 View Post
    the point remains, no action was taken.
    How can you say nothing was done when the facts point to just the opposite?

    I ask you these simple questions:

    • "Who was in control of congress during the latter 90's?"
    • "Who was against some of the same measures that Bush has taken, simply because they were offered by Clinton back in 1996?"
    • "Who dismantled and ignored counter-terrorism?"


    Answer one and you will have your answer to the rest.
    Last edited by NRG; 09/08/2006 at 02:12 PM.
  16. #16  
    And, going off your title for this thread, what have the actions of the Bush Admin done for the metastasizing of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and terrorist actions worlwide in general?
    Last edited by daThomas; 09/08/2006 at 03:19 PM. Reason: edited to clarify "Bush" Admin.
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    And, going off your title for this thread, what have the actions of this Admin done for the metastasizing of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and terrorist actions worlwide in general?
    Wow, this could be a whole ball of wax some may not want to get into.
  18. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    And, going off your title for this thread, what have the actions of the Bush Admin done for the metastasizing of Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and terrorist actions worlwide in general?

    nice diversion attempt. but the fact remains, and you know it, that if bin laden was killed or apprehended during the clinton administration, 9/11 may never have happened. the fact remains that al qaeda strengthened itself through the clinton administration because nothing was done to go after them. that fact remains.

    Clinton identified terrorism as a threat, but neither the president nor his administration felt it was their main concern. POOR MOVE.

    whether or not tenet rendered him impotent in making such a decision to go after al qaeda, they failed to do the job.... and miserably so. under the democrat`s watch. period.
    Last edited by vw2002; 09/08/2006 at 06:18 PM.
  19. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    Wow, this could be a whole ball of wax some may not want to get into.
    nrg, the fact that al qaeda strengthened its network during your boy`s years is a whole ball of wax YOU dont want to get into.
  20. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    How can you say nothing was done when the facts point to just the opposite?

    I ask you these simple questions:

    • "Who was in control of congress during the latter 90's?"
    • "Who was against some of the same measures that Bush has taken, simply because they were offered by Clinton back in 1996?"
    • "Who dismantled and ignored counter-terrorism?"





    Answer one and you will have your answer to the rest.
    Clinton had been in office just 38 days when the World Trade Center in New York was bombed, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Three years later, the US barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were destroyed, killing 19 American soldiers. Other terror attacks would claim the lives of over 200 people, including 29 Americans following explosions at US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

    and what did clinton do to defend us? what did clinton and the democrats do proactively to secure us against terrorism when they knew al qaeda was gathering strength and executing as highlighted above? hmm?

    hey nrg, who`s idea was it to dismantle the CIA? answer THAT one.

    ill give you a hint. he took power in 1993, slashed the intelligence budget, and proceeded to show no interest in intelligence matters from then on, which could have led to a dismantled al qaeda. take your time. im patient.
    Last edited by vw2002; 09/08/2006 at 06:22 PM.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions