Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2005, 08:39 AM   #1
u2sarajevo
moderately impressed
 
u2sarajevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Home of the thirteenth colony
Posts: 17,705
u2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond reputeu2sarajevo has a reputation beyond repute
Default hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Did Clinton miss shot at bin Laden?

By JEN McCAFFERY
THE ROANOKE TIMES


A 1979 Christiansburg High School graduate is at the center of a firestorm over whether the Clinton administration missed a chance to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network.

Mansoor Ijaz, now a New York City-based investment banker who traveled to Sudan more than a half dozen times in the mid-1990s, says he repeatedly relayed offers from the Sudanese government to the Clinton White House to share intelligence on bin Laden. In one case, the president of Sudan offered to arrest and extradite bin Laden and turn over information about global terrorist networks, Ijaz says.

The Clinton administration declined to take him up on the offer, Ijaz has argued in a Los Angeles Times commentary, in the pages of the January issue of the magazine Vanity Fair, and on national television shows.
Full article here
__________________
u2sarajevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-13-2005, 06:46 PM   #2
reeds
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,811
reeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these parts
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

maybe so..but how many has Bush missed??? times that number by 50 at least..and he still hasnt gotten the guy...
__________________
Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed."
reeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2005, 06:51 PM   #3
mavsman55
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,431
mavsman55 has a spectacular aura aboutmavsman55 has a spectacular aura aboutmavsman55 has a spectacular aura about
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Quote:
Originally posted by: reeds
maybe so..but how many has Bush missed??? times that number by 50 at least..and he still hasnt gotten the guy...
Prove it. Why is it Bush's fault?

Bush at least pursued him. Clinton did nothing.
mavsman55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2005, 08:54 PM   #4
Drbio
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 40,924
Drbio is an unknown quantity at this point
Default RE: hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

The best that the libidiots can do is just whine about Bush. It all started with Clintoon.
Drbio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2005, 09:39 PM   #5
reeds
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,811
reeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these parts
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

"Bush at least pursued him. Clinton did nothing."


???? Are you serious?? Bush was told before 9/11..he didnt pursue him until he had to, after 3000 people died...

By JoAnne Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President Bush (news - web sites) until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The memo dated Jan. 25, 2001 -- five days after Bush took office -- was an essential feature of last year's hearings into intelligence failures before the attacks on New York and Washington. A copy of the document was posted on the National Security Archive Web site on Thursday.

The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), had been described during the hearings but its full contents had not been disclosed.

Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton administration, had requested an immediate meeting of top national security officials as soon as possible after Bush took office to discuss combating al Qaeda. He described the network as a threat with broad reach.

"Al Qaeda affects centrally our policies on Pakistan, Afghanistan (news - web sites), Central Asia, North Africa and the GCC (Gulf Arab states). Leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia see al Qaeda as a direct threat to them," Clarke wrote.

"The strength of the network of organizations limits the scope of support friendly Arab regimes can give to a range of U.S. policies, including Iraq (news - web sites) policy and the (Israeli-Palestinian) Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses."

The memo also warned of overestimating the stability of moderate regional allies threatened by al Qaeda.

It recommended that the new administration urgently discuss the al Qaeda network, including the magnitude of the threat it posed and strategy for dealing with it.

The document was declassified on April 7, 2004, one day before Rice's testimony before the Sept. 11 commission. It was released recently by the National Security Council to the National Security Archive -- a private library of declassified U.S. documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The meeting on al Qaeda requested by Clarke did not take place until Sept. 4, 2001.



__________________
Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed."
reeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2005, 10:22 PM   #6
capitalcity
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hippie Hollow
Posts: 3,128
capitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant future
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Clinton did do something...

His answer to islamofacist terror - a truly half-assed attempt at a speedy resolution. He fired cruise missles at al-qaida training camps in Afghanistan following the embassy attacks in 1998. The outcome of this futile operation? Well it obviously didn't eliminate Bin Laden, cause his band of merry men were back at it in the summer of 2000 bombing the uss cole.

One can make the case that Clinton's actions speed up the timetable on the 9/11 al-qaida attacks.

Of course Bin Laden lusted after the terror-drama of jihad within US borders - but whose to say that he wouldn't have continued his campaign against militarized US targets abroad (for years) before attempting such a bold move. (Remember the initial plan involved 10 planes against targets in LA, SF, Chicago, NY, and DC)

For whatever reason the attack was scaled down and moved forward. Might this be because of Clinton's ineptitude? Was al-qaida mobilized in response to the (failed) cruise missle attack? Did this actually fuel his fire or help him recruit more terrorists? PROBABLY.

Clinton sat on his hands while hundreds died. His eventual response - throwing rocks at the hornet's nest.

Thank God the man elected in 2000 would have the courage to take him on with ground forces as opposed to the guess work of assassination from hundreds of miles offshore.
__________________
Back up in your ass with the resurrection.
capitalcity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2005, 10:34 PM   #7
FishForLunch
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,011
FishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of light
Default RE: hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Clinton was busy getting his plumbing cleaned, you cant blame him for being distracted
FishForLunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2005, 10:36 PM   #8
Ninkobei
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Plano, Tx
Posts: 2,227
Ninkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant future
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Quote:
Originally posted by: reeds
maybe so..but how many has Bush missed??? times that number by 50 at least..and he still hasnt gotten the guy...
Congratulations, Reeds. You've manage to properly name something Bush missed, which came while Bush was still moving his furniture into the whitehouse. I believe you owe us 49 more. Start researchin
__________________
Ninkobei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 07:07 AM   #9
mavsman55
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,431
mavsman55 has a spectacular aura aboutmavsman55 has a spectacular aura aboutmavsman55 has a spectacular aura about
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Quote:
Originally posted by: reeds
"Bush at least pursued him. Clinton did nothing."


???? Are you serious?? Bush was told before 9/11..he didnt pursue him until he had to, after 3000 people died...

By JoAnne Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A newly released memo warned the White House at the start of the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a threat throughout the Islamic world, a warning that critics said went unheeded by President Bush (news - web sites) until the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The memo dated Jan. 25, 2001 -- five days after Bush took office -- was an essential feature of last year's hearings into intelligence failures before the attacks on New York and Washington. A copy of the document was posted on the National Security Archive Web site on Thursday.

The memo, from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), had been described during the hearings but its full contents had not been disclosed.

Clarke, a holdover from the Clinton administration, had requested an immediate meeting of top national security officials as soon as possible after Bush took office to discuss combating al Qaeda. He described the network as a threat with broad reach.

"Al Qaeda affects centrally our policies on Pakistan, Afghanistan (news - web sites), Central Asia, North Africa and the GCC (Gulf Arab states). Leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia see al Qaeda as a direct threat to them," Clarke wrote.

"The strength of the network of organizations limits the scope of support friendly Arab regimes can give to a range of U.S. policies, including Iraq (news - web sites) policy and the (Israeli-Palestinian) Peace Process. We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qaeda poses."

The memo also warned of overestimating the stability of moderate regional allies threatened by al Qaeda.

It recommended that the new administration urgently discuss the al Qaeda network, including the magnitude of the threat it posed and strategy for dealing with it.

The document was declassified on April 7, 2004, one day before Rice's testimony before the Sept. 11 commission. It was released recently by the National Security Council to the National Security Archive -- a private library of declassified U.S. documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The meeting on al Qaeda requested by Clarke did not take place until Sept. 4, 2001.
First of all, link? Second of all, If every minor threat was taken seriously by the president we wouldn't have any money or time left to stop attacks like 9/11.

How much do you want to bet that if we would have taken pre-emptive action to prevent 9-11 you liberals would be the first ones complaining about it?
mavsman55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 07:12 PM   #10
Dooby
Diamond Member
 
Dooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 5,832
Dooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really nice
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

I love it when people post things and miss the point altogether.

The truth is the Sudanese government did go to the Clinton whitehouse and offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden, where he was living while being protected/watched by the Sudanese government. He was living there at the time; he would eventually be expelled and would move to Afghanistan. This is a fact. It is in the 9/11 Commission Report. I have a copy, do you?

The Clinton administration turned the offer down. This is also a fact. It is in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Now, to be fair, why? Because the Clinton administration did not believe it had enough evidence to convict Bin Laden of the murder of US citizens in a US court. This is also a fact. It is in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Now, here is the real issue. The difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations, The real difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations, is the fact that the Bush administration made the policy determination that confronting terrorism is not a law enforcement matter. The issue is not convicting terrorists in court, but stopping them from commiting terrorists acts. That, in my mind, is what Kerry failed to understand in the 2004 election and if he had, I think he might of won.

So, if you want to, debate that issue: is confronting terrorism is a law enforcement matter, or is it more?

Thanks. Good night.
__________________
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell. – Thomas Fuller
Dooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 07:19 PM   #11
reeds
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,811
reeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these parts
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

"First of all, link? Second of all, If every minor threat was taken seriously by the president we wouldn't have any money or time left to stop attacks like 9/11."

MONEY- are you freakin serious?? 300billion so far on IRAQ and you are talking about money?? Money is NO object to the republicans.

"Clinton was busy getting his plumbing cleaned, you cant blame him for being distracted"

CLASSIC- the answer republicans always use when they know they are wrong...its as certain as death and taxes...thanks for supporting that fact with that brilliant response
__________________
Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed."
reeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 08:34 PM   #12
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default RE: hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Well he WAS busy getting his jollies in the white house.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 09:02 PM   #13
mercury_rev
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 672
mercury_rev will become famous soon enough
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Reeds, have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? Did you know that some (all?) of the hijacker pilots had set up camp on American soil - and most of the al-Qaeda middlemen had the attack plans from bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed - BEFORE Bush took office?

Even if we had acted against al-Qaeda in January 2001, there's a good chance 9/11 was already inevitable.

Have you read the pre-9/11 memos and Presidential Daily Briefings about al-Qaeda? They are so vague as not to be actionable. They indicated THAT there was a threat, but they could not indicate the precise nature of the threat because our intelligence sucked.

One could still argue that the Bush administration dragged its feet over the terrorist threat pre-9/11. Perhaps it could have moved faster to coordinate intelligence, etc. But if you argue that, you also have to admit that EIGHT YEARS of lousy intelligence, law-enforcement rather than military approaches, half-assed responses, Black Hawks downed, and President Clinton's utter lack of interest in Middle East foreign policy (other than Arafat) didn't make things any easier for the Bush administration. Remember the first WTC bombing in 1993? Al Qaeda learned that an attack that could have killed thousands of "infidels" would merely lead to the arrest of a few goons and blind cleric.

And I encourage you to consider Mavsman's question: how many of you on the Left would have screamed bloody murder if President Bush took preemptive action against Afghanistan pre-9/11?
mercury_rev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 09:09 PM   #14
mercury_rev
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 672
mercury_rev will become famous soon enough
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

One more thing: if President Bush took preemptive action against al-Qaeda and they went ahead with the preplanned WTC attacks, how many on the Left would commit a "post hoc" logical fallacy and scream that the attacks happened BECAUSE OF the preemptive action?

Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
mercury_rev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 10:00 PM   #15
FishForLunch
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,011
FishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of lightFishForLunch is a glorious beacon of light
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Like a Ostrich with its head in the sand. It must be Bush's Fault
FishForLunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 11:03 PM   #16
Drbio
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 40,924
Drbio is an unknown quantity at this point
Default RE: hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

I think you are giving reeds too much credit by asking him if he has ever read anything.
Drbio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 11:30 PM   #17
Dooby
Diamond Member
 
Dooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 5,832
Dooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really niceDooby is just really nice
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Quote:
Originally posted by: reeds
"First of all, link? Second of all, If every minor threat was taken seriously by the president we wouldn't have any money or time left to stop attacks like 9/11."

MONEY- are you freakin serious?? 300billion so far on IRAQ and you are talking about money?? Money is NO object to the republicans.

"Clinton was busy getting his plumbing cleaned, you cant blame him for being distracted"

CLASSIC- the answer republicans always use when they know they are wrong...its as certain as death and taxes...thanks for supporting that fact with that brilliant response
Are you talking to me? If so, are you serious? A lot of folks on here talk out of their ass, but I thought by now most people had figured out I wasn't one of them.

I could be a dick and say, "Look Here." But see pages 62, 63, 110, 480.

"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding." Page 110.

I could have been a real dick and omitted that second sentence, but that would have been unfair. I will say that the passage is not as I recall reading it the first time, but ces la vis. Although I would argue that the third and fourth sentences are arguably contradictory with the second. And what is stated on page 480 is arguably contradictory as well. Regardless, the fourth sentence of that paragraph highlights the specific difference betweent he administrations that I identified.
__________________
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell. – Thomas Fuller
Dooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005, 11:47 PM   #18
reeds
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,811
reeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these partsreeds is infamous around these parts
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

actually- the first sentence was a reply to Mavsman...the 2nd was a reply to Fish...

wow..mighty freaking testy arent we
__________________
Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed."
reeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 07:02 AM   #19
mavsman55
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,431
mavsman55 has a spectacular aura aboutmavsman55 has a spectacular aura aboutmavsman55 has a spectacular aura about
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

I'm still waiting for an answer. If pre-emptive action would have been taken, you'd be the first one whining about racial profiling and unfairness.
mavsman55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.