Bill Clinton coulda had Bin Laden

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Lost in the shuffle over the prison scandal was the 9-11 hearings which are still ongoing and wow, guess what? Bill Clinton had "multiple opportunities" to get Bin Laden as late as 2000 and sat on evidence that linked him to the Mogadishu street fight with the Rangers in 1993.

 

Go try to blame Bush for 9-11 but as the planning for 9-11 neared completion during the last year of the Clinton Administration the whole thing could have been stopped and it didn't happen for some inexplicable reason.

 

Maybe he didn't feel like it?

[Cerbaho-WG]

Things not going well for Bush in Iraq, what do you do?

 

Bring up Clinton.

 

Nice try.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Things not going well for Bush in Iraq, what do you do?

 

Bring up Clinton.

 

Nice try.

Since this obviously the only thread you read recently I have already made some posts regarding the stuff that's dogging Bush lately.

 

 

Nice try.

[Texsox]

Who has Bush stopped who may be planning a crime in 2007? Everyone I hope.

 

Clinton's biggest fault in all this was not keeping his dick in his pants. If he went after Bin Laden all the GOP mouthpieces, lead by Rush, would have been screaming tail wagging the dog. His weakness put him in a position where he couldn't be effective.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Who has Bush stopped who may be planning a crime in 2007? Everyone I hope.

 

Clinton's biggest fault in all this was not keeping his dick in his pants. If he went after Bin Laden all the GOP mouthpieces, lead by Rush, would have been screaming tail wagging the dog. His weakness put him in a position where he couldn't be effective.

So he did nothing because people would have said bad things about him huh?

 

That looks really good ya know. I'll let terrorists run rampant cause if I try to stop them people will talk s***.

 

Please

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Who has Bush stopped who may be planning a crime in 2007? Everyone I hope.

 

Clinton's biggest fault in all this was not keeping his dick in his pants. If he went after Bin Laden all the GOP mouthpieces, lead by Rush, would have been screaming tail wagging the dog. His weakness put him in a position where he couldn't be effective.

Oh give me a break. Bin Laden isnt "just anyone". They knew he was a big name and they definitely dropped the ball on it. They blew it, they were given multiple chances to get him and didnt pursue it

[Texsox]

So he did nothing because people would have said bad things about him huh?

 

That looks really good ya know.  I'll let terrorists run rampant cause if I try to stop them people will talk s***.

 

Please

No, the US let Bin Laden go because there was no legal way to hold him. Do you think Clinton would have passed on an opportunity to make headlines? If you do, I think you give him too much credit.

 

But back to my point, has Bush stopped all terrorists from anything that can happen in 2006? Has he rounded up everyone who could be a problem?

 

Why aren't you ringing your hands over Bush Sr. not getting Sadaam? He had the chance.

 

And Nuke, is this the my guy sucks, but yours sucked worse argument? I was very unhappy with Clinton. Because of his extra marital affairs the GOP was able to tie his hands and basically he couldn't, and by extension, we couldn't, accomplish much his last two years.

 

And if Bin Laden was so obviously a threat why didn't the GOP Senators and Congressman make a bigger issue and demand we stop Bin Laden? They get briefings also. Where was the American public? Why wasn't there protests in the street saying we had to get him?

 

We are playing politics with a bigger issue. How to assure US safety when most of the world wants us harmed.

 

If you want to point out Clinton's shortcomings and problems, fire away. He's a very easy target. That doesn't make Bush better. That doesn't absolve all of our elected officials of blame for 9-11. Just like offering Rumsfeld as a sacrificial lamb absolves everyone else in the prisoner abuse.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

No, the US let Bin Laden go because there was no legal way to hold him. Do you think Clinton would have passed on an opportunity to make headlines? If you do, I think you give him too much credit.

 

But back to my point, has Bush stopped all terrorists from anything that can happen in 2006?  Has he rounded up everyone who could be a problem?

 

Why aren't you ringing your hands over Bush Sr. not getting Sadaam? He had the chance.

 

And Nuke, is this the my guy sucks, but yours sucked worse argument? I was very unhappy with Clinton. Because of his extra marital affairs the GOP was able to tie his hands and basically he couldn't, and by extension, we couldn't, accomplish much his last two years.

 

And if Bin Laden was so obviously a threat why didn't the GOP Senators and Congressman make a bigger issue and demand we stop Bin Laden? They get briefings also. Where was the American public? Why wasn't there protests in the street saying we had to get him?

 

We are playing politics with a bigger issue. How to assure US safety when most of the world wants us harmed.

 

If you want to point out Clinton's shortcomings and problems, fire away. He's a very easy target. That doesn't make Bush better. That doesn't absolve all of our elected officials of blame for 9-11. Just like offering Rumsfeld as a sacrificial lamb absolves everyone else in the prisoner abuse.

No evidence to hold him!??!??!?! He had already been linked to the '93 Somalia deal, linked to the embassy bombings, the Kobhar Towers bombings etc etc. I'd say that makes him pretty damn dirty to me.

[Texsox]

No evidence to hold him!??!??!?!  He had already been linked to the '93 Somalia deal, linked to the embassy bombings, the Kobhar Towers bombings  etc etc.  I'd say that makes him pretty damn dirty to me.

Evidence? Where you replying to a different post? I said no legal way to hold him. You are correct, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence that he was involved in illegal ativities. Hindsighttells us we should have arrest Booth, Spec, Dahlmer, Oswald, etc.

 

Now look up jurisdiction and international law. Our government looked for ways to legally, constitutionally, and within International Law and failed to find a way to arrest him. All indications are our government knew he was dangerous and wanted to hold him. We cannot arrest and try cases in foregn lands.

 

And that was our government, or do you think Cinton kept this a secret from everyone and acted alone?

 

Again I ask you.

 

Where were the rest of our government officials in calling for Bin Laden's arrest?

Hint: They were either trying to impeach the guy for lying under oath, or they were trying to tell you why he shouldn't be impeached.

Who has Bush arrested that may plan something in 2007? Who should be arrested right now?

 

If we are going to play the Presidential blame game, since Bush knew what a scum bag threat Bin Laden was when he took office, why didn't he do something?

 

Nuke, keep looking for simple answers.

 

BTW, does every US soldier have to swear to uphold the GOP as well as the constitution?

[POTUSChris]

If we are going to play the Presidential blame game, since Bush knew what a scum bag threat Bin Laden was when he took office, why didn't he do something?

I know you two sort of have this little debate going on right now, but I really hope you don't mind me jumping in here. It's easy to play the presidential blame game now, but to be honest, looking at Iraq, I believe that if Bush or Clinton were to have tried to have done something to Bin Laden, it would have taken a very long time for it happen. The GOP would have been all over Clinton and the Democrats would have been all over Bush demanding more evidence that he was a huge threat to the US. And I just don't think that either president would have been able to do anything to him because the country would have been against it and it would have been a long battle. You may say to me that Bin Laden and Saddam are different, but honestly, how many people knew who Bin Laden was before 9/11?

[Texsox]

I know you two sort of have this little debate going on right now, but I really hope you don't mind me jumping in here.  It's easy to play the presidential blame game now, but to be honest, looking at Iraq, I believe that if Bush or Clinton were to have tried to have done something to Bin Laden, it would have taken a very long time for it happen.  The GOP would have been all over Clinton and the Democrats would have been all over Bush demanding more evidence that he was a huge threat to the US.  And I just don't think that either president would have been able to do anything to him because the country would have been against it and it would have been a long battle.  You may say to me that Bin Laden and Saddam are different, but honestly, how many people knew who Bin Laden was before 9/11?

Jump in anytime. The more the merrier.

 

When we as citizens begin making excuses for "our party" and try and place blame for "the other party" we are forgetting that we are all Americans and we need to demand that all of our elected officials act.

 

Nuke's President, and mine, President Clinton could have had him. Clinton decided against breaking International and US law. Perhaps Bush would have broken the law. Certainly Reagan did with the Contras.

[The Beast]

Who has Bush stopped who may be planning a crime in 2007? Everyone I hope.

 

Clinton's biggest fault in all this was not keeping his dick in his pants. If he went after Bin Laden all the GOP mouthpieces, lead by Rush, would have been screaming tail wagging the dog. His weakness put him in a position where he couldn't be effective.

I'd rather have a corrupt sexual harrassing president then thousands of people dead due to something that could have been stopped. Please. We live in a corrupt society of governmental states.

[southsider2k5]

I'd rather have a corrupt sexual harrassing president then thousands of people dead due to something that could have been stopped. Please. We live in a corrupt society of governmental states.

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-body.html

[kapkomet]

Not to "arm" some folks around here, but the same argument of "dead" can be listed as KIA in these "so-called wars". Blood is blood, mano.

[southsider2k5]

Lost in the shuffle over the prison scandal was the 9-11 hearings which are still ongoing and wow, guess what?  Bill Clinton had "multiple opportunities" to get Bin Laden as late as 2000 and sat on evidence that linked him to the Mogadishu street fight with the Rangers in 1993. 

 

Go try to blame Bush for 9-11 but as the planning for 9-11 neared completion during the last year of the Clinton Administration the whole thing could have been stopped and it didn't happen for some inexplicable reason.

 

Maybe he didn't feel like it?

Now see how easy this is to do. It is so easy to look back in hindsight and say "oh you missed this big time". No one is going to be perfect.