It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton: I Would Have Attacked Bin Laden.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I don't know who's more insane... Bill Clinton, or his chronies here on ATS voicing their support for him. As if the simultaneous bombings of United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the first attack on the World Trade Center (which Clinton never bothered to visit afterwards), and numerous attacks on American interests in Saudi Arabia weren't enough... Clinton says he needed official confirmation of bin Laden's involvement in the Cole attack before taking him out! What a joke! We had plenty of justification to take him out well before the Cole attack, and Clinton never finished the job. Even when we had bin Laden in our crosshairs on several occasions. We've all seen the videos released of bin Laden taken by the Predator drones during the Clinton years. Why were they even conducting surveillance on the guy if they had no intentions of killing him? What a waste.

And to the guy who blaimed Clinton's lack of strength in the face of terror on Newt Gingrich and the Republicans- GIMME A BREAK! Now that's the definition of PASSING THE BUCK! Bill Clinton took an oath to protect the citizens of the United States of America. And no threat of impeachment or oral copulation in the oval office can void that responsibility.

Look... as much as it pains me to admit as a Conservative, Clinton did some good things while in office. But one thing that he completely blundered was his response to constant terror attacks by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network. Clinton was WEAK on terror, and I think it's a slap in the face of the family members of 3,000 people who were murdered on 9/11 for him to make the statement that he made in that article. We KNEW bin Laden was behind the Cole attack the moment it happened. The President of the United States does not need a signed confession from a terrorist mastermind before taking action to protect the American people. And for Clinton to ignore the countless justifications he already had for taking bin Laden out is just plain irresponsible political pandering. Thankfully, SOME of you aren't stupid enough to buy it.




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps


Bitter Political enemies, or partners in the Crimes of BCCI and Drug Running through Mena AK?

Good post twitchy. Of course the only way guys like Clinton and Reagan got to run for president was as Bush Sr's lapdogs. Amazing how anybody thinks otherwise. Mena, AK, as you mention, is where weapons were secretly manufactured under Clinton and run down to central america in return for crack coc aine which was sold to poor Americans in California and elsewhere to pay for the destabilization ops down south. Gary Webb's book "Dark Alliance" gives the details. Webb, of course, was "suicided" and had two bullet wounds in his head.

As for "Shill" Clinton, he'll always have to live with the 1994 deaths of more than one million Rwandan men, women and children, hacked to pieces with machetes. He knew it was going to happen (they all did) and did not help those people. This event bothers me more than our current Iraq war, frankly.

en.wikipedia.org...

This comment about Bin Laden is laughable. Clinton was content to get bj's in office while watching people die. He wouldn't have chased Osama, and even if he tried to, he'd get slapped down by his master, George Herbert Walker Bush.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by smallpeeps]


great post.

if we are such democracy pushers and humanist, why didn't we step foot there? (rwanda)
and these 'patriots' wonder why there is so much animosity from other nations. we breed hypocrisy and quickly bash anyone who dares to bring it up. wake up people.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   


To my knowledge, it is not beyond anything but a theory that Reagan's people arranged the hostage release for political gain. If there is proof to make it well known, please, give me a link. I hate having missing links!

Well "known" to researchers is what I meant. I can't recall which book I read this in but I will look for you TC.



Carter, Bush and Clinton are members of the same groups. They are working for the same masters. Reagan was no member, but he was controlled by them as they were heavy in his cabinet.

What do you mean "same groups"? Do you really think Carter didn't get played by Reagan and Bush? I read that Carter was a Mason, but it sure seems like the CIA and others were jacking him around, preventing him from doing much in office. I've always viewed his administration as a brief interruption in "the plan". Where can I read more if I'm wrong?


Myh little ol' opinion? If they wanted Osama, they'd have him right now. Osama may not know it, but he is very important to the continued building of the NWO.

Spot on. He's crucial to the plan, and that's why he's so "elusive".

Seriously, Osamas obviously the greatest commander the US has ever faced. He's far more successful at altering America than say, Ho Chi Minh or Stalin. Osama has utterly altered our nation and defeated our vaunted air defense (on 9/11) without reprisal. He attacks us without any supply lines and using our own equipment.

What makes him so dang successful? [duh...]



[edit on 16-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Bush is the only person I know that has let Bin Laden slip through our fingers more times than I can count.


I say back up the claim you just made that Bush allowed UBL to "slip through his fingers" more often than Clinton did or admit in front of all of us that you are nothing but a lying political hack that would rather concentrate on destroying a fellow countryman than fight the true enemy of terrorism.


And you actually use the words "deny ignorance" in your avatar. What hypocricy!


[edit on 8/16/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

centurion1211 said: I say back up the claim you just made that Bush allowed UBL to "slip through his fingers" more often than Clinton did or admit in front of all of us that you are nothing but a lying political hack.

Well, since we're happy to torture women and kids at Gitmo, why didn't we torture Osama's family and have them tell us where he was? Since your prez (Dubya) flew their arses out of the country a few years ago, right after 9/11, I'd say it's fair to ask that question.

Tie the royal Bin Ladens up from the rafters with duct tape (since torture's cool for Americans now) and they'll give up Osama. ...Or was torture not cool on 9/11 but it's okay now? Or is it only okay against women and kids but not against actual targets who may give up Bin Laden?


[edit on 16-8-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Not even a good try - using that tired, old tactic of trying to deflect the criticism by changing the subject.

That just tells people that they've nailed you good.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
This is another prime example of the Clintons doing what the do best -- Rewriting History.

Clinton had plenty of opportunities to kill bin Laden but never did it because he was too afraid of PC concerns.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
It looks like Bill has sold out, i think this statement confirms Hillary for 2008. She is really trying to appeal to the radical evangelicals and the war mongers. I hope she doesn't win the Democratic nomination, i think she is evil.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
You know it's not as if Bin Laden was a nice guy back in Clinton's Presidency. I don't think the world would have said "Hey you killed the wrong guy, Bin Laden didn't plan the Cole attack".

Presidents get to make the tough calls NOT pass on them like Clinton did and then hide behind "I didn't have enough facts to be certain". There would have been no major international incident if we had taken out Bin Laden.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
smallpeeps, There are some groups that these people belong to; the CFR, the Tri-lats, the Bilderbergers, etc. Except for Reagan, almost all of our presidents since Wilson have been a part of the Globalist agenda and have been members of these Globalist organizations. While Reagan was not a member, his cabinet was stacked with them, and he was shot when he tried to buck their agenda.

Clinton is very tied into the orgs, belonging to the most. Makes sense, as he was groomed at a young age for his mission.
Carter, a peanut farmer from Georgia, came from nowhere to become president...anyone ever wondered about that? Come on!
GHW Bush, CFR, CIA spy, his job in Vietnam was to insure tha tthe opiate pipeline was not blocked by the war.
Shrub, while the only group he is a member of is the Skull and Bones, he is in the company of a lot of bad, Globalist people, and even if he has had a change of heart after becoming a Christian, he probably doesn't have the courage to throw his life down for the country by standing in the Globalists' way. If he does that, he will certainly be killed.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Well, let's look at the facts. Before 9/11, how many attempts were there to kill Osama? One that I know of, and it happened under Clinton, not W. When it did happen, everyone called it a charade to distract america from it's real threat, which was of course oral sex and novel uses of cigars. Actually, when I think of when I first heard the name Osama Bin Ladin, it was under Clinton's watch- not one time before 9/11 do I remember hearing W. publically mention Bin Ladin.

And also, just what is the deal with Republicans and delayed responsibility? Economic prosperity under Clinton? "Oh, no.. that's all Reagan's doing! Clinton just inherited his legacy..." 9/11? "Oh, no... that's all Clinton's doing! Bush just inherited his legacy...."

Quit whining and accept that responsibility comes with the post. Sure, Clinton could have done more to get Osama, but Bush did even less!

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Also, don't forget, the Clinton administration foiled a plot by Bin Laden to crash airliners into buildings, (see Project Bojinka). Something the Bush administration was unable to stop. I'm no Clinton fanboy, and personally I think he is a jerk (but was a good president). I have no qualms blaming him, when he needs to be blamed, but partisan one-uppance really serves no purpose. Other than to make you feel warm and fuzzy about supporting someone. If you need that kind of affirmation, I think deep down you know you are wrong.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofEx-president Bill Clinton now says he would have taken out Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks – if only the FBI and CIA had been able to prove the al-Qaida mastermind was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole.


ONLY IF he knew the polls would have supported him in it. He had the opportunity and if he had not gutted the HumanINTEL so damn bad he might have had the supposed smoking gun.

He himself admitted he was a threat but Clinton did not have the balls to say enough is enough.

BUSH does, but in Clinton's defense, if 911 would have happened, he to would have went to war...maybe not Iraq but Afghanistan for sure, then Iraq or some other would have fell on his successors just as it did Bush.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

as posted by curme
Also, don't forget, the Clinton administration foiled a plot by Bin Laden to crash airliners into buildings, (see Project Bojinka).

Curme, I beg to differ here.

Project/Operation Bojinka was not prevented by the Clinton Administration. It was thwarted/exposed/foiled by the Philippine government, in 1995. Of further interest to you and others?
U.S. was warned of bin Laden threat in 1996, documents show


The attack on the U.S. Navy destroyer Cole in October 2000 was also linked to Al Qaeda.


The object lesson of Project/Operation Bojinka was that the Clinton administration, along with the FBI and CIA, now had expressed warning that Islamic fundamentalists/terrorist were planning to use commercial airliners to hit major civilian and government sites as early as 1993.

Bin Laden's fatwa or declaration of war was issued in 1998.







seekerof

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofProject/Operation Bojinka was not prevented by the Clinton Administration. It was thwarted/exposed/foiled by the Philippine government, in 1995.


We were damn lucky that we did not rely on our INTEL agencies at that time or it probably would have worked. Clinton should be ashamed for what he did to precisely the agencies the Tulipwalkers claim dropped the ball. Oh yea and that POS senator from Vermont (was it?)





Originally posted by SeekerofBin Laden's fatwa or declaration of war was issued in 1998.



Now how could that be? I though Bush gave him orders? Would he have done that while Governor of Texas then?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Has anyone pointed out that Clinton works for Bush now?


They're quite friendly together. Remind me of the Bobsey twins.

Mr Clinton was too diplomatic to have taken anyone out without justifiable cause. He was a great leader, one of the greatest in my lifetime. As he said, he couldnt get the proof. Thats good enough for me. Leave him alone, he suffered greatly with that vast right wing conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe. He was a great leader, one of the greatest in my lifetime.


And you know whats funny?

You believe it!




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
errrr, yes i do. I'm glad i gave you a chuckle before your bedtime, Ed


He only hurt himself and his family due to his little problem
He never hurt me. This country thrived with him.
By the way, i think its also unAmerican to speak ill of past presidents? Mr Clinton gets his fair share of bashing here...Its so un-patriotic.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
On a more serious, and far more real level than any of you partisan freaks in this thread have been so far...

I'm almost certain this is proof Nancy has a chin implant.



That just doesn't look real to me.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Wow.

That is one protruding chin. Never seen it from that angle.
Reminds me of the witch's chin from the Wizard of Oz., not that I am insinuating that Mrs. Reagan was a witch--far from it.







seekerof

[edit on 16-8-2005 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join