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.

 

Bill Clinton: I Got Closer To Killing bin Laden

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
HEY BILL - 'Close' to killing someone does't count. You still didn't get him. Bush let him get away at Tora Bora .. but you let him get away too. Don't even try to say that you didn't mess up 'as badly'. You both screwed up.



If you were actually paying attention you would've seen that Clinton himself admitted that he had tried and failed to get Bin Laden.... which is more than I can say for Bush-- when was the last time he apologized for anything or admitted he was wrong?




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Wrong wingers simply become incoherant and irrational just at the thought of Bill Clinton... if it weren't so pathetic it would be funny.

YOU GO BILL!!!



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
If you were actually paying attention ....


I did. And as I said .. It doesn't matter that he 'tried'. He failed. So did Bush. They both failed.


Originally posted by grover
Wrong wingers simply become incoherant and irrational just at the thought of Bill Clinton... if it weren't so pathetic it would be funny.


Grow up.

Telling the truth that they BOTH FAILED is not incoherant and irrational. It's the truth.

Coming close ... trying and failing ... whatever. It's all FAILURE. The both failed.



[edit on 9/27/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It doesn't matter that he 'tried'. He failed. So did Bush. They both failed.

Generally, I agree with that... but in this case, it IS important that Clinton tried because it shows that he at least gave the orders to capture Osama... Bush basicaslly ignored him right up until 9/11. I agree that in the bigger scheme of things, it doesn't matter that Clinton tried because he failed. But in pertaining to this interview and in pertaining to the right-wing attacks, it's extremely important that Clinton actually got off his butt and tried...

BTW, although both failed... what's Bush's excuse? Clinton had both of his hands tied behind his back by the CIA and FBI and the political atmosphere was far different then as compared to post-9/11 when Bush theoretically should have every possible resource at his disposable in this supposed "World War Three."



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Update..Update...Update

A lot has been made of President Clinton's claim that he left a viable plan for dealing with bin-Laden, al-Qaeda and Pakistan. President Bush and Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice both stated categorically that that claim was false and basically called Clinton a liar. Now comes word that what Clinton said was true after all.

I posted the full details in the War on Terror board. Link



...just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects." This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.


So maybe Bush and Rice et al, have thier heads buried somewhere they should not be and are just too arogant to admit they were wrong.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Hey flyersfan since when is pointing out the obsession the hard right has had about Clinton and the stupidity of it all mean I have to grow up? Those of us on the left have far greater reasons for our dislike for Bush etc. than you guys ever had about Clinton. Try lying our way into an unneccessary and unprovoked war for starters, and then lying about the lying and the blaming of others for their own incompetance. Say what you will about Clinton he is a far smarter man that bush ever will be.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Iconoclast

Originally posted by Shar
The invasion is in the 9-11 commission report. Once again i believe people should read this.


I actually think YOU should read it and try to comprehend what you are reading. What you suggest is in the report is a fabrication. You have quoted it multiple times and each and every time has been a fradulent interpretation of what is in the report itself.




Any President in the United States who dosn't take a DECLARATION OF WAR serious has got a major problem. We were at war!!!


Where is this Declaration of War you speak of? There has been no Declaration of War. We are NOT at war. Let me guess, you read that in the 911 Commission Report too? It just keeps getting better and better!!!



[edit on 27-9-2006 by The Iconoclast]

[edit on 27-9-2006 by The Iconoclast]



You are so embarrassing yourself. All I can say is read it. You have not done that. Shame on you for continue to argue something you have not even read. When you do read, you will see its in there black and white. Not once but twice.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Hey flyersfan since when is pointing out the obsession the hard right has had about Clinton and the stupidity of it all mean I have to grow up?


Saying that the guy failed isn't an obsession. Saying that the guy failed isn't stupidity. It's the truth.

If I was obsessed with Clinton I would not have said THEY BOTH failed. I would have had a hissy fit just about Clinton... not both of them.

So you didn't point out an obsession .. and you failed to point out stupidity becasue it wasn't there. You wanted it to be there. That tells me you should grow up.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
although both failed... what's Bush's excuse?


I didn't make an excuse for Bush. Did you see one? NO! I said ... and read this carefully .. THEY BOTH FAILED . It doesn't matter if one made a feeble attempt. It doesn't matter if both made feeble attempts. It wouldn't matter if one, or both, actually gave it a really big try(which they didn't).

Simply put .. they both failed miserably. Coming close doesn't mean a darn thing when UBL is still out running around. Supposedly we have the best resources in the world to track people like that .. and we can't (or won't) get him.

Bottom line - THEY FAILED

For them to point fingers at each other and say that they 'failed less worse' than the other is ... childish, stupid, immature, and not worthy of POTUS.

[edit on 9/27/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Flyers Fan is entirely correct with this assessment. I'm not sure what all this back and forth is proving. "Mine's bigger than your's".


I just don't get it....Now you all are on Flyers case because those of you on the left can never admit Clinton did anything wrong, when, in fact, he did more to shame the office of the president than anyone...to include NIXON!

The guy was too busy getting "hummers" under his desk to worry about UBL. He didn't get bin ladin, Bush hasn't got him either. One is just as bad as the other...

Just like Flyer said....BOTH HAVE FAILED! Stop all this childish behaviour!



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
I just don't get it....

Obviously not....

I'm not sure if I could say this any clearer than I did in my last post... but I'll try.

Bill Clinton failed. He failed in capturing Bin Laden. If you like, he was "wrong". I'm not some zealot here to defend his honor.... I'm not even a Democrat or a "liberal" (whatever that means).

But why doesn't it matter to you if one of them failed in trying and the other failed because he failed to do anything? That concerns me. It's well-known that the Bush Administration could not have cared less about the threat.... even after 9/11, Bush was quoted many times as not even caring where Bin Laden was or if we were to catch him. Then all of a sudden, he shows up in Bush's speeches again and once again, he's the big bad monster. Which is it? Why is it out-of-bounds to call out these kinds of inconsistencies?

[edit on 27-9-2006 by firebat]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
There is a difference in whether they tried or not.

On one side you have a President that failed to get OBL, but he had his hands tied by other offices. He also, had to defend himself from political attacks, and still had a plan to get him when the timing was better.

On the other side, you have a president that has the full cooperation of all levels of government, all offices and all branches of security. A ready made plan, and directives, and no political attacks - ohh ya, and he had OBL's family at his ranch when it all happened....

I simply see a difference in those two scenerio's.

However, what was then is then, and what is now is relevent. What is GW's move now? Staying in Iraq, a country that did nothing wrong to the US, was illegally invaded and have had their resources stolen, which has breed more terrorists... Or leaving Iraq and refocusing on the actual Terrorists that attacked NY?

I think we all know that Bush isn't leaving Iraq to look for OBL, maybe because he doesn't think about him all that much anymore.... which is exactly the difference I beleive people are trying to point out.

Clinton should have been impeached for lying. I don't care how good/bad/popular you are, as a sitting public servent to lie to those that pay his salery is unacceptable. But Clinton lied about getting a hummer - Bush has lied about so much more - and where is his impeachment? Why are those same people that claimed moral high ground when Clinton got cought in a lie and demanded he be impeached, quiet now?

It is just so sad, so many wonderful people in the States are being screwed over, some willingly. It is going to be a long time before the American experiment will be tried again.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Firebat, it's not out of bounds. Bush's management of this is exceptionally frustrating to me. All he's tried to do in the past, is, by words, try to render UBL irrevalent by saying it doesn't matter. To me, it does matter. I truely want this dude's head on a platter! I do not give Bush a pass. I do not agree however, he did nothing in the 8 months of his presidency b4 9-1-1.

I also do not believe that Clinton deserves a pass. For Christ's sake, he called those dudes and told them to get out b4 the missles were shot!

Bottom line, many mistakes were and have been made. The result, over 3K people died. IMHO, both men should be held accountable.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Firebat, it's not out of bounds. Bush's management of this is exceptionally frustrating to me. All he's tried to do in the past, is, by words, try to render UBL irrevalent by saying it doesn't matter. To me, it does matter. I truely want this dude's head on a platter! I do not give Bush a pass. I do not agree however, he did nothing in the 8 months of his presidency b4 9-1-1.

I also do not believe that Clinton deserves a pass. For Christ's sake, he called those dudes and told them to get out b4 the missles were shot!

Bottom line, many mistakes were and have been made. The result, over 3K people died. IMHO, both men should be held accountable.


I agree with everything you just said. Clinton does not deserve a pass... All I'm saying is, there are differences on WHY both of them failed and those differences are important enough for us to discuss. I'm not saying that Clinton was faultless at all. He's not blameless. But there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between trying and failing and not trying and failing. If you were to take a test and and refuse to take it, not even bothering to sign your name... you'd get a zero. But if you at least TRIED and took the test, wrote your name on the paper and answered some questions but still scored too low, you'd get an F. An F shows effort (even if minimal). A zero shows no effort whatsoever. Bush got a 'zero' for effort. And when our own president and his administration score a 'zero' on the subject of National Security, I'm sure as HELL going to speak out about it.

Waiting2awake summarized beautifully what I was trying to say.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by firebat]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
So if Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying about a hummer, what does Bush deserve for lying to get us into an unnecessary and unprovoked war in Iraq?



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
So if Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying about a hummer, what does Bush deserve for lying to get us into an unnecessary and unprovoked war in Iraq?


That's not even what's being discussed here.

The issue is over the hunt for Bin Laden, Bill Clinton's recent interview and both his and Bush's failure to capture Bin Laden.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by KnowItAll
I just don't get it....

Obviously not....

I'm not sure if I could say this any clearer than I did in my last post... but I'll try.

Bill Clinton failed. He failed in capturing Bin Laden. If you like, he was "wrong". I'm not some zealot here to defend his honor.... I'm not even a Democrat or a "liberal" (whatever that means).

But why doesn't it matter to you if one of them failed in trying and the other failed because he failed to do anything? That concerns me. It's well-known that the Bush Administration could not have cared less about the threat.... even after 9/11, Bush was quoted many times as not even caring where Bin Laden was or if we were to catch him. Then all of a sudden, he shows up in Bush's speeches again and once again, he's the big bad monster. Which is it? Why is it out-of-bounds to call out these kinds of inconsistencies?

[edit on 27-9-2006 by firebat]



There's nothing wrong with pointing out the inconsistencies in Bush's speeches. Ya know I can always tell when Bush or his Administration is trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes in their speeches,... they sneer (smirk ), they try to dis-arm the news people and public with their joking (chuckling ) during a speech BUT the Sneers/Smirks are always on their lips. Here's an example of what I'm trying to say;

anyone remember the gal in SC that told the police and news reporters that a black man stoled her car with her two young sons inside back in the 90's and found later that she lied,.. that she killed her own kids by letting her car roll into the lake ?
There was a profiler working that case and knew that she was lying because of her "facial expressions.

That's what I'm getting at. Because of Bush and his Administration's facial expressions (and their eye's remaining dead-cold ) when they do their speeches, it tells on them
, I can ALWAYS tell when they are lying by watching their face/lips/behavior,..... dead give away.

Oh yea, to answer the question of WHAT Bush was doing during those first 8 months in office before 9/11,............. Bush was busy taking vacations and trying to plan away to lead us into an attack on Iraq . Bush wasn't EVEN giving Bin Laden and his band of killers a first,second,or third thought during that time.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormrider
Update..Update...Update

A lot has been made of President Clinton's claim that he left a viable plan for dealing with bin-Laden, al-Qaeda and Pakistan. President Bush and Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice both stated categorically that that claim was false and basically called Clinton a liar. Now comes word that what Clinton said was true after all.

I posted the full details in the War on Terror board. Link



...just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects." This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.


So maybe Bush and Rice et al, have thier heads buried somewhere they should not be and are just too arogant to admit they were wrong.



Nice find, Stormrider



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar

Originally posted by nextguyinline

Originally posted by Shar
If Clinton was actually trying to warn the Afghanistan government of the comming missles, he would have done it through the normal diplomatic channels. Instead he sent someone to warn the Afghanistan army knowing full well that there were Bin Ladan sympathisers among them that would warn him of the coming attack.


What is a normal diplomatic channel? Telephone?
Why does sending a body(which is a personal gesture of great respect) instead of making a phone call, implicate the ex-president in warning his targets?

Regardless of that topic, the ex-president was ambushed, and anyone would be angry if it occured to them.


They're called embassadors, thats why they're there.


Was the ambassador there at the time? Ambassadors don't live in the countries their assigned.



That body which you say was a personal gesture let Bin Ladan go.


statement supported by evidence or emotion?




The ex-president ambushed by one reporter are you joking. Rumsfeld gets ambushed everytime he gets in front of a mic.


Doesn't make it acceptable.



Now I think everyone should read the whole 9-11 commission report before continue their responses and at least show yourself informed as to what your talking about...


I have read it. Correctly. Please don't presume to know anything that I do or don't do.



I think everyone should know that back in 1992 after Clinton invaded Somalia Bin Ladan Declared War on the United States. Did you know that?
Probably not. Given the fact that Clinton did not tell the American people.
Clinton should have came on the air right then and there and told the American people war had been declared.

To make matters worse Bin Ladan in an interview with ABC in 1998 once again declared war on the United States openly for the whole world to hear. Once again it got ignored by Clinton. He never came out and even acknowledged what Bin Ladan just declared.

Now I dont care what you say or how much you think Clinton was the greatest. Any President in the United States who dosn't take a DECLARATION OF WAR serious has got a major problem. We were at war!!!


Individuals cannot declare war. Only recognized nation states.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
i wasn't even talking about you flyerfan...i was referring in general about those here who are quick to go off about clintons failures and even quicker to disregard bushes.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join