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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
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.


No, YOU are embarssing yourself. There is no declaration of war. Call to jihad is not a declaration of war. bin Laden has no authority, nor ability to make the call for jihad, so his comments in that regard are invalid. He can no more call for jihad than you or I can. Technically, the United States is only at war when the President and Congress agree that war is required and draft a formal declaration. That has not been done. We are not at war and have not been at war for some time. No officially recognized body has declared war against the United States in the past 10 years. NONE. There is no war. It is a figment of the imagination of those hawks who wish to make friends in the military industrial complex. So please, get over this "we're at war" garbage. We are no more at war in this political battle against terrorism than we were in the political battle against drugs. You cannot be at war when there is no declaration and no state to engage. This is an ideological battle, and you cannot have a declarable war against an ideology.




posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The US did not invade somilia, it disposed of a certain warlord, and well the events of black hawk down ensued. But it not do a invasion and take over the country, it was a peacekeeping force.

As to if clinton did not take the declation of war seriously, he did send some missiles to kill bin ladien. Which was one of the olny major things pre 9-11 that was done. Olny after 9/11 happened anyone do anything, the cole was not enough to slap anyone in charge into action.

If 8 months is not enough to do anything, you must be a very slow person. Should we measure things in years, decades, or centurys. If so then I blame the first republican president Abe Lincon, 150 years ago he olny interested in domestic issues and the civil war, he did not have a any anti terrorisum measures, or international policys preventing them.

Though... mabey alaxander the great's at fault for the discord in afganistan (olny 2 or so millinum ago) in his conquest of a good whole of the mediterianian and the middle east he did not establish a stable government in afganistan, he just wanted to concor, he did not even have any plan of succesors of him 'gasp' what scandel.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Actually Shar is kind of correct...Osama Bin Laden declared a fatwh against the United States saying that it was premissable to kill Americans where they were found. Thing is, he it took upon himself to declare that Fatwh since it is only supposed to be pronounced by a major religious leader and he is not, nor ever has been a religious leader. So in reality his fatwh meant nothing to the average muslim.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Actually Shar is kind of correct...Osama Bin Laden declared a fatwh against the United States saying that it was premissable to kill Americans where they were found. Thing is, he it took upon himself to declare that Fatwh since it is only supposed to be pronounced by a major religious leader and he is not, nor ever has been a religious leader. So in reality his fatwh meant nothing to the average muslim.


No, she is not. A fatwa may not be issued by just anyone. bin Laden had no jurisdiction to issue a fatwa. His fatwa holds about as much weight as you or I issuing a law here in America or declaring war on another nation. bin Laden's fatwa did not meet the requirements of Islamic law. Usul al-fiqh dictates that:

* The fatwa is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Koranic verses and hadiths;
* It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
* It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
* It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.

To use a western expression, bin Laden was talking out his arse and had no authority to issue anything.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Did you even read what I wrote? We said the same thing.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
To say bin Laden was "talking out his ass" or speaking without authority when he issued the fatwa is not entirely correct. He had taken certain steps that placed him in a position (in both his own mind as well as any Islamists looking to him to establish the next Caliphate) that gave him authority to issue a fatwa.

He had established his own maglis al shura (Consultation Council) within Al-Qaeda.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it's not an "all or nothing" situation where you can claim he hadn't the authority over ALL Muslims and therefore couldn't issue a fatwa. He had the authority over all Muslims who considered him to be in the appropriate position. And they were the only ones that mattered to him.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Everybody click on the 9-11 commission report go to the declaration of war section. I believe its page 47. Now maybe you will shut-up. Its like you cant read!!! I think I have told you at least three times. I havn't counted. Go grow up already. Dude you lost its in there.


It would not be under a section all by itself called ' Declaration Of War ' if thats not what our own government is calling it.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
If you believe that Clinton truly tried then tell me why he called ahead of time and warned Bin Ladan that missles were on their way giving him and his party plenty of time to leave the area.

Why did Clinton say, "Nothing"?
Why did Clinton pre-warned Bin Ladan?


They were not pre-warned.

Not only is this true....


Originally posted by grimreaper797
do I need to quote it?



www.9-11commission.gov...
"Since the missle headed for afganistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan's army chief's of staff to assure him the missle were not coming from India. Officials in Washinton speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Laden." page 117(134 in PDF), paragraph 3, 4th sentence in.




But it was timed to where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was at dinner with the Pakistani official at the same time the missiles were airborn. In fact, his statement was basically "Sir, I need to inform you that U.S. missiles are currently in Pakistan's air space."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't care enough about the full story to research that particular comment to it's fullest before blathering it out.

But as to the second one...


Originally posted by Shar

If you believe that then why when the CIA called and said we have him, "What do you want us to do sir." "Nothing" Clinton said.


Since I can't find a single instance of the quote "Nothing" in the entire 911 Commission Report, I'm going to have to assume you're outright lying on that one...unless you can work up the energy to provide a page number instead of linking to the whole damned report.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
To say bin Laden was "talking out his ass" or speaking without authority when he issued the fatwa is not entirely correct. He had taken certain steps that placed him in a position (in both his own mind as well as any Islamists looking to him to establish the next Caliphate) that gave him authority to issue a fatwa.

He had established his own maglis al shura (Consultation Council) within Al-Qaeda.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it's not an "all or nothing" situation where you can claim he hadn't the authority over ALL Muslims and therefore couldn't issue a fatwa. He had the authority over all Muslims who considered him to be in the appropriate position. And they were the only ones that mattered to him.



Sure and Pat Robertson has his own little group of followers too. Doesn't mean anything when it comes to calling a "holy war". A group of several hundred fanatics is nothing when you are trying to paint a religion of a billion people with the same brush. bin Laden made a fatwa and a call to jihad. Big deal. The Michigan Militia called for a civil war in America. Same situation.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
Everybody click on the 9-11 commission report go to the declaration of war section. I believe its page 47. Now maybe you will shut-up. Its like you cant read!!! I think I have told you at least three times. I havn't counted. Go grow up already. Dude you lost its in there.


It would not be under a section all by itself called ' Declaration Of War ' if thats not what our own government is calling it.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Shar]


Reading comprehension is not a string suit of yours I see. If you bothered to read the text, which you obviously did not, you would have noticed that in the first paragraph, second sentence, it states, "A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Laden, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law." From the text, word-for-word. The fatwa and the call for jihad were invalid. bin Laden was hoping that someone would take his statement seriously, and consider it a fatwa of merit, but the fact of the matter it received no support. There was no "declaration of war to anyone but bin Laden and his small troupe of mercenaries. Suggesting that bin Laden's "declaration of war" had any bearing on the Islamic world or international matters is like saying Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez had any bearing on America's foreign policy. It would be a gross exaggeration of the facts.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll


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




Ok KnowItAll,
I'm a strong Democrat and I'm saying right here and now................

YES Bill Clinton did something wrong, he got caught with his pants down to his knees,......................... big whoopie deal and oh my gosh Bill tried to hide the truth,........... for shame
.

Give me a break !!!! At least he wasn't hurting anyone or anything but his own marriage, nobody got killed on his watch while he was getting a bj
and besides that his and Mrs. Clinton's personnal business, but hey, the way the Republican's behavior was over a "BJ" (most likely jealous that it wasn't them in Bill's place) you'd thought that Bill had killed 3000 US citizens on his watch and sent thousands more to their deaths in Iraq !!!!

Get a grip, everything that has happened since George Walker Bush took up residence in the White House is on the Bush Administration's heads and no one elses,.............. the sooner you Republicans except that fact, that better off you'll be in coming to grips with what YOUR MAN AND HIS CROONIES HAVE DONE TO OUR COUNTRY!



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I didn't suggest it. Its Black and White. If anyone suggested it ---The Government suggested it. It's under the heading. "Declaration of War" even.

Nanna of 6,

Clinton got caught with his pants down Big Whoopie deal. He wasn't hurting anyone. Nobody got hurt.

Big whoopie deal. When Clinton stood up in front of that podium and pointed his finger and raised his voice and said, " I did not have sexual relations with that woman, I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He had the world believing him. He only cost millions of dollars to us tax payers. He only obstructed justice. Since clinton was allowed to obstruct justice then lets let all prisoners our of their cells who obstructed justice. Cause later he says, "I did have sexual relations with that woman, I did have sexual relations with that woman."

clinton wasnt hurting anyone, oh ok 2 embassies got blew up, a us navy ship got blew up, the world trade center in 1993 got blew up. And you say, "Big whoopie deal. You have a lot of respect for those people dont you.


The meeting with the vice chairman of the joint chiefs and the pakistans army chief. I forgot thats how it is done. Yes Japans joint cheifs met with the US army and told him Pearl Harbor was going to get slammed. I don't think so.

Anyone, can believe anything they want. I'm not going to argue with you guys.

Everyone here knows for a fact if it was the reverse and President Bush had sent the joint chief of staff to meet with the Pakistans armies chief, it would be all over the bullentin boards.

If the 9-11 commission report had the title "Declaration of War" for President Bush era it would be written everywhere. "We were at war and President Bush turned his head. President Bush closed his eyes. President Bush didn't even tell us.

Lets see everyones fussing about the funeral President Bush passed up. A funeral I can see why but democrats is complaining about that. But Bin Ladan was having an interview with ABC right there in front of everyone and walked away. Walked away.

clinton was not innocent!!!

[edit on 28-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
clinton wasnt hurting anyone, oh ok 2 embassies got blew up, a us navy ship got blew up, the world trade center in 1993 got blew up. And you say, "Big whoopie deal. You have a lot of respect for those people dont you.

Please explain to me how it's Clinton's fault that the Cole "got blew up" or why it's his fault that the WTC "got blew up in" in 2003. Prove to me where he overlooked intelligence that would've prevented those attacks.

Bush, on the other hand, received plenty of wrnings prior to 9/11... and he did nothing.

Both have blame but one is far less deserving of it....



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
YES Bill Clinton did something wrong ...! At least he wasn't hurting anyone or anything but his own marriage, nobody got killed on his watch while he was getting a bj


www.newsmax.com...

hmmmm .... A certain asprin factory comes to mind... And the fact that when he'd get Monica to 'relieve his tensions' ,then a few hours later he'd go let a cruise missile fly. Guess with all that testosterone flowing he just HAD to go blow something up ... feeling all manly as he did.


And of course there is all that American technology over in China now, thanks to Billy. Technology that could (and probably will) be used against us in the future. time will tell on that.

Nope. Bill absolutely DID hurt people and people DID get killed on his watch. Does a certain Non-UN approved war in yugoslavia ring a bell? Some folks get so upset about the USA going into Iraq without UN 'approval' and yet they are okay with Clinton doing it in Yugoslavia.


And yes .. it was while he was getting bj'd

That doesn't matter. Fact is they both claim they tried ... but they both failed. And considering they are/were POTUS and they have/had the entire US government with all it's assets behind them ... it's PATHETIC that they both failed. For either one to point to the other and say they tried harder ... that's bull. They both failed miserably and both are total embarrassments in that regard and are acting like kindergardeners on the playground.



[edit on 9/28/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar
I didn't suggest it. Its Black and White. If anyone suggested it ---The Government suggested it. It's under the heading. "Declaration of War" even.

Nanna of 6,

Clinton got caught with his pants down Big Whoopie deal. He wasn't hurting anyone. Nobody got hurt.

Big whoopie deal. When Clinton stood up in front of that podium and pointed his finger and raised his voice and said, " I did not have sexual relations with that woman, I did not have sexual relations with that woman." He had the world believing him. He only cost millions of dollars to us tax payers. He only obstructed justice. Since clinton was allowed to obstruct justice then lets let all prisoners our of their cells who obstructed justice. Cause later he says, "I did have sexual relations with that woman, I did have sexual relations with that woman."


While Clinton's indiscretion and lie played a fair part in the extension of the whole fiasco - the whole fiasco and the millions of dollars of us tax payer funds to raise the big tent and have a three ring circus of one man's blow-job was the Republican's obsession and fault. This has nothing to do with the topic by the way. And as I recall, while Clinton was lobbing missiles in every direction he thought bin Laden might be in, those who were obsessing on his infidelity were accusing him of a Wag the Dog.



clinton wasnt hurting anyone, oh ok 2 embassies got blew up, a us navy ship got blew up, the world trade center in 1993 got blew up. And you say, "Big whoopie deal. You have a lot of respect for those people dont you.


First of all, the most respect you can pay a person whose life has been taken by an act of violence is to ensure you refer to that incident with the highest degree of honesty you can muster. Clinton didn't blow up any embassies, ships or buildings. He took daily briefings on terrorists threats and at the top of his "concern list" was al-Qaeda and bin Laden. If we're going to burn Clinton at the stake because of the number of American deaths that occurred during his administration, we're going to need a really really big bonfire to roast Bush's ass on, right?



The meeting with the vice chairman of the joint chiefs and the pakistans army chief. I forgot thats how it is done. Yes Japans joint cheifs met with the US army and told him Pearl Harbor was going to get slammed. I don't think so.


If you're not going to read the reply posts to your nonsensical statements, then let me know now. I've still got a slot open on my ignore list. There was no pre-warning on the missile attacks, there was a contemporaneous FYI to Pakistan after the attack had been initiated. Why? Because Pakistan and India are both nuclear nations in a bitter and extended territorial battle, and the U.S. state department didn't want to cause an incident between these two nations if one of the Tomahawks accidental landed in Pakistan instead of Afghanistan. They didn't want Pakistan thinking India had fired on them.



Anyone, can believe anything they want. I'm not going to argue with you guys.


Yeah, they can, but as for me, I'm going to stick with the historical record. And though that can change at any minute with new documentation released, it hasn't changed yet. I'm not going to believe a fairytale spun by you and whatever radio talk show host you're parroting here. I'll stick with the facts. The document you keep linking to - I think you should read it.



Everyone here knows for a fact if it was the reverse and President Bush had sent the joint chief of staff to meet with the Pakistans armies chief, it would be all over the bullentin boards.


You probably don't even want to go there, but as I've stated twice now, it was not a pre-warning, it was contemporaneous to the attack. You're the one hell-bent on making this a comparative argument between Clinton and Bush. There's quite a few of us here who are more than willing to just stick with the facts and give credit where credit is due, and apply blame where it needs to be applied. This isn't a Clinton vs Bush argument, it's a "was Clinton falsely accused" argument...and he was.



clinton was not innocent!!!


And this is what it apparently boils down to in your politically-biased mind. I don't believe anyone has stated Clinton was innocent, but I'll damned sure defend him against the charge currently being made against him that he didn't take the terrorist threat serious enough.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I'd like to throw my two cents in on this topic but I feel that before I do so I must state that I have no political alleigance to either party and more over I don't even feel that the Federal government is a constitutional one no matter who is in charge.

DO NOT TRY TO BAIT ME INTO PARTISAN BICKERING.

Having said that I'd like to say that this whole argument is worthless. If Clinton felt attacked then it's not because of some "vast right wing conspiracy", it's the fact that he agreed to go on FOX News. Let's be rational here, even if they don't admit it, FOX belongs to the republicans. Did Clinton really expect to have a fair and balanced interview on this network?

As far as Clinton doing more to kill Bin Laden than Bush I find that statement very unlikely. If you look at this with your logic goggles on you'll see that Bush has spent nearly his entire career as president engaged in a costly "War on Terror" that involves thousands upon thousands of ground troops and has been gaining no bit of populairty back home. However, when Clinton was president no one had ever heard of Bin Laden.

To say Clinton did more to try and kill Bin Laden than Bush has is akin to saying cultists have done more to try and destroy Tokyo than Godzilla. It's just stupid, Clinton shouldn't try and compare himself to Bush at all.

Now, what really frightens me is how adamant all the left leaning ATSers are in denouncing anything bad said about their beloved Clinton. As far as Presidents go Clinton was a pretty poor one, we haven't really had a great president for quite some time. But I can't stand people defending Clintons lies and obstructions regarding his sexual promiscuity.

All Clinton supporters seem to say "Getting a BJ in the oval office is no big deal". Then why did he feel the need to lie about it?

I'll tell you why, because it was a major breech of security, etiquette, and a good example of Clinton's thought process. Since the creation of government sexual secrets have been the number one tool for black mail and espionage. The president may be surrounded by a legion of secret service but his chunky hair flipping intern isn't. If Lewinski had access to the Oval Office, confidential files, or even just the president himself she was a major liability. Do you really think that the enemies of our nation would not sink to extortion, black mail, or even sending a new chunky intern to seduce the President of the most powerful country in the world?

The key to underhanded political actions is to exploit weakness. How can we consider our president to be untouchable if you can have complete control of him by getting some woman to show some skin?

I think it's attrocious to try and defend Clinton's actions on this subject

Get over it Slick Willie, you had your chance and you screwed it up, people are going to smear your name from now till the sun goes nova, welcome to politics.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   


DO NOT TRY TO BAIT ME INTO PARTISAN BICKERING.


Then why did you follow this ALL CAP statement with 4 paragraphs of partisan bickering?

By the way shadow, the argument of what who did the most, is pre 9/11, not post.

Everyone seriously needs to get off the party bandwagon. Start thinking for yourselves.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Maybe you don't know what "partisan bickering" means NextGuy, I think you missed this part right before the caps:




I must state that I have no political alleigance to either party and more over I don't even feel that the Federal government is a constitutional one no matter who is in charge.


As far as whether it's pre or post 9/11 that we're debating I think it would be stupid to consider one and not the other.

1)How would Clinton have done anything to kill Bin Laden after 9/11?
2)How would Bush have done anything to kill Bin Laden before he was in office??
3)If Clinton took Bin Laden as such a serious threat then why is it that we the people, the true targets of Bin Laden and his cronies, heard nothing about Al Qeada et al?
4)Bush has defined his career with the War on Terror.
5)Clinton hardly ever talked about "terrorists".
6)If Clinton felt so strongly about the threat posed by Al Qeada why was he not more vocal about Bush not doing enough? He seems more than eager to come on tv and clear his name 5 years after the fact?

9/11 WAS NOT A PARTISAN FAILURE, IT WAS A FAILURE ON THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AS A WHOLE.

ALL POLITICIANS ARE TO BLAME!



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I don't think that Clinton made any effort to get Bend Over Lauden. I think that Bill is just posturing sothat the Democrates look like they would be tough on terror.

on all terrorists.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Maybe you don't know what "partisan bickering" means NextGuy, I think you missed this part right before the caps:




I must state that I have no political alleigance to either party and more over I don't even feel that the Federal government is a constitutional one no matter who is in charge.


As far as whether it's pre or post 9/11 that we're debating I think it would be stupid to consider one and not the other.

1)How would Clinton have done anything to kill Bin Laden after 9/11?
2)How would Bush have done anything to kill Bin Laden before he was in office??
3)If Clinton took Bin Laden as such a serious threat then why is it that we the people, the true targets of Bin Laden and his cronies, heard nothing about Al Qeada et al?
4)Bush has defined his career with the War on Terror.
5)Clinton hardly ever talked about "terrorists".
6)If Clinton felt so strongly about the threat posed by Al Qeada why was he not more vocal about Bush not doing enough? He seems more than eager to come on tv and clear his name 5 years after the fact?

9/11 WAS NOT A PARTISAN FAILURE, IT WAS A FAILURE ON THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AS A WHOLE.

ALL POLITICIANS ARE TO BLAME!


I didn't miss that part shadow. I have this bad habit of reading entire posts. It's a pain and takes some time, but we all have our shortcomings. What your first line should have read was, 'I'm not affiliated with any party but the rest of my long post is going to be of a partisan bickering nature. Please don't partisan bicker back at me.'

1) Nothing. I said it was pre not post 9/11, so I don't understand the validity of this question.

2) Nothing. But he had 8 months in office prior to 9/11.

3) I didn't hear of al-queda, but I certainly heard of Bin Laden. Maybe your really young, maybe you had other interests to pay attention to.

4) I won't argue with about that. But that was only POST 9/11.

5) Because they all happened in far away places that the majority of Americans could of gave a hoot about. Presidents don't talk about what the Americans want to hear, they talk about what they want Americans to hear.

6) How would Clinton know what the Bush admin was doing in regards to terrorism to make any comments let alone public ones? — Because there just happened to be a national mini-series placing ALL the blame on him, and the pundits and other party extremists are NOW really harping on it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join