rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 285,302
- 158,314
- 2,615
Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.
Better off dead
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.
First none of this gibberish answered the questionSaddam dead - More than 3,000 Americans dead, more than 37,000 maimed for life. 100,000 Iraqis dead. Three trillion dollars.
Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.
The difference, Qaddafi actually attacked the US. Saddam didn't.
I'm sorry, what was your question again?
do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?
Now what did we do to kill Qaddafi and when was he a threat to America's national security?Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.
We supported Al queda in their drive to oust the Libyan leader.
As I remember when Reagan bombed him for attacking us the response from people like Dean was "shame shame".
Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.
Do you have a list of the innocents killed by drones?
Pretty impressive
And yet, Republicans still claim he is soft on terrorism
Pretty impressive
And yet, Republicans still claim he is soft on terrorism
Obama is tough on terrorists as well as any wives and children that happen to be around when he kills them all.
Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.
Better off dead
Have you noticed? That is the SAME EXACT list of al Qaeda leaders that Republicans "let go"? Starting with Bin Laden. Coincidence?
Really? Bubba Clinton is a Republican?
Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
Osama wasn't 'armed' so why is he dead? What intel could have been gathered? Oh yeah, Obama doesn't care about that.
Better off dead
Has anyone even seen any proof that he IS dead?
At least we saw Sadaam be taken to trial....and many actually got to see him hang for it. I can't believe there are NO pictures or anything out there to prove Osama is dead. I do believe he is, but why was NOTHING ever shown to us? And then the guy that lead us to him has been put in prison for it. Why hasn't Obama tried to help this guy??? No, he just throws him under the bus now that he did what we wanted. Do you think we'll get any help from anyone else again?
Dean do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?
Saddam dead - More than 3,000 Americans dead, more than 37,000 maimed for life. 100,000 Iraqis dead. Three trillion dollars.
Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.
The difference, Qaddafi actually attacked the US. Saddam didn't.
I'm sorry, what was your question again?
Have you noticed? That is the SAME EXACT list of al Qaeda leaders that Republicans "let go"? Starting with Bin Laden. Coincidence?
Really? Bubba Clinton is a Republican?
Pole Rider is a major NaziCon dumbass.
Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
From the list presented, Obama is a stone-cold Republican killer. I'm looking forward to the action figures and the major motion picture starring Stallone as Barack. I can already see the previews..."First there was Rambo. then the Expendables, but nothing came close to the Obaminator. Based on a true story. This film is rated PG-13"...
First none of this gibberish answered the questionDean do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?
Saddam dead - More than 3,000 Americans dead, more than 37,000 maimed for life. 100,000 Iraqis dead. Three trillion dollars.
Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.
The difference, Qaddafi actually attacked the US. Saddam didn't.
I'm sorry, what was your question again?
do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?
Now what did we do to kill Qaddafi and when was he a threat to America's national security?Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.
Really? Bubba Clinton is a Republican?
Pole Rider is a major NaziCon dumbass.
Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat yes early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.
FULL QUESTION
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
FULL ANSWER
Lets start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.
It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwas claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Ladens return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Ladens activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And wed been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didnt and thats how he wound up in Afghanistan.
Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. Its possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesnt matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. Its a fancy term for those "why didnt someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat yes early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.
First none of this gibberish answered the questionSaddam dead - More than 3,000 Americans dead, more than 37,000 maimed for life. 100,000 Iraqis dead. Three trillion dollars.
Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.
The difference, Qaddafi actually attacked the US. Saddam didn't.
I'm sorry, what was your question again?
do you think using drones is a safe way to fight a war?
Now what did we do to kill Qaddafi and when was he a threat to America's national security?Qaddafi dead - 0 Americans dead, 0 Americans wounded. A few million dollars.
Oh my God. Seriously?
OK, first, go find out about Pan Am Flight 103, then, once you have a little relevant material, come back and we can begin with "attacks on US Citizens".
These right wingers. What is wrong with them?