Quote from: John MorrowI think you may have a vary long wait.  I'm not even sure it's a given that she'll get the nomination, because she's taking hits from her base.



Not any more likely than leftist leaving when Bush was elected and re-elected.  In fact, a President Clinton would probably be the best thing that could happen for Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hanity since angry conservatives are more likely to buy their books and listen to their shows.



Then I'd welcome her to state her intents in this regard during the primary and, if she gets nominated, the general election.



Is that intentionally meant to be funny?

Actually it's completely true. After the original attack on the WTC Clinton quietly launched the most intense and effective anti-international terorism campaign of any U.S. president.

Now the republicans lied about it and said that clinton did nothing about terrorism when in fact he focusd on it more than any president before him.

He even authorized the assassination of Bin Ladin, BTW. As to this lie that he could have had bin landin but turned him down, that was a lie based on one man telling american agenst he could negotiate the turnover of bin ladin, but the agents determined he was a scam artist and the government he claimed to be representing never had BL and never planned to turn him over, not had they really ever heard of their self-proclaimed representative to america.

Quote from: Dominus NoxActually it's completely true. After the original attack on the WTC Clinton quietly launched the most intense and effective anti-international terorism campaign of any U.S. president.

Now the republicans lied about it and said that clinton did nothing about terrorism when in fact he focusd on it more than any president before him.

He even authorized the assassination of Bin Ladin, BTW. As to this lie that he could have had bin landin but turned him down, that was a lie based on one man telling american agenst he could negotiate the turnover of bin ladin, but the agents determined he was a scam artist and the government he claimed to be representing never had BL and never planned to turn him over, not had they really ever heard of their self-proclaimed representative to america.

Cite? For any of it.

Quote from: WerekoalaCite? For any of it.

Clinton Administration Counter Terrorism Initiative
http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/19950427clinton.html


Albright Defends Clinton's Record on Terrorism
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-23-2004-52066.asp

In her opening statement, Ms Albright admitted that the Clinton administration failed to track Bin Laden down, despite a "maddeningly frustrating" international hunt. But she said officials had made it clear to the security services that they had clearance to kill him if they found him.

Myth: Clinton Did Nothing To Fight Terrorism
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm

She said: "The president was prepared to order military action to capture or kill bin Laden. If we had had the predictive intelligence we needed, we would have done so ... and I would have strongly supported that step."

Michael D'Innocenzo: Bill Clinton's Record on Terrorism
http://hnn.us/podcasts/entries/18475.html

I was trying to get Nox to defend his position, but thanks anyway. I'll look these over and pick them apart at my leisure.

Here are some choice snippets and my reactions - from the sources you provided:

"WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.

Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture…"


So Clinton could have had Bin Laden but couldn't come up with an excuse - in 1996. After the 1994 attack on the WTC. So Nox's "myth" that Sudan ever even offer to arrest him is shot down.

"Several days after the millennium celebrations, President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, announced that in the weeks before the New Year, law enforcement had disrupted terrorist cells "in eight countries and attacks were almost certainly prevented." He didn't give details, but FRONTLINE has compiled the following list from intelligence sources and press reports…"

So the Clinton Administration provides no official details, yet we're supposed to take them at their word? Why not take the Bush Administration at their word when they claim successes in the War on Terror as well? Where are the media efforts to "unearth" "evidence" to defend the Bush record when he says terrorists have been disrupted world-wide?  


"Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office."

Beginning in 1998? He sure did leap into action right after WTC attack number one, eh? Only took over 4 years. And the Khobar Towers in 1996? Only 2 years after that! Such a crime fighter!

Here, I like this one particularly:

"The lines Clinton opted not to cross continued to define U.S. policy in his successor's first eight months. Clinton stopped short of using more decisive military instruments, including U.S. ground forces, and declined to expand the reach of the war to the Taliban regime that hosted bin Laden and his fighters after 1996.

Not until the catastrophe of Sept. 11 -- when terrorists used hijacked airliners to destroy the World Trade Center and damage the Pentagon -- did President Bush obliterate those boundaries…"


I'd suggest BIN LADEN "obliterated" those boundaries. I love an unbiased press. Thanks, WaPo! Oh, and what about his strong and steadfast committment to do whatever it took to get Bin Laden? Or any terrorists for that matter? Huh - sems it wasn't as strong as some would like to claim.


Sudanese aspirin factory? Chemical weapon plant? Let's see!:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States had been suspicious of the Shifa Pharmaceutical facility in Sudan for two years, a State Department official said Tuesday, after a December 1996 report showed heavy security around the plant…

"We had previously collected samples from other suspected sites in Sudan," the official said, "but only the sample from the Shifa facility tested positively for chemical weapons precursors. We know of no other factors in the environment that could result in a positive EMPTA signature."


Oh, PRECURSOR CHEMICALS! Good enough for Sudan to have a Chemical Weapons Factory when found in trace amounts in the soil. When found in 50 gallon drums in Iraq - means nothing!

More about the chance to capture Bin Laden:

"State Department and C.I.A. officials urged both Egypt and Saudi Arabia to accept him, according to former Clinton officials. "But both were afraid of the domestic reaction and refused," one recalled.

Critics of the administration's effort said this was an early missed opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda. Mr. Clinton himself would have had to lean hard on the Saudi and Egyptian governments. The White House believed no amount of pressure would change the outcome, and Mr. Clinton risked spending valuable capital on a losing cause. "We were not about to have the president make a call and be told no," one official explained."


Wow, thank god Clinton saved up all that political captal! Sure did help us down the road, eh?

A conman names Mansoor Ijaz claimed to be representing the sudan and claimed he could get us BL if we financed him a little. He was determined to be a fraud.

For more information, go read Al Franken's book "Lies and the lying liars who tell them: A fir and ba;lanced look at the right"

Franken cites valid facts, unlike neocons.

Quote from: Dominus NoxA conman names Mansoor Ijaz claimed to be representing the sudan and claimed he could get us BL if we financed him a little. He was determined to be a fraud.

For more information, go read Al Franken's book "Lies and the lying liars who tell them: A fir and ba;lanced look at the right"

Franken cites valid facts, unlike neocons.

Hahaha... HAHAHAHA.... oh, hhahaHAA... haha.

That's nice. I'm quoting YOUR side on the Sudan issue. WaPo is YOUR propaganda organ, not ours.

And what about the rest of it? C'mon, Nox, do it! DO IT! Oh, YES!

Be nice to wait till January 2008 for this political silliness.

 Oh well...please continue ...I'll  go get some popcorn made.


- Ed C.

Quote from: WerekoalaHahaha... HAHAHAHA.... oh, hhahaHAA... haha.

That's nice. I'm quoting YOUR side on the Sudan issue. WaPo is YOUR propaganda organ, not ours.

And what about the rest of it? C'mon, Nox, do it! DO IT! Oh, YES!

Dude, chill out.

Quote from: Thanatos02Dude, chill out.

Hey, talking to Nox tends to do wierd things to a person. :haw:

Quote from: WerekoalaHey, talking to Nox tends to do wierd things to a person. :haw:

 I'm too much for weak minded people to handle.