cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: Okay dems, make your final pitch.

Oh okay Bush took the oath of office January 20th(last half of month) and the clock was ticking...getting his cabinet set up and learning the ropes, then September 11th (first half of month) we are attacked by a terrorist that Clinton regretted for having "let go" years before....That is what Bush inheirited fro Clinton. 

 

The fact you`re splitting hairs AgJudge shows just how desperate you guys are to revise history. 

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Okay dems, make your final pitch.

So, now Clinton was just a bumbling caretaker of the economy. Nothing really good was started under him. He took a recovering economy and gave bush 2 recession? What f*****g world have you been living in???
bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Okay dems, make your final pitch.

Or....simply as an outlying possibility the Choom dude sometime in 2015 trips over a1863 or 1938 situation wherein. all jesus Iof the time honored and worn dawn dogmatic arguments are pompously made and the pulpits and halls of serious academia and big media players will be giving the skeptics nearly all of the coverage. And then do what two previous Presidents whose popularity had sunk due to not having done enough and fixed anything without any help from a recalcitrant Congress did and grab his 'nads and says we are going to do this and this and this and essentially shames those who are obstructive. Nah. Ain't gonna happen.
BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: Okay dems, make your final pitch.

Yes, in the 90`s everyone was getting a personal computer, it was a "tech bubble"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble  

 

Companies that no one knew anything about were going up triple digits anually...remember the "sock puppet comercials"?

 

A blindfolded monkey could pick winning stocks during the 90`s...and yes Clinton didn`t muck it up ...kudos to him for that. No wars either though he bombed a asprin factory in Bosnia, just pure luck we didn`t get into some kind of "wag the dog war".

 

But the stock market party ended a years before Bush took office...facts are facts

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: Okay dems, make your final pitch.

At that time, there was no proven reason to do anything with OBL. That would have been like when I met craig. If I had said he was a mean-spirited Nazi wannabee then and it wasn't until several years later that it became true, there wouldn't be any proof for you to believe me at the time I met him. So forget the "inherited" bit.

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.
FULL QUESTION
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
FULL ANSWER
Let’s 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 Erwa’s 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 Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s 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 we’d 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 didn’t and that’s 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. It’s 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 doesn’t 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. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t 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.
- Joe Miller
Sources

"1996 CIA Memo to Sudanese Official." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.
9/11 Commission. 9/11 Commission Report Notes. 21 Aug. 2004. 17 Jan. 2008.
9/11 Commission. "Chapter 4: Responses to al Qaeda’s Initial Assaults." 21 Aug. 2004. 9/11 Commission Report. 17 Jan. 2008.
NewsMax.com. "Berger Flashback: Hard Spin on Sudan Offer," 19 July 2004.
Clarke, Richard. Testimony before the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Lindsey Graham, Chair. 11 June 2002.
Clinton, William. Speech to the Long Island Association. Long Island, NY, Feb. 2002.
Gellman, Barton. "U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.
U.S. Grand Jury Indictment Against Usama bin Laden. United States District Court: Southern District of New York. 6 Nov. 1998.
OKdon
Senior Contributor

Re: Because

They aint heartless hateful gun toting money grubbing republicans! And now you know!

OKdon
Senior Contributor

Re: Won't matter

What about term limits. Governor braindead has been governor longer than anyone else and you're gonna vote for him again? And Grassley? Is he also unreplaceable?

NewAgJudge
Senior Contributor

Re: Okay dems, make your final pitch.

 

Im not revising history !

 

Good Lord smokey !  

 

Now, I want to see your grades from school.

OKdon
Senior Contributor

Re: Okay dems, make your final pitch.

Obama inherited a bus in the ditch. GW inherited a balanced budget and aprojected surplus for several years. The brilliant Dubya thought that a budget surplus was evidence of over taxation. Thus the temporary Bush tax cuts which republicans deem permanent and they wouldhave been permenent if they could have mustered to vote to make them permanent.

 

So how did that work for Dubya? Did tax cuts stimulate the economy and create more jobs and leave Obama with a budget surplus. NO! Obama had to try ti figure out how to get the bus out of the ditch with an obstructive "loyal" opposition that was focused on making Obama a complete failure. Even republican iniatives were rejected if Obama supported them.

 

 

BA Deere
Honored Advisor

Re: Okay dems, make your final pitch.

9/11 was an attack unlike anything seen before, its unfair to "blame" any president, they have a more macro job to do. I was merely making a point you can blame anyone depending how ridiculous you want to get. In truth OBL planned 9/11 during Clinton's term, highjackers were trained during Clinton's term.....but Bush was the one stuck with the hot potato. 

 

and fair enough, Bush handled it in a bipartisan way and we were safe the rest of his term in office. What has to be admitted is it was a unlucky event regardless who was president when it happened, also the victims and families. But economic.ically and politically it was not good for the Bush presidency.