"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." A law-abiding president. Those were the days...
Basso, since you apparently have no recourse other than to resort to ridiculous Michael Moore style editing, I guess I'll leave you and bamaslammer and the rest of the dittoheads and Mansoor Ijaz to wet dream of silver platters in peace on this issue.
What Clark was saying was that the Sudanese could have arrested Bin Laden, but they didn't. How does that have anything to do with Clinton turning down an offer to nab Bin Laden? All of the evidence points to the U.S. negotiating and investigating every lead in order to track down a proposed offer for Bin Laden but there was NONE. The WaPO report is wrong, as has been shown by all the evidence supplied in this and other threads. You've mentioned that the U.S. should not have even looked at the proposal that would have had thousands of U.S. agents inside Iraq, and avoided war because we couldn't trust Saddam. Yet somehow you appear to be all in favor of dealing with the worlds largest state sponser of slavery, and a group that is genocidal. We should have gone ahead and lifted sanctions in the hopes that they would have given Clinton OBL, even though everyone who checked it out found that it wasn't a credible offer? If that's not what you are proposing, how do you feel that Clinton should have handeled the talk about the OBL offer?
In mordern society, especially in politic issues, discussion or arguement are no longer like what the Greeks used to do. We just take useful words out of any source we can find, reliable or not, out of context or not, to "support" our claims. But the sole purpose is always "No matter what you say, if we have different opinions, then you are wrong, and I am right." The only discussion exists maybe among people with same opinion. Can any of you give me a living example, that anyone has changed someone's opinion by citing facts and logical arguements, no matter it's political issue or Rockets related?
I stood corrected on some facts about who the Philestines were and weren't in a recent thread. I don't find it that hard to change my mind when clear cut facts are presented. I also believed that Saddam had piles of WMD at one point. That's definitely changed.
Bravo! I always firmly believe that only confident people are willing to admit their own mistakes. There are still half Americans who "think" or "believe" or "choose to believe" that Saddam had WMDs, only reason is that he's a bad guy and looked for WMD before, oh, maybe I should add another main reason, because their "strong leader" told them so.
i suppose i could repost the entire article, but that seems like such a waste of bandwidth, but let's look at a key assertion from the democrats.com article: well, three years later would be 1996? as we know from clark's book: however, due to FISA rules, she likely was unaware of Bin Laden's involvement, and so would have relied on clark's CSG to request such an indictment, yet none came. yet clinton clearly acknowledged bin laden was a threat: now, is this "knowledge" the same type for which many of you have been castigating Bush for ignoring in the famous august 6, 2001 security briefing? if so, why don't the same standards apply? didn't clinton have a responsibility to act, request an indictment, present it to the sudanese and see how credible their offer really was? after all: would a federal US indictment not constitute a "legitimate proffer of criminal charges? how can you say that "all avenues were explored" if no indictment was requested?
real_egal, It's ironic, but even your excellent post preaches to the choir. Those of us who crave real discussion and are capable of changing our minds love your post. Those who see no reason or possibility of ever changing their minds will just ignore your post. You too are pointless. Best wishes.
actually, the UN told us so, as did MI5, the CIA, french intel, the moussad, and there's much empirical evidence from saddam uses of WMD during the iran-iraq war and on the kurds. the existence of WMD in iraq shouldn't even be a point of contention. now i'm willing to entertain the possibility that they're not there now, or they're extremely well hidden, but thus far no one, not saddam, not david kay, not hans blix, has offered what to me is a convincing arguement about what happened to them. until we have actual evidence about where they are, or how they were destroyed, not just theories, the only responsible, indeed reasonable, assumption must be that they're still there or were spirited away to syria or iran. saying so gives me no comfort.
I have had many people tell me (both on this board and off) that discussing drug policy with me has had the effect of changing their minds on that issue. In addition, when presented with facts that disprove something I believe, I try to be scrupulous about changing my position.
After the war started in IRAQ, we have a whole definition of WMD. For me, I believe for many, WMD is not just weapons, they are still weapons of mass destruction, which can wipe out thousands of people with one hit. Some ability to create a dirty bomd, is not WMD. Biological weapons are used everywhere, especially by American and Russians. I am not saying using biological weapon is right, it's wrong, dead wrong, but that's not the WMD we understand. For me, WMD are those nuclear weapons, which I believe the original meaning was for WMD. Just pay some attention to how the term changing by time, first it's weapons of mass destruction, then it's nuclear and biological weapons, then it's actively seeking biological weapons. UN never told you that Saddam had WMD, nor did Hans Blix. Only your "strong leader" told you so. Let's make no mistake about it, Saddam is a very bad guy, he's evil, but that doesn't mean he created every single crime you can think of. You can not prove that I stole your money, that means I am innocent on that matter, although I might be a really bad person in life. And I DO NOT need to prove myself that I didn't steal your money, and nor I need anyone else to help me to prove that. You, as the accuser, is obligated to back up your claim with facts, so does Bush.
Exactly, as a same sinner as others, I too want some agreement to pump up my ego and fragile confidence, by seeking supports among those who agree with me. What's that buzz word again? Oh yeah, "troll", who wants to draw attention on a bbs to leverage real loser life Cheers.
