|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Dereliction of Duty
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Dereliction of Duty
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| NCMike06 |
The events portrayed by Louis Freeh in this column are a stunning indictment of the Clinton Adminisration. This should have lead to his impeachment and conviction. And just as a refresher - the last time we saw Sandy Berger he was stuffing classified documents in his socks prior to his testimony in front of the 9/11 commission.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008563
Quote: Ten years ago today, acting under direct orders from senior Iranian government leaders, the Saudi Hezbollah detonated a 25,000-pound TNT bomb that killed 19 U.S. airmen in their dormitory at Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The blast wave destroyed Building 131 and grievously wounded hundreds of additional Air Force personnel. It also killed an unknown number of Saudi civilians in a nearby park.
The 19 Americans murdered were members of the 4,404th Wing, who were risking their lives to enforce the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. This was a U.N.-mandated mission after the 1991 Gulf War to stop Saddam Hussein from killing his Shiite people. The Khobar victims, along with the courageous families and friends who mourn them this weekend in Washington, deserve our respect and honor. More importantly, they must be remembered, because American justice has still been denied.
Although a federal grand jury handed up indictments in June 2001--days before I left as FBI director and a week before some of the charges against 14 of the terrorists would have lapsed because of the statute of limitations--two of the primary leaders of the attack, Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil and Abdel Hussein Mohamed al-Nasser, are living comfortably in Iran with about as much to fear from America as Osama bin Laden had prior to Sept. 11 (to wit, U.S. marshals showing up to serve warrants for their arrests).
The aftermath of the Khobar bombing is just one example of how successive U.S. governments have mishandled Iran. On June 25, 1996, President Clinton declared that "no stone would be left unturned" to find the bombers and bring them to "justice." Within hours, teams of FBI agents, and forensic and technical personnel, were en route to Khobar. The president told the Saudis and the 19 victims' families that I was responsible for the case. This assignment became very personal and solemn for me, as it meant that I was the one who dealt directly with the victims' survivors. These disciplined military families asked only one thing of me and their country: "Please find out who did this to our sons, husbands, brothers and fathers and bring them to justice."
It soon became clear that Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers. This is astounding, considering that the Saudi Security Service had arrested six of the bombers after the attack. As FBI agents sifted through the remains of Building 131 in 115-degree heat, the bombers admitted they had been trained by the Iranian external security service (IRGC) in Lebanon's Beka Valley and received their passports at the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Syria, along with $250,000 cash for the operation from IRGC Gen. Ahmad Sharifi.
We later learned that senior members of the Iranian government, including Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the Spiritual Leader's office had selected Khobar as their target and commissioned the Saudi Hezbollah to carry out the operation. The Saudi police told us that FBI agents had to interview the bombers in custody in order to make our case. To make this happen, however, the U.S. president would need to make a personal request to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
So for 30 months, I wrote and rewrote the same set of simple talking points for the president, Mr. Berger, and others to press the FBI's request to go inside a Saudi prison and interview the Khobar bombers. And for 30 months nothing happened. The Saudis reported back to us that the president and Mr. Berger would either fail to raise the matter with the crown prince or raise it without making any request. On one such occasion, our commander in chief instead hit up Prince Abdullah for a contribution to his library. Mr. Berger never once, in the course of the five-year investigation which coincided with his tenure, even asked how the investigation was going.
In their only bungled attempt to support the FBI, a letter from the president intended for Iran's President Mohammad Khatami, asking for "help" on the Khobar case, was sent to the Omanis, who had direct access to Mr. Khatami. This was done without advising either the FBI or the Saudis who were exposed in the letter as providing help to the Americans. We only found out about the letter because it was misdelivered to the spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who then publicly denounced the U.S. This was an embarrassment for the Saudis who had been fully cooperating with the FBI by providing direct evidence of Iranian involvement. Both Saudi Prince Bandar and Interior Minister Prince Nayef, who had put themselves and their government at great risk to help the FBI, were now undermined by America's president.
The Clinton administration was set on "improving" relations with what it mistakenly perceived to be a moderate Iranian president. But it also wanted to accrue the political mileage of proclaiming to the world, and to the 19 survivor families, that America was aggressively pursuing the bombers. When I would tell Mr. Berger that we could close the investigation if it compromised the president's foreign policy, the answer was always: "Leave no stone unturned."
Meanwhile, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Mr. Clinton ordered the FBI to stop photographing and fingerprinting Iranian wrestlers and cultural delegations entering the U.S. because the Iranians were complaining about the identification procedure. Of course they were complaining. It made it more difficult for their intelligence agents and terrorist coordinators to infiltrate into America. I was overruled by an "angry" president and Mr. Berger who said the FBI was interfering with their rapprochement with Iran.
Finally, frustrated in my attempts to execute Mr. Clinton's "leave no stone unturned" order, I called former president George H.W. Bush. I had learned that he was about to meet Crown Prince Abdullah on another matter. After fully briefing Mr. Bush on the impasse and faxing him the talking points that I had now been working on for over two years, he personally asked the crown prince to allow FBI agents to interview the detained bombers.
After his Saturday meeting with now-King Abdullah, Mr. Bush called me to say that he made the request, and that the Saudis would be calling me. A few hours later, Prince Bandar, then the Saudi ambassador to Washington, asked me to come out to McLean, Va., on Monday to see Crown Prince Abdullah. When I met him with Wyche Fowler, our Saudi ambassador, and FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson, the crown prince was holding my talking points. He told me Mr. Bush had made the request for the FBI, which he granted, and told Prince Bandar to instruct Nayef to arrange for FBI agents to interview the prisoners.
Several weeks later, agents interviewed the co-conspirators. For the first time since the 1996 attack, we obtained direct evidence of Iran's complicity. What Mr. Clinton failed to do for three years was accomplished in minutes by his predecessor. This was the breakthrough we had been waiting for, and the attorney general and I immediately went to Mr. Berger with news of the Saudi prison interviews.
Upon being advised that our investigation now had proof that Iran blew up Khobar Towers, Mr. Berger's astounding response was: "Who knows about this?" His next, and wrong, comment was: "That's just hearsay." When I explained that under the Rules of Federal Evidence the detainees' comments were indeed more than "hearsay," for the first time ever he became interested--and alarmed--about the case. But this interest translated into nothing more than Washington "damage control" meetings held out of the fear that Congress, and ordinary Americans, would find out that Iran murdered our soldiers. After those meetings, neither the president, nor anyone else in the administration, was heard from again about Khobar.
Sadly, this fits into a larger pattern of U.S. governments sending the wrong message to Tehran. Almost 13 years before Iran committed its terrorist act of war against America at Khobar, it used its surrogates, the Lebanese Hezbollah, to murder 241 Marines in their Beirut barracks. The U.S. response to that 1983 outrage was to pull our military forces out of the region. Such timidity was not lost upon Tehran. As with Beirut, Tehran once again received loud and clear from the U.S. its consistent message that there would be no price to pay for its acts of war against America. As for the 19 dead warriors and their families, their commander in chief had deserted them, leaving only the FBI to carry on the fight.
The Khobar bombing case eventually led to indictments in 2001, thanks to the personal leadership of President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. But justice has been a long time coming. Only so much can be done, after all, with arrest warrants and judicial process. Bin Laden and his two separate pre-9/11 arrest warrants are a case in point.
Still, many stones remain unturned. It remains to be seen whether the Khobar case and its fugitives will make it onto the list of America's demands in "talks" with the Iranians. Or will we ultimately ignore justice and buy a separate peace with our enemy? |
|
|
|
| armyofbees |
as of today (june 26, 2006) it's been 1,743 days since Bush said he'd catch Osama bin Laden 'Dead or Alive!' how is that not "dereliction of duty" worthy of w's impeachment and imprisonment?
--------
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 (6 months, 2 days after 9/11)
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) |
|
|
| Crazytree |
| a reasonable person would find it highly ironic that the guy who was in charge of the FBI for the 8 years prior to 9/11 is telling others that they were in "dereliction of duty". |
|
|
| JTProcess |
 |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
 |
|
|
| G-Spot |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
|
Gee, Rush has lost a lot of hair. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
uhm, clinton was impeached as per the dictionary meaning of the term....
im·peach Audio pronunciation of "impeach" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
1.
1. To make an accusation against.
2. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Hey Mike, that war is over.
WTF??? |
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
| Deflection! |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Wow...what an amazing defense everyone has put up. Pretty much says it all. Even the leftbots cant defend the indefensible.
But a few things:
Quote: Originally posted by armyofbees
as of today (june 26, 2006) it's been 1,743 days since Bush said he'd catch Osama bin Laden 'Dead or Alive!' how is that not "dereliction of duty" worthy of w's impeachment and imprisonment?
--------
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 (6 months, 2 days after 9/11)
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) |
Has anyone seen him in the past few years. We 'supposedly' get audios from him, but until I see him in a video with a reletively current newspaper, or talking about recent events, I think he is dead. Even if not, he has pretty much been put out of commission and is sick and hiding in a cave somewhere.
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
Deflection! |
From what?..it was the anniversary of the event. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Hey Mike, that war is over.
WTF??? |
Problem was, that war never started.
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
uhm, clinton was impeached as per the dictionary meaning of the term....
im·peach Audio pronunciation of "impeach" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
1.
1. To make an accusation against.
2. To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
2. To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility. |
The POINT is that he should have been impeached for failing to uphold his oath to protect the US against all enemies. And you must have missed the CONVICTED part of what I said also.
Then you have Mr. Intellectual honesty, who professes to care for the troops, admit that he doesn't care that 19 American soldiers were murdered by terrorists and that the President at the time chose not to do anything about it. Oh yeah, but he 'cares for the troops' He essentially posts a picture that shits on the lives and memories of those soldiers. Is it possible to hate America more than you do right now AB?
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
straight from the front page of LittleGreenFootballs... AKA NCMike's programming station. |
Chief leftbot chimes in with more talking points. If you'll notice my link was from OpinionJournal.com, which I read daily. And as an FYI, If I rarely if ever use or read the site you linked.
Almost as much as a ringing indictment of the Clinton Administration, everyone who has responded has just exposed themselves (even more in some cases) as left wing, hate america hypocrites. To not even be able to muster up a little condemnation proves the vast wasteland of intellectual dishonesty that you have become. What a disgrace. |
|
|
| EchoBurner |
| Clinton was a long time ago, argueing this now does nothing for us. He was a piece of shit, so what. |
|
|
| WillowGlen |
| Amazing how all of Mikes problems need a time machine to solve but none of them ever seem to be in Nov of 2000 or later. Sheep are funny. |
|
|
| patcracker |
| Sheep get fucked in the ass really easy too. :ass: :pissr: :pissl: |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Wow...what an amazing defense everyone has put up. Pretty much says it all. Even the leftbots cant defend the indefensible.
But a few things:
Has anyone seen him in the past few years. We 'supposedly' get audios from him, but until I see him in a video with a reletively current newspaper, or talking about recent events, I think he is dead. Even if not, he has pretty much been put out of commission and is sick and hiding in a cave somewhere.
From what?..it was the anniversary of the event. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Problem was, that war never started.
The POINT is that he should have been impeached for failing to uphold his oath to protect the US against all enemies. And you must have missed the CONVICTED part of what I said also.
Then you have Mr. Intellectual honesty, who professes to care for the troops, admit that he doesn't care that 19 American soldiers were murdered by terrorists and that the President at the time chose not to do anything about it. Oh yeah, but he 'cares for the troops' He essentially posts a picture that shits on the lives and memories of those soldiers. Is it possible to hate America more than you do right now AB?
Chief leftbot chimes in with more talking points. If you'll notice my link was from OpinionJournal.com, which I read daily. And as an FYI, If I rarely if ever use or read the site you linked.
Almost as much as a ringing indictment of the Clinton Administration, everyone who has responded has just exposed themselves (even more in some cases) as left wing, hate america hypocrites. To not even be able to muster up a little condemnation proves the vast wasteland of intellectual dishonesty that you have become. What a disgrace. |
the president which is in your avatar, makes Clinton look like a keystone kaper.
Name ONE THING for the citizens that you GW bush has done that is not making him money, taking away freedoms, Giving him more power, or hurting people? |
|
|
| Crazytree |
| well he did create the new National PArk in Hawaii. :D |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| What is amazing is how Republicans refuse to talk about RECENT history, including the reasons why Bush chose to put our troops in Iraq, but they see no contradiction in having their feet firmly planted in the Clinton years to attempt justification of all their ignorant policies... |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
well he did create the new National PArk in Hawaii. :D |
uh yeah the one by Wake Island? the well known island Military air base? The same one that Clinton already put reserves on 10 years ago??
| Quote: Although thought of before, it was president Clinton that first introduced "real legislation" that would make the area a preserve more than 10 years ago, but that was mainly because the military bases that had previously spotted the area were being closed down and the United States still had a need for an American presence in the area to keep it from being looted by eco-destroyers such the Japanese fishing fleet's. The legislation was turned back by the Republican held Congress..... .....At issue is whether or not the sanctuary will be one that is fully protected from all extractive activities, such as commercial fishing, seabed mining, coral removal, and the like. The National Marine Sanctuaries System Act permits you to establish marine sanctuaries with varying degrees of protection, including full protection. [emphasis added] |
Source
Bush doesnt do ANYTHING for ANYONE but himself dont kid yourself.
FW |
|
|
| incoherent |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
The events portrayed by Louis Freeh in this column are a stunning indictment of the Clinton Adminisration. This should have lead to his impeachment and conviction.=110008563[/url] |
NCMike06 is talking about DERELICTION?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
NCMIke is derelict from every SFN board where I challneged him with actual FACTS.
But facts are like Kryptonite to ditto-head republicans, so all NCMike can do is flee with his tail bewtween his legs. Cut and Run NCMIke.
Now that NCMike has poked his head out of his spider hole to school us in DERELICTION (oh, the irony is tasty), let's talk about REAGAN's dereliction.
After all, even a colossal failure like Freeh is forced to admit that the policy he condmens began under saint Reagan.
Let's hear it NCMike. Should Reagan and Bush have been impeached and convicted for the same thing? Or is your hypocrisy beyond cure?
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering just what the FACTS are that NCMike is hiding from, well, here are just a few from just one other SFN board that he's hiding from. (It's a board NCMike06 actually started, called "More TRUTH about Al's movie):
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Your name is a perfect description of you. |
Congratulations, NCMike, on proving that conservatives are actually capable of understanding irony, after all. How can people say that conservatives are too hidebound by literalism and fundamentalism to actually comprehend anything ironic? Good job!
(Note to people who intentionally voted for Bush: the above is irony.)
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
You mean his dad the WWII hero? |
Merely bailing out of a plane and dooming your parachute-less crew does not make one a hero. George Bush Sr. proved his wimpiness over and over again in office, and no amount of conservatives paying oral service to Bush Sr’s non-existent heroism will change that. But nice try.
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
All Bush said is no federal funding for Stem Cell research. |
1) Bush DID allow funding for stem cell research. He never “said no federal funding” Oh, NCMIke, you poor misguided person. How many times are you going to be obviously and provably and laughably wrong before you finally admit you’re wrong?
2) Further, that is NOT “all” Bush said on the Stem Cell issue. When Bush announced his federal funding for stem cell research (a simple fact you have proven yourself remarkable ignorant of) Bush said that his research restrictions left “more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines” But this was foolishly untrue. Just another lie by Bush to abuse facts, logic and science so he could worship the idols of his fundamentalists cronies in the Christian wing of the Taliban. NIH scientists immediately pointed out that it was not true. HHS Secretary Thompson finally admitted in senate testimony that only two dozen cell lines were ready and available. Now it looks even less. So will you now admit how wrong you were about “all bush said?”
3) Bush opposes fetal stem-cell research (which destroys embryos) but he supports in-vitro fertilization (which destroys embryos). So Bush not only lied about science (again), he is utterly hypocritical on Stem Cell research, too. All those infertile fundamentalists are fine with destroying embryos if it means they get a white baby instead of having to adopt. But if their waste embryos are used to save lives instead of being thrown out, they howl. How do you defend your man on preferring that in-vitro embryos be thrown away?
4) Bush betrayed conservatives at least three times on this one issue alone.
a) Bush DID fund stem cell research, despite your emotional investment in Bush NOT funding stem cell research; b) Bush lied about the number of lines of stem cells – proving again his lack of integrity when you so desperately need; c) Bush’s insists on killing embryos through in-vitro policies that he supports. Given that Bush has betrayed you at least three times on this issue, which was his biggest betrayal of you, and which hurt you the most?
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Abstinence works, every time its tried, |
5) Wrong again! Abstinence (voluntary forbearance from sex) has failed a huge number of times and resulted in many pregnancies. Example: Women suckered into an “abstinence-only” lifestyle choice still get pregnant. It’s called rape, and it’s yet another damn good reason to keep Big Government Bush off our backs and out of our bedrooms. Or are you one of those fundamentalist loons who actually believe that raped women don’t get pregnant due to “trauma”? If not, admit you are wrong and let’s move on.
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
there is no consensus. THat is simply a left wing talking point. |
6) NCMike, you must get tired of being wrong so often.
Even Wikipedia points out that the basic facts on Global Warming (temps rising, most due to human activity) “is held by the majority of climate scientists and those doing research in closely related fields”
The fact that there is “a small number of scientists who actively disagree” does not change the fact that there IS consensus. But your frantic falsehoods only obscure the point:
“The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. This conclusion can be controversial, especially outside the scientific community.”
Your disregard for the facts places you outside the scientific community, so I guess the consensus is controversial to you. But that does not change the fact that there is consensus.
Here’s the point NCMike is still hiding from: Bush did not choose to confront the facts and the truth. Instead, his administration tried to tamper with the evidence—distorting science to fit politics. That doesn’t trouble you?
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Ask yourself why similarly oily left wing politicians are involved in the preparation of supposedly unbiased reports such as the IPCC report?? |
7) Which left wing politicians? Try to use a fact or two. Or don’t you have any?
(You sure throw a lot of accusations without a shred of factual info. Just like your graven idol, Bush.)
8) And how can any politician be as oily as Bush, whose entire family is slimed with all the terrorist-backing Saudi oil money the Bushes have sucked up over the years kissing Sheik butt?
9) Bush and Cheney are former oil executives; Condoleezza Rice was a director of the oil firm Chevron, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans once ran an oil and gas exploration company, etc, making Bush’s the oiliest administration in history. Or didn’t you know those facts?
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
How about the link to the left wing site your ripped that last piece from?? |
10) Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh, NCMike, you funny, funny man. The quotes about censoring science come from Bush’s own EPA! Are you saying that even Bush’s own EPA is now “left wing”?. Har har. Oh, it’s too funny.
11) That doesn’t BEGIN to be sufficient in any rational discussion. Where on that pdf? How were they “addressed”? Be specific or concede defeat. Nice way to hide behind a single mamby-pamby White House set of talking points. Or are you too afraid to actually deal with any of the subjects on the table?
12) Let’s see. You just decried talking points, but a single link to talking points is now your ENTIRE argument! That’s about the same as admitting you have no argument and are slinking home defeated. Does that make you a hypocrite? Doesn’t your lack of an argument shame and embarrass you?
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Quite frankly, I don't care what the WH says or doesn't say about the myth of man made global warming. |
13) Fortunately, most of the rest of America and most of the rest of humanity does care when politicians try to censor science. Why don’t you?
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Instead of losing this argument, you really should go read a book. |
Finally some good advice, since I am clearly not losing this argument. And since I’m likely to read many books before you actually have the guts to accurately and honestly address the issues here.
Meanwhile, here’s the question you continue to duck: If the facts are on Bush's side, why is he trying to suppress real science and real facts?
White House officials tried to force the EPA to substantially alter the report’s section on climate change. The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review and other studies, stated that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change.
“Report on the Environment,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 23, 2003 www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm.
Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA memo reviewed for this report (see Appendix A) reveal that the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget demanded major amendments including:
* The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the administration’s favored message.”
* The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House itself —that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change.
* The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.
* The elimination of the summary statement— noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”
If the facts are on Bush's side, why is he trying to suppress real science and real facts? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| Because science and facts scare Gerorgie ! |
|
|
| walt zink |
notice in the original article, right below the bold-faced content, is that he also called out the reagan administration.
1> ncmike, to look balanced, you should have brought this up, also. all of our presidents are fuck-ups. i'm angry at bill clinton, but it's for signing the telecomm act of 96. what clinton did do, which i saw at a very close level, was raise the funding for local police departments. here in boston, alone, crime rates went down significantly, and since bush has come into office, those rates have gone far up while funding for our city's finest have gone down (funding was cut before 9/11, btw)
2> to those on the left, i'm a bit sad that no one brought up the aforementioned paragraph to validate points. there are certainly valid points, but i really do find a lot of good info from you all (saves me a lot of time reading through about 40 sites for info), but i honestly skip past the namecalling. then again, i may be guilty of such on the podcast show i'll be doing. i'm just as angry as a lot of you guys....very sad state of affairs... |
|
|
| B.A. Baracus60 |
My favorite part is when NCDike tries to say that he does not go to little green footballs web page. If you click on Crazytree's link it right there on the front page, the article is word for word........It's so obvious that NCDike can't think for him self that his major insult is to copy the term Bush-bot and make it a liberal-bot, and use all the exact insults people used against him........Hurry NCDike and get some talking points so you can comment back......but this time at least try to cut and paste from page 2 so you are not so easily tracked.
I while back I took Cracytree's advice and started googling NCDikes statements and almost every one, word for word, shows up on a republican shill web page, mainly little green footballs..........NCDike looks dumber with every post. But his stupidity, I'm sure, is Clinton's fault. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
| Damn that Clinton. |
|
|
| BeerPal |
| It is a weak mind that cannot present an intelligent arguement to support his case but must cast aspersions on others in order to make his choice seem worthwhile. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
|
DON'T FORGET JIMMY CARTER. HE IS TO BLAME TOO |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Quote: Originally posted by incoherent
NCMike06 is talking about DERELICTION?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
NCMIke is derelict from every SFN board where I challneged him with actual FACTS.
But facts are like Kryptonite to ditto-head republicans, so all NCMike can do is flee with his tail bewtween his legs. Cut and Run NCMIke.
Now that NCMike has poked his head out of his spider hole to school us in DERELICTION (oh, the irony is tasty), let's talk about REAGAN's dereliction.
After all, even a colossal failure like Freeh is forced to admit that the policy he condmens began under saint Reagan.
Let's hear it NCMike. Should Reagan and Bush have been impeached and convicted for the same thing? Or is your hypocrisy beyond cure?
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering just what the FACTS are that NCMike is hiding from, well, here are just a few from just one other SFN board that he's hiding from. (It's a board NCMike06 actually started, called "More TRUTH about Al's movie):
Congratulations, NCMike, on proving that conservatives are actually capable of understanding irony, after all. How can people say that conservatives are too hidebound by literalism and fundamentalism to actually comprehend anything ironic? Good job!
(Note to people who intentionally voted for Bush: the above is irony.)
Merely bailing out of a plane and dooming your parachute-less crew does not make one a hero. George Bush Sr. proved his wimpiness over and over again in office, and no amount of conservatives paying oral service to Bush Sr’s non-existent heroism will change that. But nice try.
1) Bush DID allow funding for stem cell research. He never “said no federal funding” Oh, NCMIke, you poor misguided person. How many times are you going to be obviously and provably and laughably wrong before you finally admit you’re wrong?
2) Further, that is NOT “all” Bush said on the Stem Cell issue. When Bush announced his federal funding for stem cell research (a simple fact you have proven yourself remarkable ignorant of) Bush said that his research restrictions left “more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines” But this was foolishly untrue. Just another lie by Bush to abuse facts, logic and science so he could worship the idols of his fundamentalists cronies in the Christian wing of the Taliban. NIH scientists immediately pointed out that it was not true. HHS Secretary Thompson finally admitted in senate testimony that only two dozen cell lines were ready and available. Now it looks even less. So will you now admit how wrong you were about “all bush said?”
3) Bush opposes fetal stem-cell research (which destroys embryos) but he supports in-vitro fertilization (which destroys embryos). So Bush not only lied about science (again), he is utterly hypocritical on Stem Cell research, too. All those infertile fundamentalists are fine with destroying embryos if it means they get a white baby instead of having to adopt. But if their waste embryos are used to save lives instead of being thrown out, they howl. How do you defend your man on preferring that in-vitro embryos be thrown away?
4) Bush betrayed conservatives at least three times on this one issue alone.
a) Bush DID fund stem cell research, despite your emotional investment in Bush NOT funding stem cell research; b) Bush lied about the number of lines of stem cells – proving again his lack of integrity when you so desperately need; c) Bush’s insists on killing embryos through in-vitro policies that he supports. Given that Bush has betrayed you at least three times on this issue, which was his biggest betrayal of you, and which hurt you the most?
5) Wrong again! Abstinence (voluntary forbearance from sex) has failed a huge number of times and resulted in many pregnancies. Example: Women suckered into an “abstinence-only” lifestyle choice still get pregnant. It’s called rape, and it’s yet another damn good reason to keep Big Government Bush off our backs and out of our bedrooms. Or are you one of those fundamentalist loons who actually believe that raped women don’t get pregnant due to “trauma”? If not, admit you are wrong and let’s move on.
6) NCMike, you must get tired of being wrong so often.
Even Wikipedia points out that the basic facts on Global Warming (temps rising, most due to human activity) “is held by the majority of climate scientists and those doing research in closely related fields”
The fact that there is “a small number of scientists who actively disagree” does not change the fact that there IS consensus. But your frantic falsehoods only obscure the point:
“The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. This conclusion can be controversial, especially outside the scientific community.”
Your disregard for the facts places you outside the scientific community, so I guess the consensus is controversial to you. But that does not change the fact that there is consensus.
Here’s the point NCMike is still hiding from: Bush did not choose to confront the facts and the truth. Instead, his administration tried to tamper with the evidence—distorting science to fit politics. That doesn’t trouble you?
7) Which left wing politicians? Try to use a fact or two. Or don’t you have any?
(You sure throw a lot of accusations without a shred of factual info. Just like your graven idol, Bush.)
8) And how can any politician be as oily as Bush, whose entire family is slimed with all the terrorist-backing Saudi oil money the Bushes have sucked up over the years kissing Sheik butt?
9) Bush and Cheney are former oil executives; Condoleezza Rice was a director of the oil firm Chevron, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans once ran an oil and gas exploration company, etc, making Bush’s the oiliest administration in history. Or didn’t you know those facts?
10) Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh, NCMike, you funny, funny man. The quotes about censoring science come from Bush’s own EPA! Are you saying that even Bush’s own EPA is now “left wing”?. Har har. Oh, it’s too funny.
11) That doesn’t BEGIN to be sufficient in any rational discussion. Where on that pdf? How were they “addressed”? Be specific or concede defeat. Nice way to hide behind a single mamby-pamby White House set of talking points. Or are you too afraid to actually deal with any of the subjects on the table?
12) Let’s see. You just decried talking points, but a single link to talking points is now your ENTIRE argument! That’s about the same as admitting you have no argument and are slinking home defeated. Does that make you a hypocrite? Doesn’t your lack of an argument shame and embarrass you?
13) Fortunately, most of the rest of America and most of the rest of humanity does care when politicians try to censor science. Why don’t you?
Finally some good advice, since I am clearly not losing this argument. And since I’m likely to read many books before you actually have the guts to accurately and honestly address the issues here.
Meanwhile, here’s the question you continue to duck: If the facts are on Bush's side, why is he trying to suppress real science and real facts?
White House officials tried to force the EPA to substantially alter the report’s section on climate change. The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review and other studies, stated that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change.
“Report on the Environment,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 23, 2003 www.epa.gov/indicators/roe/index.htm.
Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA memo reviewed for this report (see Appendix A) reveal that the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget demanded major amendments including:
* The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the administration’s favored message.”
* The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House itself —that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change.
* The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.
* The elimination of the summary statement— noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”
If the facts are on Bush's side, why is he trying to suppress real science and real facts? |
wow.. you're even worse than me mult. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by B.A. Baracus60
My favorite part is when NCDike tries to say that he does not go to little green footballs web page. If you click on Crazytree's link it right there on the front page, the article is word for word........It's so obvious that NCDike can't think for him self that his major insult is to copy the term Bush-bot and make it a liberal-bot, and use all the exact insults people used against him........Hurry NCDike and get some talking points so you can comment back......but this time at least try to cut and paste from page 2 so you are not so easily tracked.
I while back I took Cracytree's advice and started googling NCDikes statements and almost every one, word for word, shows up on a republican shill web page, mainly little green footballs..........NCDike looks dumber with every post. But his stupidity, I'm sure, is Clinton's fault. |
If you were not such a stupid ass, you might have noticed that the original article appeared at opinionjournal.com. If you werent such a stupid ass, you would have read where I said that I read that site every day. If your head were not up Crazytree's ass you might actually start thinking for yourself. A good first step would be to read before you comment. It's amazing that a stupid ass like you is able to function in society. But you are what we get from the left...stupid ass robots who would rather have their heads stuck tightly up the ass of other leftbots rather than actually conceive an original thought. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
What is amazing is how Republicans refuse to talk about RECENT history, including the reasons why Bush chose to put our troops in Iraq, but they see no contradiction in having their feet firmly planted in the Clinton years to attempt justification of all their ignorant policies... |
What amazes me is that liberal think that the world was the garden of eden prior to Jan 2001. Its amazing how what happened, and didn't happen in the 90's is totally ignored by the leftbot apologists in their vile Jihad against Bush and America. If Clinton would have done something about the numerous attacks against America and American interests, maybe the situation today would have been different. Maybe 9/11 would not have happened. But when your sole philosophy when governing is to not do anything to jeapordize your poll numbers, someone has to pay the bill eventually. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
What amazes me is that liberal think that the world was the garden of eden prior to Jan 2001. Its amazing how what happened, and didn't happen in the 90's is totally ignored by the leftbot apologists in their vile Jihad against Bush and America. If Clinton would have done something about the numerous attacks against America and American interests, maybe the situation today would have been different. Maybe 9/11 would not have happened. But when your sole philosophy when governing is to not do anything to jeapordize your poll numbers, someone has to pay the bill eventually. |
That's cute. And totally invented in your little mind...
Why don't you take your brilliant analysis back a little further and breakdown the Bush1 and Reagan administrations for us and the ways in which THEY failed this country, setting up the situation we have today?
Once again you accuse me of something and do it yourself in the same breath. Just business as usual for you, Mike. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
That's cute. And totally invented in your little mind...
Why don't you take your brilliant analysis back a little further and breakdown the Bush1 and Reagan administrations for us and the ways in which THEY failed this country, setting up the situation we have today?
Once again you accuse me of something and do it yourself in the same breath. Just business as usual for you, Mike. |
WHich part was invented???
And Bush was wrong not to push to Bagdad in the first place (thats what you get for listening to the UN)
Reagan was wrong (as the article states) for leaving Beirut after the murders there.
Care to defend your boy now, after multiple episodes of NOT defending AMerica after we were attacked, and war declared against us.??
I'm listening?
Or have some BALLS and criticize him. Aren't you tired of being a total and absolute puppet for the left? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
NCMORON06 as usual you attack with questions and no facts. When you can respond with details instead of broadsided openended challenges, you might stand a chance.
Life too complicated for you ? Simple answers the solution for you? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
WHich part was invented???
And Bush was wrong not to push to Bagdad in the first place (thats what you get for listening to the UN)
Reagan was wrong (as the article states) for leaving Beirut after the murders there.
Care to defend your boy now, after multiple episodes of NOT defending AMerica after we were attacked, and war declared against us.??
I'm listening?
Or have some BALLS and criticize him. Aren't you tired of being a total and absolute puppet for the left? |
Not at all what I was talking about, although I'm not suprised you won't address the real issues here.
Convenient how you didn't mention Reagan supporting Saddam with technology and equipment to build his chemical weapons programs.
Funny how you didn't mention Reagan and Bush1 supporting Osama against the Soviets, helping build him into the fundamentalist hero he is today.
Funny how you didn't mention Bush1 giving Saddam the green light to fuck with Kuwait, then acting like a hero when people started shouting about it.
Funny how you didn't mention Bush1 encouraging the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, then when they did, turning his back on them and giving Saddam the ok to brutally put down the uprising.
Funny how you didn't mention the reasons WHY Bush1 did NOT push into Baghdad, namely that he new it would be an impossible security situation.
Getting lectured by you on being a puppet is like being called ugly by a frog. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Not at all what I was talking about, although I'm not suprised you won't address the real issues here.
Convenient how you didn't mention Reagan supporting Saddam with technology and equipment to build his chemical weapons programs. |
Sorry, liberal myth extrodanairre. We supplied him with intelligence in his war with Iran. Which was our bitter enemy at that point, having just bent Jimmy Carter over the bed with the hostage ordeal. Too bad a study found that of all the weapons recovered in Iraq between 1992 and 2003, only 1% came from the US. 86% came from France/China/Russia.
We also aided the USSR in WW2 helping to keep one of the worst murderous dictators to ever live in power. Unfortunately, somethings are not as cut and dry as you would like to think. History is littered with instances of allies turned enemy, and vice versa.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Funny how you didn't mention Reagan and Bush1 supporting Osama against the Soviets, helping build him into the fundamentalist hero he is today.. |
See above..
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Funny how you didn't mention Bush1 giving Saddam the green light to fuck with Kuwait, then acting like a hero when people started shouting about it. |
Thats right, I remember the big White House signing ceremony when Bush announcing the agreement with Saddam that he could run over Kuwait, and then Saudi Arabia. How could I forget..
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Funny how you didn't mention Bush1 encouraging the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, then when they did, turning his back on them and giving Saddam the ok to brutally put down the uprising. |
This is a legitimate criticism. Just one more reason Bush 1 wasn't a very good President.
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Funny how you didn't mention the reasons WHY Bush1 did NOT push into Baghdad, namely that he new it would be an impossible security situation. |
No...he followed the UN mandates. A classic example of what happens when you allow the UN to dictate foreign policy (are you listening Mr. Kerry)
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Getting lectured by you on being a puppet is like being called ugly by a frog. |
But legitimate criticism nonetheless.
Funny how you totally avoid the original subject.
Do you agree with Clinton's inaction in the Khobar Towers episode?
Do you agree that Clinton kicked the terrorism can down the road? If not please cite specific examples of what he did to engage our enemy in the war on terror. (even if you can only mention lobbing cruise missles at aspirin factories to take coverage away from the days grand jury testimony.)
Do you agree that by allowing Al Qaeda to grow unchecked, he made our situation today much worse. Please explain if you can. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Sorry, liberal myth extrodanairre. We supplied him with intelligence in his war with Iran. Which was our bitter enemy at that point, having just bent Jimmy Carter over the bed with the hostage ordeal. Too bad a study found that of all the weapons recovered in Iraq between 1992 and 2003, only 1% came from the US. 86% came from France/China/Russia.
|
Uh what the hell does 92 to 2003 have to do with it? iran contra was much earlier...
HERE: CHECK YOUR FACTS
Clearly hundreds of millions are not 1% and that was only between 2 years.
FW |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Sorry, liberal myth extrodanairre. We supplied him with intelligence in his war with Iran. Which was our bitter enemy at that point, having just bent Jimmy Carter over the bed with the hostage ordeal. Too bad a study found that of all the weapons recovered in Iraq between 1992 and 2003, only 1% came from the US. 86% came from France/China/Russia.
We also aided the USSR in WW2 helping to keep one of the worst murderous dictators to ever live in power. Unfortunately, somethings are not as cut and dry as you would like to think. History is littered with instances of allies turned enemy, and vice versa.
See above..
Thats right, I remember the big White House signing ceremony when Bush announcing the agreement with Saddam that he could run over Kuwait, and then Saudi Arabia. How could I forget..
This is a legitimate criticism. Just one more reason Bush 1 wasn't a very good President.
No...he followed the UN mandates. A classic example of what happens when you allow the UN to dictate foreign policy (are you listening Mr. Kerry)
But legitimate criticism nonetheless.
Funny how you totally avoid the original subject.
Do you agree with Clinton's inaction in the Khobar Towers episode?
Do you agree that Clinton kicked the terrorism can down the road? If not please cite specific examples of what he did to engage our enemy in the war on terror. (even if you can only mention lobbing cruise missles at aspirin factories to take coverage away from the days grand jury testimony.)
Do you agree that by allowing Al Qaeda to grow unchecked, he made our situation today much worse. Please explain if you can. |
Once again it takes a matter of seconds to prove how full of shit you are:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_War
Due to fears that revolutionary Iran would defeat Iraq and export its Islamic Revolution to other Middle Eastern nations, the U.S. began giving aid to Iraq. From 1983 to 1990, the U.S. government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). [3] These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period, though the US also sold helicopters which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran. [4]
An investigation by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 determined that the U.S. Department of Commerce had approved, for the purpose of research, the shipping of dual use biological agents to Iraq during the mid-1980s, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), later identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program, as well as Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens. The Committee report noted that each of these had been "considered by various nations for use in war." [5] Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that the U.S. government had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983. [6] The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: “The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think it’s a devastating record”. [1] |
Quote:
In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American Ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:
We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.
|
And here is the transcript and what Glaspie had to say for her actions:
Quote:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html
July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____
Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy
------------------------------------------------------
One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq? |
|
|
|
| Ass Boil |
I almost forgot about the rest of your lies:
Quote:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers — that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.
On 13 November 1995, a bomb was set off in a van parked in front of an American-run military training center in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, killing five Americans and two Indians. Saudi Arabian authorities arrested four Saudi nationals whom they claim confessed to the bombings, but U.S. officials were denied permission to see or question the suspects before they were convicted and beheaded in May 1996.
On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
On 21 June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.)
On 7 August 1998, powerful car bombs exploded minutes apart outside the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 224 people and wounding about 5,000 others. Four participants with ties to Osama bin Laden were captured, convicted in U.S. federal court, and sentenced to life in prison without parole in October 2001. Fourteen other suspects indicted in the case remain at large, and three more are fighting extradition in London.
On 12 October 2000, two suicide bombers detonated an explosives-laden skiff next to the USS Cole while it was refueling in Aden, Yemen, blasting a hole in the ship that killed 17 sailors and injured 37 others. No suspects have yet been arrested or indicted. The investigation has been hampered by the refusal of Yemini officials to allow FBI agents access to Yemeni nationals and other suspects in custody in Yemen.
(The USS Cole bombing occurred one month before the 2000 presidential election, so even under the best of circumstances it was unlikely that the investigation could have been completed before the end of President Clinton's term of office three months later.)
In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours, and Clinton was widely criticized by many who claimed he had ordered the strikes primarily to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As John F. Harris wrote in The Washington Post:
In August 1998, when [Clinton] ordered missile strikes in an effort to kill Osama bin Laden, there was widespread speculation — from such people as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) — that he was acting precipitously to draw attention away from the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, then at full boil. Some said he was mistaken for personalizing the terrorism struggle so much around bin Laden. And when he ordered the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House after domestic terrorism in Oklahoma City, some Republicans accused him of hysteria.
. . . the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled during Clinton's watch, to about $6.7 billion. After the effort to kill bin Laden with missiles in August 1998 failed — he had apparently left a training camp in Afghanistan a few hours earlier — recent news reports have detailed numerous other instances, as late as December 2000, when Clinton was on the verge of unleashing the military again. In each case, the White House chose not to act because of uncertainty that intelligence was good enough to find bin Laden, and concern that a failed attack would only enhance his stature in the Arab world.
. . . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.
Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger . . . said there [was] little prospect . . . that Pakistan would have helped the United States wage war against bin Laden or the Taliban in 1998, even after such outrages as the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas.
Update: In January 2004 a version of the 2001 e-mail with "BUSH COVERED IT!" inserted after each entry began to be circulated on the Internet. Must be an election year.
Last updated: 27 January 2004
|
|
|
|
| incoherent |
Nice job, guys, in calling NCMike06 on his cowflops.
NCMike06, now that the facts have proven you wrong on virtually every ditto-head talking point that your spewed here, will you finally admit you are wrong?
When a rational human being realizes they have been wrong about their assumptions, they change their conclusions. Will you?
Or will this become another board you hide from to go spew more lies on other boards?
Will you be a wimp and a coward like Bush, or will you man up, admit your mistakes, and change your conclusions? |
|
|
| Ralphruinsthesh |
| Appamattox court house. Enuff said biatch. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Ok, my turn:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030327.asp
Top myths about the war
| Quote: The United States armed Saddam. This one grew over time, but when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. The US was the smallest, with $200,000. A similar myth, that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides. European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas |
| Quote: The U.S. created Saddam. Arab nationalism created Saddam. He neither asked, needed nor got any help from the United States as he rose to power in the Baath party. When he took over in 1979, he promptly went to war with Iran a year later. Even before that, public opinion, and public policy, regarding Saddam (the bloody minded head of the secret police) was negative. You can go read it in the contemporary papers. Despite most Americans feeling OK about Iran getting hammered by Iraq (because Iran had held our embassy staff hostage for over a year), there was no move to provide Iraq with weapons. When the Iraqis looked like they might fold, and Iran's then fearsome Islamic Jihad (against less observant Moslems, and mostly against America, the Great Satan) might spread, the U.S. provided Iraq with satellite photos of Iranian military positions. After that war ended in a draw in 1988, the U.S. believed Saddam's pronouncements that he had seen the light and would rein in his aggressive impulses. |
But the proof is in the pudding...as they say |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I almost forgot about the rest of your lies: |
If thats the best you can do, you lost already. The sum total of that page is essentially ZERO.
But I found this little tidbit QUITE telling in your little piece..
Quote: On 25 June 1996, a booby-trapped truck loaded with 5,000 pounds of explosives was exploded outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing nineteen Americans and wounding about three hundred others. Once again, the U.S. investigation was hampered by the refusal of Saudi officials to allow the FBI to question suspects.
On 21 June 2001 , just before the American statute of limitations would have expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing. The suspects remain in Saudi custody, beyond the reach of the American justice system. (Saudi Arabia has no extradition treaty with the U.S.) |
WHO was president on June 21, 2001????? It certainly WAS NOT William Jefferson Clinton. THis was mentioned in the original article that I posted, and just proves my point even further. It took a real President who cared about the war on terror to do anything about the Khobar attacks.
Here is some more stuff:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/...sue112901.shtml
Quote: Clinton Has No Clothes
What 9/11 revealed about the ex-president.
By Byron York, NR White House Correspondent
From the December 17, 2001, issue of National Review
n June 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. When news reached Washington, President Bill Clinton vowed to bring the killers to justice. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," he said angrily. "Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished." The next day, leaving the White House to attend an economic summit in France, Clinton had more tough words for the attackers. "Let me be very clear: We will not resist" — the president corrected himself — "we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them."
As Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public's reaction to the bombing. "Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll," Morris recalls. "I was concerned about how Clinton looked in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him." The bombing happened in the midst of the president's re-election campaign, and even though Clinton enjoyed a substantial lead over Republican Bob Dole, Morris worried that public dissatisfaction with Clinton on the terrorism issue might benefit Dole.
Indeed, Morris's first poll showed less support for Clinton than he had hoped. But by the time Morris presented his findings to the president and top staffers at a political-strategy meeting a few days later, public approval of Clinton's response had climbed — something Morris noted in his written agenda for the session:
SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
It's not Clinton's fault 76-18
The numbers were a relief for the re-election team. But soon there was another crisis when, on July 17, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris. There was widespread suspicion that the crash was the result of terrorism (it was later ruled to be an accident), and Morris's polling found the public growing uneasy not only about air safety but also about Clinton's performance in the Khobar investigation. Morris found that the number of people who believed Clinton was "doing all he can to investigate the Saudi bombing and punish those responsible" was just 54 percent, while 32 percent believed he could do more. Morris feared that White House inaction would allow Dole to portray Clinton as soft on national security.
"We tested two alternative defenses to this attack: Peace maker or Toughness," Morris wrote in a memo for the president. In the "Peacemaker" defense, Morris asked voters to respond to the statement, "Clinton is peacemaker. Brought together Arabs and Israelis. Ireland. Bosnia cease fire. Uses strength to bring about peace." The other defense, "Tough ness," asked voters to respond to "Clinton tough. Stands up for American interests. Against foreign companies doing business in Cuba. Sanctions against Iran. Anti-terrorist legislation held up by Republicans. Prosecuted World Trade Center bombers." Morris found that the public greatly preferred "Toughness."
So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.
At the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his administration was just beginning, and he was embroiled in controversies over gays in the military, an economic stimulus plan, and the beginnings of Hillary Clinton's health-care task force. Khobar Towers happened not only in the midst of the president's re-election campaign but also at the end of a month in which there were new and damaging developments in the Whitewater and Filegate scandals. The African embassy attacks occurred as the Monica Lewinsky affair was at fever pitch, in the month that Clinton appeared before independent counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury. And when the Cole was rammed, Clinton had little time left in office and was desperately hoping to build his legacy with a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whenever a serious terrorist attack occurred, it seemed Bill Clinton was always busy with something else.
The First WTC Attack
Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president's reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against "overreacting" and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid."
From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government's most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. "Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access," says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. "It was all under grand-jury secrecy."
Another problem with Clinton's decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in the new administration was in turmoil. When the bomb went off, Clinton did not have a confirmed attorney general; Janet Reno, who was nominated after the Zoë Baird fiasco, was awaiting Senate approval. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration. The bombing barely came up at Reno's Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case. (Instead, Clinton praised Reno for "sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others to do better.") In addition, at the time the bombing investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing-out by Clinton. A new director, Louis Freeh, was not confirmed by the Senate until August 6.
Amid all the turmoil at the top, the investigation missed some tantalizing clues pointing toward a far-reaching conspiracy. In April 1995, for example, terrorism expert Steven Emerson told the House International Relations Committee that there was information that "strongly suggests . . . a Sudanese role in the World Trade Center bombing. There are also leads pointing to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, the ex-Afghan Saudi mujahideen supporter now taking refuge in Sudan." Two years later, Emerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same thing. In recent years, according to an exhaustive New York Times report, "American intelligence officials have come to believe that [ringleader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman] and the World Trade Center bombers had ties to al-Qaeda."
But the Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship. Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold — "I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful," Woolsey recalls — and some of the nation's most critical intelligence capabilities went unused. In the end, the U.S. tried six suspects in the attack. All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government. Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they will probably never know who was behind the attack.
Khobar Towers
"In June of 1996, it felt like an entire herd was converging on the White House," wrote Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos in his memoir, All Too Human. A herd of scandals, that is: In late May, independent counsel Kenneth Starr had convicted Jim and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker in the first big Whitewater trial; in June, the Filegate story first broke into public view, and Sen. Alphonse D'Amato issued his committee's Whitewater report recommending that several administration officials be investigated for perjury. It was also in June that the White House went into full battle mode against a variety of allegations contained in Unlimited Access, a book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.
All these developments were heavy on the minds of Clinton, Dick Morris, and the other members of the re-election strategy team when the bomb went off at Khobar Towers on June 25. As it had after the World Trade Center bombing, a distracted White House gave the case to law enforcement. But there is significant evidence to suggest that the White House was even less interested in finding answers than it had been in the World Trade Center case. In the Khobar investigation, the Clinton administration not only failed to follow potentially productive leads but in some instances actively made the investigators' job more difficult.
From the beginning, the administration ran into significant Saudi resistance (the Saudis quickly identified a few low-level suspects and beheaded them, hoping to end the matter there). According to a long account of the case by Elsa Walsh published earlier this year in The New Yorker, FBI director Louis Freeh on several occasions urged the White House to pressure the Saudis for more cooperation. More than once, Walsh reports, Freeh was frustrated to learn that the president barely mentioned the case in meetings with Saudi leaders.
Freeh — whose own relations with the White House had deteriorated badly in the wake of the Filegate and campaign-finance scandals — became convinced that the White House didn't really want to push the Saudis for more information, which Freeh believed would confirm strong suspicions of extensive Iranian involvement in the attack. Walsh reports that in September 1998, Freeh, angry and losing hope, took the extraordinary step of secretly asking former president George H. W. Bush to intercede with the Saudi royal family. Acting without Clinton's knowledge, Bush made the request, and the Saudis began to provide new information, which indeed pointed to Iran.
In late 1998, Walsh reports, Freeh went to national security adviser Sandy Berger to tell him that it appeared the FBI had enough evidence to indict several suspects. "Who else knows this?" Berger asked Freeh, demanding to know if it had been leaked to the press. Freeh said it was a closely held secret. Then Berger challenged some of the evidence of Iranian involvement. "That's just hearsay," Berger said. "No, Sandy," Freeh responded. "It's testimony of a co-conspirator . . ." According to Walsh's account, Freeh thought that "Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing."
Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that "by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration." Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the "masterminds" of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment.
Both the Khobar investigation and the World Trade Center bombing presented Clinton with daunting challenges; there were sensitive political issues involved, and in each case it was not immediately clear who was behind the violence. But in neither instance did Clinton press hard for answers and demand action; Berger would not have taken the position he did if the president fully supported a vigorous investigation. In the coming years, Clinton would be faced with clear acts of terrorism carried out by an organization with undeniable state support. But again, busy with other things, he did little.
The Embassies
On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans. The morning of the attacks, Clinton said, "We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes. . . . We are determined to get answers and justice."
Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks. On August 20, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. But the strikes were at best ineffectual. There was little convincing evidence that the pharmaceutical factory, which admin istration officials believed was involved in the production of material for chemical weapons, actually was part of a weapons-making operation, and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies.
Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy. Some of Clinton's allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton's decision.
The accusations came as no surprise to the White House. "Everyone knew the 'wag the dog' charge was going to be made," recalls Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert on the National Security Council. But Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified. "I remember being shocked and deeply depressed over the fact that no one would take seriously what I considered a grave national-security problem," says Benjamin. "Not only were they not buying it, they were accusing the administration of essentially playing the most shallow and foolish kind of game to deflect attention from other issues. It was astonishing."
In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration's evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production. The attack came to be viewed, by consensus, as a screw-up. In a new article in The New York Review of Books, Benjamin suggests that that skepticism, particularly on the part of reporters, scared Clinton away from any more tough action against bin Laden. "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al-Qaeda threat," Benjamin writes. "That in turn meant there was no support for decisive measures in Afghanistan — including, possibly, the use of U.S. ground forces — to hunt down the terrorists; and thus no national leader of either party publicly suggested such action."
After the cruise-missile raids, the administration restricted its work to covert actions breaking up terrorist cells. Benjamin and others say a significant number of terrorist plots were short-circuited, preventing several acts of violence. "I see no reason to doubt their word on that," says James Woolsey. "They may have been doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes." But breaking up individual cells while avoiding larger-scale action probably had the effect of postponing terrorist acts rather than stopping them. Woolsey believes that such an approach was part of what he calls Clinton's "PR-driven" approach to terrorism, an approach that left the fundamental problem unsolved: "Do something to show you're concerned. Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking the ball down the field."
The Cole
The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.'s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk.
Clinton's reaction to the Cole terrorism was more muted than his response to the previous attacks. While he called the bombing "a despicable and cowardly act" and said, "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable," he seemed more concerned that the attack might threaten the administration's work in the Middle East (the bombing came at the same time as a new spate of violence between Israelis and Palestinians). "If [the terrorists'] intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly," Clinton said on the morning of the attack. The next day, the Washington Post's John Harris, who had good connections inside the administration, wrote, "While the apparent suicide bombing of the USS Cole may have been the more dramatic episode for the American public, the escalation between Israelis and Palestinians took the edge in preoccupying senior administration officials yesterday. This was regarded as the more fluid of the two problems, and it presented the broader threat to Clinton's foreign policy aims."
As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden's organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action. Yet he did nothing. Perhaps he didn't want to endanger the cherished goal of Middle East peace. Perhaps he didn't want to disrupt the 2000 presidential campaign, then in its last days. Perhaps he didn't know quite what to do. But in the end, the ball was kicked a bit farther down the field.
In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two p |
| | | | | |
