VERY interesting history regarding Iran, Clinton, Bush Sr.

[Dover]

Removed this post. sick of the crap. Won't bother posting here again...it's apparently not as interesting as a cheap freeper fight.

You can all just keep reacting to the first post. This thread now belongs to the freeper who posted it.

[jm1220]

1. Clinton Hypocrisy

and I especially love how Clinton turned down the offer from Sudan for Bin Laden's head. It refreshes me so much how much Clinton cared about homeland security.

[wyldwolf]

2. Never happened...

Clinton turned down the offer from Sudan for Bin Laden's head.

Nah, never happened.

[LynzM]

3. Dude, don't think you belong here

Go read about how much Clinton did in terms of going after Bin Laden, how many plans he laid, how he was 'obsessed with them', how he was stonewalled in his initiatives by republicans, and then come back and let's have a real discussion. Toodles.

[wyldwolf]

5. no, let him stay...

..at least to get the red ass.

I've always wanted to call a freeper on the "Clinton turned down Clinton's head" lie.

Let him "make his case."

[ComerPerro]

8. He has no "case"

Its probably just some bullshit hit and run post.

If he had a case, he would lay it out.

And, I assure you, any "case" he might have would only be bullshit that he is parroting from Limbaugh, Hannity, or some email.

They simply cannot think for themselves. Their only "stance" on an issue is the opinion that they are given.

[wyldwolf]

10. which is why I put "case" in quotes...

...I'm sure he has a whole littany of Hannity talking points on this and believes he is well prepared.

I'd like to show him he is grossly misinformed, sorry, give him the red ass.

[ComerPerro]

13. I hear ya

[ComerPerro]

4. Give me a fucking break, loser

That has been debunked many, many times.

Get this:

Bush was offered bin Laden AFTER 9/11 by Afganistan, but he decided that a war would be better.

And, when gearing up for war with Iraq last year, Bush announced that he didn't know and didn't care where bin Laden was.


Go sell your fascist, sycophantic bullshit somewhere else, moron.

[Bridget Burke]

7. Please supply some support for your assertion.

You will find many here who wish to interact with you!

[teach1st]

9. Check your facts, Jim....

The 9/11 Commission did say they found no credible evidence that Sudan tried to hand over Bin Laden.

It's also worth note that Republicans fought many of Clinton's efforts to fight terrorism (sometimes the objections were reasonable in my opinion, such as the concerns about privacy). Click the link for the Clinton Administration Terrorism Initiative.

Even though the Clinton's handling of the Cole bombing is defended below, I'm not sure he didn't make mistakes there. Other possible Clinton mistakes include his administrations handling of the Oklahoma City bombing and the downing of TWA flight 800 (which wasn't officially attributed to terrorism, if I recall correctly)

Here's something from the (right-wing) Washington Times. The authors served with Clinton. it's a rebuttal to an article published in the paper:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030922-090026-8355r.htm

First, Mr. Miniter recycles old, false Sudanese claims that the Clinton White House declined access to Sudan's intelligence files on al Qaeda and that an unnamed CIA official declined an offer from Sudan in 1996 to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States.

......................................

When the USS Cole was hit in October 2000, al Qaeda was a prime suspect. But other terrorist groups and states which had attacked us before were also potentially responsible.

It was appropriate that Mr. Clinton wanted conclusions from his chief intelligence and law enforcement agencies before launching broad retaliatory strikes on al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Afghanistan. Definitive conclusions from the CIA and FBI on who was behind the Cole were not provided to Mr. Clinton for the remainder of his term.

Even without conclusions from the FBI and CIA on the Cole, bin Laden and his lieutenants were still hunted to the last day of Mr. Clinton's presidency for al Qaeda's 1998 attacks on our two embassies in Africa. And if the Clinton administration dropped the ball in responding to the Cole bombing, why didn't the incoming Bush administration pick it up in January, 2001?

......................................

Mr. Miniter also alleges that in the spring and summer of 1998 the Clinton administration was deadlocked over the decision to conduct a special forces mission near a bin Laden camp. Mr. Miniter suggests that the president did not want to overrule Pentagon concerns over risks because he could not "stomach sending thousands of troops into harm's way." Mr. Clinton was, in fact, ready and willing to undertake a special forces or other paramilitary assault on bin Laden, particularly after our missile attacks on bin Laden in the summer of 1998, and often pressed his senior military advisers for options. But Mr. Clinton's top military and intelligence advisers concluded that a commando raid was likely to be a failure, given the potential for detection, in the absence of reliable, predictive intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts.

Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al Qaeda. As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden.

......................................

Roger Cressey served as National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001. Gayle Smith served as special assistant to the president for African affairs from 1998-2001.

(Clinton) White House fact sheet on counter-terrorism

President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws, 7/30/96

President Clinton's Speech on Terrorist Attacks, 8/20/98

Americas FBI reorganises to combat terror , 11/12/99

Whether or not he made mistakes, whether he could have strategized or acted more decisively, the facts suggest that Clinton was on top of terrorism up to the day he left. The jury is still out on Bush's dedication to fighting terrorism pre-9/11.

[leetrisck]

12. More care in Clinton's little finger than

in bush's "whatever" - bush I & cohorts should have been prosecuted for their crimes - I regret Clinton didn't see to it that they all went to jail - maybe it would have prevented what is happening now. I think I've heard you can impeach after the fact - if so bushI, Reagan should be impeached now & throw in the present one since it's coming anyway.

[wyldwolf]

14. freeper... come back!

Don't run. I'll make it as painless as possible...

[Dover]

16. PLEASE don't turn this thread into a senseless flamefest with a freeper

Those contests are a dime a dozen.

[wyldwolf]

17. no chance in that anyway

... he's gone. But it wouldn't have been a flamefest anyway.

[jobycom]

18. Got to at least respond, though. Not only those who know the facts

read this board. If people see such an assertion, and no rebuttal, they may assume it's true.

Although all the silly baiting makes it look more like all we can do is call names. Someone should post the facts, and move on.

[blm]

21. HAHAH...Didn't you watch the 9/11 hearings? That charge was BOGUS

and both Clinton and Bush administrations agreed it was bogus.

[Dover]

22. Thanks to ALL the reactionaries (see above) who helped this freeper

completely disrupt this thread. With just a few words he/she managed to distract and derail most intelligent responses and discourse pertinent to the information in the initial post(with a few exceptions).

How easy was that? Hope you all got your jollies. Now GROW UP!

[ComerPerro]

23. Hey! I flamed AND posted a serious response

I am multi-tasking.

[blm]

28. Dover, I've been pushing BCCI and IranContra for three years

on internet message boards. Everything about 9-11 and Bush's Iraq policy is rooted in in BCCI and IranContra.

Many here scorned the connection and mocked Kerry's role in investigating and exposing those criminal acts by Reagan and Bush. They just thought it was ancient history and had nothing to do with today.

There were many threads by those of us who kept those stories alive.

[Catherine Vincent]

30. Oh, I get it now.....

[Redleg]

24. Clinton did not have the opportunity to turn down Bin Laden.

Perhaps you should get your information from someone besided Sean Hannitty.

[ConcernedCanuk]

27. Bye - bye

.
.
.



HE's gone everybody! - - :bounce:

Needs basic "Lurking 101" !!

[ComerPerro]

6. Could this be motivation for war with Iran?

On several occasions, for instance, Clinton has received information from Iran on the long-standing allegations that the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign sabotaged then-President Carter's attempts to free 52 American hostages held by Iranian militants. Carter's failure to free those hostages contributed to Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in November 1980. The hostages finally were released minutes after Reagan took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 1981.

Though allegations of Reagan campaign interference had come from a variety of individuals and officials in Europe and the Middle East, GOP leaders have emphatically denied the so-called October Surprise charges. In Washington, the charges are normally treated with derision by both government officials and the news media.

But sources involved in Clinton's Iranian contacts told The Consortium that senior Iranian leaders from President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's inner circle repeatedly have confirmed that Republican operatives did negotiate with Iran behind Carter's back. The Iranians have specifically implicated then-vice presidential candidate George Bush and then-campaign director William J. Casey in these initiatives, the sources said.


Fascinating. We wouldn't want anyone finding out that Reagan and Bush used American lives to win an election, would we?

[Dover]

11. ....that's exactly what I was thinking. So much back room blackmailing

going on, I'll bet. Everybody has secrets. But why wasn't this info used by the Dems in the 2000 election?

[ComerPerro]

15. And this line shows the most important difference between Dems and Rethugs

"Although tending to believe those Iranian claims, Clinton has demanded that Teheran supply hard evidence before he would consider any formal action to reopen investigations into this historical issue, the sources said."

Normally, for a Republican, one rumor with little or no verification or evidence is enough to get the media into a full blown frenzy and open investigations.

They just don't give a shit about facts.

[notadmblnd]

34. you answered the question yourself

So much back room blackmailing. Everybody has secrets.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Hallmark of Republican politics since Reagan-Bush.

Notice how Clinton's motivations were to prevent genocide in Bosnia? I see no personal "advantage" in doing this. But the Republicans were quite ready to conduct a Congressional investigation on this issue. Funny how the Republican cowards will not call this administration on the crimes that are well documented. Congressional Republicans are the real cowards today.

Really, the whole Bush/ME history is sickening.

* They brought Saddam to power.
* They sold the chemical precursors to allow Saddam to gas Iranians and/or Iraqi's.
* They turned their back on the Kurds and liberation when the opportunity (and a world coalition existed).
* They created the 1st war to protect the interests of Kuwait and SA.
* They stopped Carter's initiatives to develop alternative/renewable energy, promote conservation, and killed the Dept. of Energy.....because they had a political/economic interest in keeping us reliant on ME oil.
* They have facilitated the selling out of the US to SA to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Americans are dying in Iraq today because the Bush family has put their interests in front of America's interests for 25 years. When are the American people going to wake up and understand that our national security has been compromised by these people?

[ComerPerro]

25. Republicans refusing to investigate Republicans isn't exactly cowardice

Its really just protecting their interests and serving themselves. And, when it comes to helping yourself while screwing everyone else, nobody does it better than the reich wing.

But, I agree with you on your points. There are many, many sleazy things that the Reagan and Bush team (many of whom are in the current administration) did that haven't ever been discussed in public.

Great rundown of their action against America.

I love your last two lines. Seriously, we are in this mess because the Reich wing (especially the Bushes) put themselves before the country, and usually in the process give the country a royal screwing.

And, somehow, these freeper idiots feel SAFE with Bush in power?

[Old and In the Way]

36. All it would take are a few Republicans to move accross the aisle

and completely change the political dynamic. It is that group of Republicans who know that what this administration and the Republican leadership are doing is ethicly, morally, and criminally wrong. Those are the people I refer to as cowards. The rest are just criminals.

[Dover]

19. More interesting history, particularly regarding Iran/Contra here >

I think there is relevance in this history, to our current relationship to Iran. Particularly the Bushies and Iran/Contra.

http://globalcircle.net/00iran.htm

[ComerPerro]

26. Adding this site to "favorites" on IE

Great stuff

[Catherine Vincent]

29. Huh?

I don't get it?

[LynzM]

31. Dover, please re-post it

I'm sorry about addressing the freepage before addressing your post. If you would repost it, there were things I wanted to talk about! Plus I think the message can still get to more people!

[ComerPerro]

32. I second that

[Dover]

33. Apology accepted. But I'm through here in GD. People would rather

have a two-bit argument with a freeper than discuss the issues. The alert button apparently isn't near as much fun as the cheap talk.

So if you want to discuss that article here is the link. You can post your own thread and deal with the reactionaries yourselves.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story12.html

[Redleg]

35. It's simply that we prefer Bush bashing to Clinton bashing...

... especially since Clinton is not running for President and Bush is.