Americans, Brace Yourself - US Report on 09/11 to be Explosive

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Link - Miami.com

    Wonder if it will contain this information about bin Laden being treated at a US Hospital in July 2001 (just weeks before 09/11), being visited by a CIA agent. We'll see....

    Link
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is that that incident has been denied and there is no proof that it happened. Now it may have happened, but then again without proof it's not exactly something to hang one's hat on.

    Also, we can find all the links we want to Saudis but the bottom line is nothing will change. We need their oil for our economy.
     
  3. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Agreed. Sadly, agreed. [​IMG]
     
  4. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Also, we can find all the links we want to Saudis but the bottom line is nothing will change. We need their oil for our economy."
    I strongly disagree!
    Plenty of oil elsewhere. That oil would be a little more expensive, causing the petrol prices to rise a little in the USA and that would mean that the political party that breaks of ties with the Saudis will lose a number of elections.
    Politics as usual.
     
  5. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    It will be very interesting to see if Clinton's ties to Bin Laden are disclosed. :rolleyes:
     
  6. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I were a betting woman, I'd bet this information will continue to stay out of the limelight! [​IMG]
     
  8. NarrowWay

    NarrowWay
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill Press: Don't blame it on Bill Clinton
    By Bill Press
    Tribune Media Services
    WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) --Here is one of the first rules of politics: It’s not enough that I do well; I must also destroy my enemy.

    Sadly, even in America’s war against terrorism, that rule still drives a lot of Republicans. I see it on the op-ed pages. I get avalanches of it in my e-mail. I hear it in their public statements. For them, it's not enough that most Americans give George W. Bush credit for doing a good job in leading the nation against Osama bin Laden. They're not satisfied unless everybody also holds Bill Clinton responsible for getting us into this mess.
    Yet the evidence shows his detractors have more to answer for than he does.
    The attacks of September 11 were only a few hours old when conservative

    Congressman Dana Rohrbacher, R-California, blamed Clinton, not the terrorists: We had Bill Clinton, backing off, letting the Taliban go, over and over again.

    Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh trumpeted on the pages of the Wall Street Journal: Mr. Clinton can be held culpable for not doing enough when he was commander-in-chief to combat the terrorists who wound up attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon
    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who resigned in disgrace, also chimed in, citing Clinton’s pathetically weak, ineffective ability to focus and stay focused.
    Don't you love it? Gingrich and company derail the president and the country for two whole years over a minor sex scandal in the White House -- magnifying one act of oral sex into a full time, $50 million Independent Counsel investigation, weeks of House Judiciary Committee hearings, impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate -- and then they accuse Clinton of not staying focused on government business!

    Have they no shame?

    The truth, of course, is just the opposite. Given how distracted he was by the Lewinsky scandal, (which was of his own making, but blown out of proportion by his political enemies), it’s amazing Clinton was able to continue governing at all. And during that time, as The Washington Post reveals, he did a great deal to combat terrorism, much of it behind the scenes.

    Clinton’s most public response, of course, were the cruise missile attacks of 1998, directed against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the Sudan, following the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

    Operating on limited intelligence -- at that time, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tazikistan refused to share information on the terrorists whereabouts inside Afghanistan -- U. S. strikes missed bin Laden by only a couple of hours.
    Even so, Clinton was accused of only firing missiles in order to divert media attention from the Lewinsky hearings. A longer campaign would have stirred up even more criticism.

    So Clinton tried another tack. He sponsored legislation to freeze the financial assets of international organizations suspected of funneling money to bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network -- identical to orders given by President Bush this month -- but it was killed, on behalf of big banks, by Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

    Those actions, we knew about. Others, we did not, until recently. Starting in 1998, for example, Clinton gave the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States.
    As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped some 60 commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when Pakistan experienced a military coup and a new government took over.

    In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan.

    Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart.

    Conclusion: Rohrbacher, Limbaugh, Gingrich are dead wrong when they blame Bill Clinton for September 11. Did Clinton get Osama bin Laden dead or alive? No, but he came close, several times -- long before tracking down terrorists became a national priority.

    Find this article at:
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress
     
  9. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can certainly tell that article was written by a Democrat. :rolleyes: No matter what the commentarys say...you can't change history. The fact remains that Bill Clinton DID let the Taliban go.
     
  10. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You can certainly tell that article was written by a Democrat. No matter what the commentarys say...you can't change history. The fact remains that Bill Clinton DID let the Taliban go.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    But you alleged something far more sinister. You said that Clinton had ties to Bin Laden. Hogwash! you should retract that statement. It is a mean lie unless you have proof of it. What is your proof?
     
  11. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Link

    The Truth - There is enough blame to go around for letting the terrorists go scott free -through all Administrations dating back to even 1986!!!!!
     
  12. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, let's not get caught up worrying about the future of our country. Let's just try to deflect blame to the OTHER political party.

    After all, it's OK for MY party to run the nation into the ground, it's only bad when the OTHER party does it.

    More specifically...why is it that those who so loudly denounce Clinton every chance they get, will cover for Bush when he does the same things?

    There's a term for it...it starts with the letter "h" and has 7 letters.

    (I say all of this as a Republican).
     
  13. Alexandra Spears

    Alexandra Spears
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    The sad thing is, drilling there would not disrupt the environment, as where they want to drill is pretty much a barren wasteland. Got the tree-huggers and PETA-types to thank for the lies!
     
  14. Elnora

    Elnora
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    0
    The sad thing is, drilling there would not disrupt the environment, as where they want to drill is pretty much a barren wasteland. Got the tree-huggers and PETA-types to thank for the lies!

    I have family living in North Pole, AK. They said the environmentalist are worried how it will impact the caribu & moose. My brother-in-law is a native. He said they just walk right under the existing pipeline. Doesn't bother them in the least.
     
  15. NarrowWay

    NarrowWay
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    The sad thing is, drilling there would not disrupt the environment, as where they want to drill is pretty much a barren wasteland. Got the tree-huggers and PETA-types to thank for the lies! [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]
    The sad thing is, drilling there would not disrupt the environment, as where they want to drill is pretty much a barren wasteland. Got the tree-huggers and PETA-types to thank for the lies! [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The sad thing is the US could of had another alternative. My brother worked for the Synthetic Fuel Corporation in Washington, a quasi-government agency formed to provide financial and technical support for synthetic fuel start-up plants.

    We could have have a significant synthetic fuel capability today but the project was killed by Ronald Reagan because it wasn't economically viable at the time. That wasn't the point. The real importance of such a program was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
     

Share This Page

Loading...