defense department leak

[clemson357]

Apparently, i don't know if you guys already knew this, under the Clinton administration a defense department leak was published in a news paper (i think they said washington post) and that is how Al Quida found out we could listen in on their communications.

[clemson357]

and also under the Clinton administration, they had definite information about where Bin Laden was (on small hunting expedition), and the ability to kill him with a missile strike. Clinton specifically opted not to because there was a chance of killing some relatives of a middle-eastern royal family who had Bin Laden simpathies.

[clemson357]

this is all new to me, sorry if it is old news.

[clemson357]

this is all immediately prior to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole

[chellek23]

May I suggest that you also provide your sources on this information? I'm not disbuting your claims but it would save you critiscism from others if you have sources to backup your information.

And, btw, if it is true... some aspects of it are new to me as well.

[clemson357]

I know this is going to be critiscised, but i am watching the History Channel, which i think is a reputable source. perhaps somebody more knowledgable about this stuff can site something else, cyberhound maybe.

[clemson357]

ok, now they are showing middle-eastern people celebrating 9-11. this is starting to make me angry

[cyberhound]

I don't how I would back you up. I do know, and it's been rehashed several times over the last couple of years here (search for yourself), that there are reports that Clinton had the opportunity several times to take custody of or kill Bin-Laden on two or three occasions. Why it didn't happen, we will never know. Of course, at the time, I don't think he ever thought 9/11 would happen either.

[System]

ok, now they are showing middle-eastern people celebrating 9-11. this is starting to make me angry

Hey, i think we found a reason for assault weapons

A middle eastern celebration

[System]

I don't how I would back you up. I do know, and it's been rehashed several times over the last couple of years here (search for yourself), that there are reports that Clinton had the opportunity several times to take custody of or kill Bin-Laden on two or three occasions. Why it didn't happen, we will never know. Of course, at the time, I don't think he ever thought 9/11 would happen either.


Did Clinton ever think with the head on his shoulder or just the one in his pants...

Or was Hilary in control all the time...

[clemson357]

I don't how I would back you up....

I just figured you seem pretty knowledgable on politics, you might know for sure. The History channel definitely said it like it was fact, I figured you might know where a credible written source may be.

[cyberhound]

Did Clinton ever think with the head on his shoulder or just the one in his pants...

Or was Hilary in control all the time...
Oh I'd say Clinton thought with both of them. He did some stupid things at times, but he was smart enough to weasel out of them. Both with the country and his wife. I'd say he is one of the best politicians I have ever seen.

[cyberhound]

Ok, here are a couple of links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1287017,00.html

[mojo1210]

didnt this same source also say the reasons why he didnt attack...and also how when he did attack people called it wagging the dog, might be nice to mention as well.

[clemson357]

wagging the dog refers to how the monica scandal broke out and the same time information came out about missles missing bin laden and hitting a pharmecutical plant thought to me a chemical manufacturer

EDIT: which was prior to the hunting expedition thing

[clemson357]

"NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity." - I think this might refer to what i was talking about, although the tv program was much more specific.

it showed and said specifically that a plane was the reason the camp wasn't attacked, as the plane was linked to relatives of middle-eastern royal families who were bin laden supporters. it also said specifically that they had a gps locator on the vehicles of the camp/expedition, and it showed satelite pictures.

[Jake]

Oh I'd say Clinton thought with both of them. He did some stupid things at times, but he was smart enough to weasel out of them. Both with the country and his wife. I'd say he is one of the best politicians I have ever seen.



I agree wholeheartedly.



History will reveal Clinton as an inept leader, but the greatest politician in the 20th century.

[Dancing Ants]

I don't how I would back you up. I do know, and it's been rehashed several times over the last couple of years here (search for yourself), that there are reports that Clinton had the opportunity several times to take custody of or kill Bin-Laden on two or three occasions. Why it didn't happen, we will never know. Of course, at the time, I don't think he ever thought 9/11 would happen either.

I think I saw (on history channel about a year ago) that Clinton was wary of going after him because of the Somalia fiasco.

[mojo1210]

I agree wholeheartedly.



History will reveal Clinton as an inept leader, but the greatest politician in the 20th century.

inept in what way. i can't wait to see what history reveals bush as then.

[Jake]

inept in what way. i can't wait to see what history reveals bush as then.



I've mentioned this too many times in the old ndmbc, but here's the short version.


he'll be critizied for his affairs, his expansion of taxes, his actions in Somalia, his 'war' in the Balkans, his inaction to confront terrorism, his inability to confront a failing economy.


The biggest thing will be the affair, b/c that's how mainstream media will recall him, but it's the other actions that strike me as how poor of a leader he actually was. It's too bad people can't put their political parties behind them and see what he really was.

[Carbon Copy]

4 posts in a row ....learn how to edit.

[clemson357]

4 posts in a row ....learn how to edit.

editing has a 2 min. time limit















oh yeah, and bite my dick, asshole; what difference does it make to you?

[mwjorgens]

I don't how I would back you up. I do know, and it's been rehashed several times over the last couple of years here (search for yourself), that there are reports that Clinton had the opportunity several times to take custody of or kill Bin-Laden on two or three occasions. Why it didn't happen, we will never know. Of course, at the time, I don't think he ever thought 9/11 would happen either.
how many times did george ignore terrorist threats put on his desk?? how many times did he bring up iraq? we have known of osamas evilness for quite awhile but no one seems to talk aobut that. remember when we helped fund him with the heroin trade? no one talks about that cause secretly we helped fuel two of the wars we were 'fighting'.

[NavyBoy41]

President Clinton actually did a lot against the war on terrorism. Towards the end of his administration, one of his primary objectives was to shut down al Qaeda. When President Bush took office, he was more concerned with domestic issues than the destruction of al Qaeda. When 9/11 happened, it brought the idea of stopping terrorism back around. This is when advisors to the president, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, tried to convince him that Iraq was behind the attacks or at least were a state sponsor. This theory was highly discredited, but the personal vendetta against Iraq by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz continued to burn brightly and when Gen. Tommy Franks jumped on board, they convinced Bush that Iraq was a serious and imminent danger, so they began serious war planning in 2002.


Clinton did a lot for containing Iraq and terrorism as well. They used unmanned "predators" to bomb terrorist training camps and Clinton ordered the expansion of the No-Fly Zone in Iraq as well as constant fly overs. He also authorized multiple tomahawk missile strikes into baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

All of you that are interested in Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43's handling of terrorism and such should read "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War On Terror" by Richard Clarke. The reviews initially labeled it as a "Bush-bashing" book, but it really isn't. It's more informative than anything, although the last chapter is just Richard Clarke saying how he thinks Bush mismanaged the Iraq situation and stuff like that.....

:monkey

[cyberhound]

President Clinton actually did a lot against the war on terrorism. Towards the end of his administration, one of his primary objectives was to shut down al Qaeda. When President Bush took office, he was more concerned with domestic issues than the destruction of al Qaeda. When 9/11 happened, it brought the idea of stopping terrorism back around. This is when advisors to the president, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, tried to convince him that Iraq was behind the attacks or at least were a state sponsor. This theory was highly discredited, but the personal vendetta against Iraq by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz continued to burn brightly and when Gen. Tommy Franks jumped on board, they convinced Bush that Iraq was a serious and imminent danger, so they began serious war planning in 2002.


Clinton did a lot for containing Iraq and terrorism as well. They used unmanned "predators" to bomb terrorist training camps and Clinton ordered the expansion of the No-Fly Zone in Iraq as well as constant fly overs. He also authorized multiple tomahawk missile strikes into baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

All of you that are interested in Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43's handling of terrorism and such should read "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War On Terror" by Richard Clarke. The reviews initially labeled it as a "Bush-bashing" book, but it really isn't. It's more informative than anything, although the last chapter is just Richard Clarke saying how he thinks Bush mismanaged the Iraq situation and stuff like that.....

:monkey
I figured you'd be using that Clarke tripe. You should know though, that most of what you said has been thourouhly debunked. By whom? Clarke himself.

[Jake]

President Clinton actually did a lot against the war on terrorism. Towards the end of his administration, one of his primary objectives was to shut down al Qaeda. When President Bush took office, he was more concerned with domestic issues than the destruction of al Qaeda. When 9/11 happened, it brought the idea of stopping terrorism back around. This is when advisors to the president, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, tried to convince him that Iraq was behind the attacks or at least were a state sponsor. This theory was highly discredited, but the personal vendetta against Iraq by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz continued to burn brightly and when Gen. Tommy Franks jumped on board, they convinced Bush that Iraq was a serious and imminent danger, so they began serious war planning in 2002.


Clinton did a lot for containing Iraq and terrorism as well. They used unmanned "predators" to bomb terrorist training camps and Clinton ordered the expansion of the No-Fly Zone in Iraq as well as constant fly overs. He also authorized multiple tomahawk missile strikes into baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

All of you that are interested in Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43's handling of terrorism and such should read "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War On Terror" by Richard Clarke. The reviews initially labeled it as a "Bush-bashing" book, but it really isn't. It's more informative than anything, although the last chapter is just Richard Clarke saying how he thinks Bush mismanaged the Iraq situation and stuff like that.....

:monkey




it's hard to back up your theories with the Richard Clarke book as an example.


You say that 'one of his primary objectives' was to stop terrorism... really? How? That Iraq stuff happened earlier in his presidency, and it's very difficult to make a case for Clinton doing anything at all after 99.

[Dancing Ants]

President Clinton actually did a lot against the war on terrorism. Towards the end of his administration, one of his primary objectives was to shut down al Qaeda. When President Bush took office, he was more concerned with domestic issues than the destruction of al Qaeda. When 9/11 happened, it brought the idea of stopping terrorism back around. This is when advisors to the president, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, tried to convince him that Iraq was behind the attacks or at least were a state sponsor. This theory was highly discredited, but the personal vendetta against Iraq by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz continued to burn brightly and when Gen. Tommy Franks jumped on board, they convinced Bush that Iraq was a serious and imminent danger, so they began serious war planning in 2002.


Clinton did a lot for containing Iraq and terrorism as well. They used unmanned "predators" to bomb terrorist training camps and Clinton ordered the expansion of the No-Fly Zone in Iraq as well as constant fly overs. He also authorized multiple tomahawk missile strikes into baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

All of you that are interested in Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43's handling of terrorism and such should read "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War On Terror" by Richard Clarke. The reviews initially labeled it as a "Bush-bashing" book, but it really isn't. It's more informative than anything, although the last chapter is just Richard Clarke saying how he thinks Bush mismanaged the Iraq situation and stuff like that.....

:monkey


I've never seen anything pointing to Clinton trying to dismantle Al Qaeda. Also, Richard Clarke admitted that he was out for revenge...c'mon.

[System]

President Clinton actually did a lot against the war on terrorism. Towards the end of his administration, one of his primary objectives was to shut down al Qaeda. When President Bush took office, he was more concerned with domestic issues than the destruction of al Qaeda. When 9/11 happened, it brought the idea of stopping terrorism back around. This is when advisors to the president, such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, tried to convince him that Iraq was behind the attacks or at least were a state sponsor. This theory was highly discredited, but the personal vendetta against Iraq by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz continued to burn brightly and when Gen. Tommy Franks jumped on board, they convinced Bush that Iraq was a serious and imminent danger, so they began serious war planning in 2002.


Clinton did a lot for containing Iraq and terrorism as well. They used unmanned "predators" to bomb terrorist training camps and Clinton ordered the expansion of the No-Fly Zone in Iraq as well as constant fly overs. He also authorized multiple tomahawk missile strikes into baghdad and other Iraqi cities.

All of you that are interested in Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43's handling of terrorism and such should read "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War On Terror" by Richard Clarke. The reviews initially labeled it as a "Bush-bashing" book, but it really isn't. It's more informative than anything, although the last chapter is just Richard Clarke saying how he thinks Bush mismanaged the Iraq situation and stuff like that.....

:monkey

Clinton had very little intrest in terror. Some of those missle strikes had been layed out and plotted for months. Only did he start getting caught with his pants around his ankles did he start to launch them.

[NavyBoy41]

Clinton had very little intrest in terror. Some of those missle strikes had been layed out and plotted for months. Only did he start getting caught with his pants around his ankles did he start to launch them.
January 17, 1998 - First news of the "Lewinsky scandal" appears in the Drudge report...

January 17th, 1993 – United States strikes the Zafraniyah Nuclear Fabrication Facility with 42 tomahawk cruise missiles in retaliation for Saddam Hussein not cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.

June 27th, 1993 – President Clinton orders cruise missile attack on Iraqi Intelligence headquarters in retaliation for assassination plot on former President Bush while he visited Kuwait.

September 3-4th, 1996 – Operation Desert Strike: President Clinton extends no fly-zone to cover parts of Baghdad and central Iraq. The United States fires 44 tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraqi military targets.


I'd say right there that Clinton didn't use terrorism or Iraq as a "wag the dog" outlet... People could argue that AFTER 1998, everything he did like that was something to the extent of "wagging the dog," but before then?

I still recommend "Against All Enemies: America's War on Terror" to get some good information about all of this.....

:monkey

[System]

January 17, 1998 - First news of the "Lewinsky scandal" appears in the Drudge report...

January 17th, 1993 – United States strikes the Zafraniyah Nuclear Fabrication Facility with 42 tomahawk cruise missiles in retaliation for Saddam Hussein not cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.

June 27th, 1993 – President Clinton orders cruise missile attack on Iraqi Intelligence headquarters in retaliation for assassination plot on former President Bush while he visited Kuwait.

September 3-4th, 1996 – Operation Desert Strike: President Clinton extends no fly-zone to cover parts of Baghdad and central Iraq. The United States fires 44 tomahawk cruise missiles at Iraqi military targets.


I'd say right there that Clinton didn't use terrorism or Iraq as a "wag the dog" outlet... People could argue that AFTER 1998, everything he did like that was something to the extent of "wagging the dog," but before then?

I still recommend "Against All Enemies: America's War on Terror" to get some good information about all of this.....

:monkey

um, ya so I have talked to people that used to plot the paths of the missles. (they no longer do) and they said they had those specific ones drafted up months almost years before things started to happen. WHile you are just looking at timelines my first hand knowledge i believe to be more acturate.

[NavyBoy41]

You all can think what you want... Just what I deduced from everything.. and not just ONE source either to those of you that simply thought that....


I don't think anyone here can really claim to be an expert on things anyway unless you are a policy maker or work with someone from the white house and have a very high security clearance. i know i don't. That's just what I got from everything I've read.
:monkey

[System]

You all can think what you want... Just what I deduced from everything.. and not just ONE source either to those of you that simply thought that....


I don't think anyone here can really claim to be an expert on things anyway unless you are a policy maker or work with someone from the white house and have a very high security clearance. i know i don't. That's just what I got from everything I've read.
:monkey


1 source from the top. not a bunch of stuff that had to go from the top to a spokes man to a reporter to a writer to a editor to you.


ANd who says I don't have a high security clearance?