by Yerusalyim 40 Replies latest social current
In this thread I'll start posting the info relevant to Sudan offering up Bin Laden and the Clinton administration turning it down. The reason for this is a thread that referenced Dick Clarke...according to the individual that tried to broker the deal it was Clarke that stood in the way.
Here's the first link...more to follow.
Awesome, Yeru. Now, do you have any info on the connections between the Bush and Bin Laden families? I know Clarke is full of crap, bur what about the Bush admin. and their ties? I'm a conservative libertarian, by the way, but I'm troubled by both administrations. I think we should've embargoed the saudis and opened up alaska b-4 we went after Saddam. I think he should've been taken out, too, for ignoring UN resolutions. Well?
Bush and Bin Laden....what are the familial links? The Bin Laden Family is construction...the Bush folks are oil....Now, Bush and the Saudi government...sure,
Well bin Laden was also a member of Skull and Bones, which is a front for the Trilateral commission. The Trilateral commission is in turn a front organization for the reptilian overlords who really run the whole thing. The Bushies were actually closely connected to Hitler's Nazis and funded Adolf's rise to power, a lot of that money ended up being the missing Nazi gold which was secretly shipped to the Middle East and served as part of the basis for the bin Laden family fortune so these guys are really tight. Regular Christmas cards and everything. There's more but I'd have to kill you if I told you.
I know Clarke is full of crap
Really? Could you be specific?
Yeru, the Vanity Fair article this web-site is supposedly pre-scooping might be credible and interesting. But if this web-site is the best you can do, then you have to know that the story is hokey.
Porky's not joking btw.
CLINTON 8 years = less than 80 died due to terrorism
BUSH 9 Months = more than 3,000 died due to terrorism
CLINTON 8 years = less than 80 died due to terrorismBUSH 9 Months = more than 3,000 died due to terrorism
lol. Not totally fair, but hey, until the right get's a little closer to reasonable, I'm forced to be partisan. I like it!
CLINTON 8 years = less than 80 died due to terrorism
BUSH 9 Months = more than 3,000 died due to terrorism Less than 80 WHAT? Less than 3000, WHAT. US Citizens? Clarify. If you dare.
I believe the Bush's and Bin Ladens have lots of links inc. ties to the same companies and both withdrawing their money **just** before they went bust.
They have more ties than Clinton, that's for sure ... so if you are against Clinton because of it then you will hate Bush with a passion ... won't you ?
Today my local paper (probably unwittingly, since it has well know liberal biases) summed the issue up:
?Republicans?contend that [Bush] had been president less than eight months when the attacks occurred and can?t be expected to have defeated an enemy that
Democrats counter that the attacks happened on Bush?s watch. Eight months should have been enough time to act more aggressively against al-Qaida?especially in light of dire, private warnings ongoing officials say they delivered before Bush took office??
Ah, ?dire private warnings? that the administration gave Bush, which should have led him to do everything possible to prevent planes from slamming into the WTC. Dire warnings that the admininistration (and Clarke) for some reason failed to act upon repeatedly during the 8-year admin.
But wait? there?s a clear explanation!
?By tying the earlier terrorist attacks to the Sept. 11 catastrophe and pinning all of them on Al-Qaida, Bush?s team is making connects that were not clear at the time, in the view of the Clinton crew.
Bush and his aides, Clinton?s counterparts add, are judging them from a post-9/11 perspective of urgency and national resolve that didn?t exist before Sept. 11, 2001.?
Then Madelyn Albright adds:
?We have to put ourselves in the pre-9/11 mode, and it?s hard because we?ve all been in our post 9/11 prism, where we should be.?
So, let?s make sure we understand this: was acting appropriately because it was in the ?pre-9/11? mindset. That day, of course, changed everything. But interesting the Dems are doing exactly THAT to the Bush administration. They claim he ?should have known? that something big was going to happen are prevented it in the 8 months he was in office before the attack.
So which is it people? We can judge Bush?s actions from a pre-9/11 perspective (having just taken office for 8 months), although the 9/11 attacks had not occurred yet. But we cannot dare to judge the administration from a post 9/11 perspective because 9/11 hadn?t happened yet.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see through this very ?Clintonesque? logic.
Plus the attack on the world trade center took YEARS to coordinate. It was in the works on ?s watch. But 9/11 hadn?t happened yet, so we can?t blame for doing nothing?? Oh right, DIRE warnings were issued to Bush before he took office. DIRE WARNINGS that the administration failed to act upon.
