• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

LA Times - Bush Never Lied About Iraq

Goodpasture

Well-known member
You ARE talking about the same Clinton that was ridiculed for blowing up a tent or destroying an aspirin factory? Of course, the fact that it was owned by Bin Laden, and of course the fact that a chemical production facility can frequently be used for more than just producing aspirin is irrelevant. He missed Bin Laden so he is a failure. The same Clinton that the Republicans spent $100,000,000 in trying to convict him of anything and settled for him getting a bj and lying about it? the same Clinton who went to the Republican Congress to get authorization to expand the search for Bin Laden and was told that they would not support nation building or risk our relationship with the middle east by that same Republican Congress? You Republicans are amazing. Handcuff a guy so he can't do what he needs to do, then blame him for standing there with his hands behind his back..........
 

Mike

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
You ARE talking about the same Clinton that was ridiculed for blowing up a tent or destroying an aspirin factory? Of course, the fact that it was owned by Bin Laden, and of course the fact that a chemical production facility can frequently be used for more than just producing aspirin is irrelevant. He missed Bin Laden so he is a failure. The same Clinton that the Republicans spent $100,000,000 in trying to convict him of anything and settled for him getting a bj and lying about it? the same Clinton who went to the Republican Congress to get authorization to expand the search for Bin Laden and was told that they would not support nation building or risk our relationship with the middle east by that same Republican Congress? You Republicans are amazing. Handcuff a guy so he can't do what he needs to do, then blame him for standing there with his hands behind his back..........

Owned by Bin Laden? That's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

U.S. OKs payout for Sudan bombing 'mistake'
The Clinton administration will not challenge a lawsuit filed by a Saudi businessman who said the bombing last year of his pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was a "mistake" based on faulty intelligence data.

The administration also agreed to release $24 million in assets that the businessman, Saleh Idris, had deposited in U.S. banks.

The Aug. 20, 1998, cruise missile attack, which the White House claimed was in retaliation for terrorist attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, came three days after President Clinton's appearance before a federal grand jury investigating his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Hours after his grand jury testimony, Mr. Clinton made a dramatic address to the nation admitting an "inappropriate relationship" with the former White House intern.

The White House insisted at the time it bombed the plant, located near Khartoum, Sudan, because it was tied to international terrorist Osama bin Laden and was producing precursors to VX nerve gas. Sudan countered that the plant manufactured only pharmaceuticals and offered inspection tours for U.S. officials and reporters.

Facing a deadline to respond to the suit, filed Feb. 26, the Justice Department told Mr. Idris' attorneys on Monday that the administration had ordered that the freeze placed on his U.S. bank accounts be lifted immediately.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Ever heard of a ' front man'??


Geeze...do you think the mail arrived at the plant,

Mr. Osama bin Laden, Owner & CEO
3486 Yallah Street
Khartoum, Sudan



Good grief!! :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Clinton's mistake based on "faulty intelligence" cost the world an aspirin factory. Bush's "faulty intelligence" has cost the United States the lives of over 4100 of our sons and daughters as well as over 30,000 wounded and injured.

Mike said:
That's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please explain to me the humor of this. I could use a good laugh today.
 

Texan

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Ever heard of a ' front man'??


Geeze...do you think the mail arrived at the plant,

Mr. Osama bin Laden, Owner & CEO
3486 Yallah Street
Khartoum, Sudan



Good grief!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

If you really think that's what happened, why didn't the Clinton Administration fight the lawsuit?

It's really pretty obvious what happened - Clinton had just committed perjury and was desperate to do something to take the heat off of himself.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Clinton's mistake based on "faulty intelligence" cost the world an aspirin factory. Bush's "faulty intelligence" has cost the United States the lives of over 4100 of our sons and daughters as well as over 30,000 wounded and injured.

Mike said:
That's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please explain to me the humor of this. I could use a good laugh today.

I just love the inability of Libs to debate!!!!!!!!!!!!

First you ridicule Reagan for not attacking, then you claim the aspirin factory was owned by Bin Laden, then you crawfish and admit that Clinton made a mistake, then you try a guilt trip?

You idiots are amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Texan said:
kolanuraven said:
Ever heard of a ' front man'??


Geeze...do you think the mail arrived at the plant,

Mr. Osama bin Laden, Owner & CEO
3486 Yallah Street
Khartoum, Sudan



Good grief!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

If you really think that's what happened, why didn't the Clinton Administration fight the lawsuit?

It's really pretty obvious what happened - Clinton had just committed perjury and was desperate to do something to take the heat off of himself.


EVERYBODY fights any and all lawsuits, DUH!!!!

You don't or never have fought'em???


If not, then your middle name must be SUCKER!!!!


Oh...so to cover up a BJ...you blow up a plant in another country??

:roll: :roll: :roll:


I'll catch up this thread later. This site is slow as mud for some reason...and I'm headed for the hay fields today.

Keep the crap coming boys!!! :wink:
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
Who would Reagan have attacked in retaliation?

At the time of the incident, and for months afterwards, no one knew for sure who had done it?

I

And that's exactly why nothing was done about the Cole attack that A+ likes to bash Clinton with. It wasn't until very near the end of his term that we knew who attacked the Cole. So he turned that information over to his successor, George W. Bush. Want to do some Googling and find out where those guys are now? And how hard the Bush Administration has pushed to get them punished? :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Mike said:
Who would Reagan have attacked in retaliation?

At the time of the incident, and for months afterwards, no one knew for sure who had done it?

I

And that's exactly why nothing was done about the Cole attack that A+ likes to bash Clinton with. It wasn't until very near the end of his term that we knew who attacked the Cole. So he turned that information over to his successor, George W. Bush. Want to do some Googling and find out where those guys are now? And how hard the Bush Administration has pushed to get them punished? :roll:

Reagan had an attack plan but was talked out of it because no one was absolutely sure that the Iranians were involved.

At very near the end of Clinton's term, he was busy with all that ridiculous pardoning. :lol: :lol: :lol: Just had to get in another jab..............
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
All of the guys involved in the WTC bombing of 93 did not stand trial. Just the ones Clinton could find here still in the U.S. or did not let leave the next day on a plane to IRAQ! And what about all those others involved in the bombing you know Al Qaeda or whatever they were calling themselves at the moment. Clinton as always did the minimum that could be done.

And Bin Laden still puts out his videos and calls for Muslims to attack the US. We know that the majority of 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. We know that members of the Saudi Royal family helped fund 9/11. Yet Bush is out holding hands and kissing the KING? And that's fine with you. But if Bill Clinton let a possible terrorist escape, you're incensed. Your double standard is very clear here. :D

You say Clinton warned Bush of Bin Laden? :roll: Bin Laden was responsible for more than one attacks on the U.S. under Clinton. He should have did more than warn him, he should have tried to catch him back when he was not so hidden and protected.

Let's see a list of the attacks Bin Laden made on the US under Clinton. We can talk about them. But be sure you really want to do that first.

How easy do you think it would be to find Bin Laden now? I don't think he will ever be found he is to deeply hidden in a land thousands of miles away with to many people that want to protect him at all cost. If the U.S. was given a month to hide someone thought of as a God by 95% of the people in our land and then a few thousand men were sent to find them and kill him, what are the chances of finding him? Heck just use Texas to hide him in and he would never be found.

How easy would it have been to find in on 9/12? Bush knew immediately who was behind 9/11. We'll never find him if we're not looking. And Bush has stopped the search. The reward is still there, but people who were dedicated to the search have stopped. And, again, you ignore the fact that they had him at Tora Bora and let him slip away. Why is that OK, if Clinton refusing to attack a tall Arab is so bad? Again, your double standard.

You say Kahlid was not in the country or he would have been caught.... :roll: ..Who cares where he was, Clinton should have went anywhere to get this man. But as I said Clinton did the minimum he could do..........whoops he left the U.S. he is not my problem anymore I will leave him for the next President to worry about.............Good thing the next President did catch him and stopped his evil.....If Clinton would have did that 7 years earlier he could not have planned 911.

Why should Clinton have gone anywhere? Bush didn't go to Saudi Arabia, even though that's were the 9/11 highjackers came from. That's where much of the funding came from. Can you say double standard? :D
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
Mike said:
Who would Reagan have attacked in retaliation?

At the time of the incident, and for months afterwards, no one knew for sure who had done it?

I

And that's exactly why nothing was done about the Cole attack that A+ likes to bash Clinton with. It wasn't until very near the end of his term that we knew who attacked the Cole. So he turned that information over to his successor, George W. Bush. Want to do some Googling and find out where those guys are now? And how hard the Bush Administration has pushed to get them punished? :roll:

I am not familiar with the Time line on Cole, I will look into it. But what about the other attacks that happened with Clinton? The two barracks?

And why is it you give Clinton a pass for not knowing who attacked the Cole but Reagan does not get a pass for Beirut? Could it be that you are a Party Line lefty loon?
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Mike said:
Who would Reagan have attacked in retaliation?

At the time of the incident, and for months afterwards, no one knew for sure who had done it?

I

And that's exactly why nothing was done about the Cole attack that A+ likes to bash Clinton with. It wasn't until very near the end of his term that we knew who attacked the Cole. So he turned that information over to his successor, George W. Bush. Want to do some Googling and find out where those guys are now? And how hard the Bush Administration has pushed to get them punished? :roll:

I am not familiar with the Time line on Cole, I will look into it. But what about the other attacks that happened with Clinton? The two barracks?

What a remarkable idea: actually know what you're talking about before you open your yap. List the attacks and we'll talk about them. :D :D

And why is it you give Clinton a pass for not knowing who attacked the Cole but Reagan does not get a pass for Beirut? Could it be that you are a Party Line lefty loon?

I'm not giving either one of them a "pass." They both did what they thought best at the time. But I won't allow you to bash Clinton just because you're ignorant of Beruit.

But neither one of them used attacks on this country's interests as an excuse to invade/attack a country that had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to us. Bush did.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
aplusmnt said:
All of the guys involved in the WTC bombing of 93 did not stand trial. Just the ones Clinton could find here still in the U.S. or did not let leave the next day on a plane to IRAQ! And what about all those others involved in the bombing you know Al Qaeda or whatever they were calling themselves at the moment. Clinton as always did the minimum that could be done.

And Bin Laden still puts out his videos and calls for Muslims to attack the US. We know that the majority of 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. We know that members of the Saudi Royal family helped fund 9/11. Yet Bush is out holding hands and kissing the KING? And that's fine with you. But if Bill Clinton let a possible terrorist escape, you're incensed. Your double standard is very clear here. :D

You say Clinton warned Bush of Bin Laden? :roll: Bin Laden was responsible for more than one attacks on the U.S. under Clinton. He should have did more than warn him, he should have tried to catch him back when he was not so hidden and protected.

Let's see a list of the attacks Bin Laden made on the US under Clinton. We can talk about them. But be sure you really want to do that first.

How easy do you think it would be to find Bin Laden now? I don't think he will ever be found he is to deeply hidden in a land thousands of miles away with to many people that want to protect him at all cost. If the U.S. was given a month to hide someone thought of as a God by 95% of the people in our land and then a few thousand men were sent to find them and kill him, what are the chances of finding him? Heck just use Texas to hide him in and he would never be found.

How easy would it have been to find in on 9/12? Bush knew immediately who was behind 9/11. We'll never find him if we're not looking. And Bush has stopped the search. The reward is still there, but people who were dedicated to the search have stopped. And, again, you ignore the fact that they had him at Tora Bora and let him slip away. Why is that OK, if Clinton refusing to attack a tall Arab is so bad? Again, your double standard.

You say Kahlid was not in the country or he would have been caught.... :roll: ..Who cares where he was, Clinton should have went anywhere to get this man. But as I said Clinton did the minimum he could do..........whoops he left the U.S. he is not my problem anymore I will leave him for the next President to worry about.............Good thing the next President did catch him and stopped his evil.....If Clinton would have did that 7 years earlier he could not have planned 911.

Why should Clinton have gone anywhere? Bush didn't go to Saudi Arabia, even though that's were the 9/11 highjackers came from. That's where much of the funding came from. Can you say double standard? :D

There has never been any absolute proof that I know of as to rather Bin Laden was ever at Tora Bora, some sources say he was and some say he was already in Pakistan. But never the less our troops went in and killed 200 or more Al Queda soldiers to find out and try to catch him. Clinton did nothing.

I believe Clinton indited Bin Laden for 3 different terrorist attacks that happened while he was President. That alone proves he attacked us, just the Clinton did not care to go after them. And forget Bin Laden, why did not Clinton go strong after Al Qaeda? Bin Laden was just one man, there was thousands of Al Qaeda operatives to go after, why did he not wage a war on Terrorist after all the attacks, all terrorist activity does not center around just Bin Laden.

You ask why Clinton should go anywhere to catch Kahlid? Because he was partly responsible for the WTC bombing in 93. And what about the other Terrorist that went to Iraq the next day, why not try to bring him to justice.

Clinton had many times and chances that he could have waged an offensive against Al Qaeda and put pressure either military or in sanctions on any Country that supports them, but Clinton did as he normally did, bury his head in the sand or was that his interns lap?

To be honest you are boring me with your Clinton Worship and Bush hating. Both men made mistakes but the problem is you only see Bush's and worship Clinton. You are such a far left Huffington Post loon that you can not admit anything negative involving a Democrat. No one is ever going to change your mind on any issue, you have fallen so far left you live in fantasy world.
 

fff

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
There has never been any absolute proof that I know of as to rather Bin Laden was ever at Tora Bora, some sources say he was and some say he was already in Pakistan. But never the less our troops went in and killed 200 or more Al Queda soldiers to find out and try to catch him. Clinton did nothing.

There was no absolute proof that Bin Laden was the tall man in the photo either. Do you see your double standard? Everyone else does.

I believe Clinton indited Bin Laden for 3 different terrorist attacks that happened while he was President. That alone proves he attacked us, just the Clinton did not care to go after them. And forget Bin Laden, why did not Clinton go strong after Al Qaeda? Bin Laden was just one man, there was thousands of Al Qaeda operatives to go after, why did he not wage a war on Terrorist after all the attacks, all terrorist activity does not center around just Bin Laden.

You believe? Well, we know that you're not well informed. So go ahead and put out here the five attacks you keep bringing up. No, I won't forget Bin Laden. Obveiously the "War on Terror" doesn't revolve around Bin Laden. Bush launched the "War on Terror" and he aimed it at Saddam Hussein WHO HAD DONE NOTHING TO US.

You ask why Clinton should go anywhere to catch Kahlid? Because he was partly responsible for the WTC bombing in 93. And what about the other Terrorist that went to Iraq the next day, why not try to bring him to justice.

How do you know that he wasn't trying to bring him to justice? There are many avenues for "justice" than sending our military into a war. Especially into an unncessary war. The Republican Congress launched attack after attack on Clinton. In spite of all of them, he left us in much better shape than when he entered the White House. Those Conservative presidents, Reagan and Bush I, put us into debt big time. The economy was in the dumps. Clinton brought us out of that. He left Bush II a budget SURPLUS and Bush immediately gave it away to the richest people in this country, all the while knowing he was going to war! Wars cost money.

Clinton had many times and chances that he could have waged an offensive against Al Qaeda and put pressure either military or in sanctions on any Country that supports them, but Clinton did as he normally did, bury his head in the sand or was that his interns lap?

List those times and chances to go on the offensive. Stop blowing hot air and list them.

To be honest you are boring me with your Clinton Worship and Bush hating. Both men made mistakes but the problem is you only see Bush's and worship Clinton. You are such a far left Huffington Post loon that you can not admit anything negative involving a Democrat. No one is ever going to change your mind on any issue, you have fallen so far left you live in fantasy world.

ROTFLMAO! You're getting bored? Sure you are, now that you've admitted that you didn't even know about the Marine barricks bombing in Beruit. Now that you're challenged to actually put out some facts here, you're "bored." Not a big surprise. :D
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
What a remarkable idea: actually know what you're talking about before you open your yap. List the attacks and we'll talk about them. :D :D

---U.S. Embassy bombing Dar es Salaam

---U.S. Embassy bombing Tanzania

---U.S. Embassy bombing Nairobi

---Bombing of the USS Cole

---Truck bombing of a US-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh

Failed attempts but still attacks none the less and action against Al Qaeda and their leader Bin Laden should have happened.

---LAX bombing plot

---The USS The Sullivan's attack plot
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
ROTFLMAO! You're getting bored? Sure you are, now that you've admitted that you didn't even know about the Marine barricks bombing in Beruit. Now that you're challenged to actually put out some facts here, you're "bored." Not a big surprise. :D

I never said I did not know about the Beruit bombing, I said I did not know much about it. Big difference. Unlike you I try to be informed on an issue before I will pass judgement or give my opinion on it. If I do not know details enough to have an educated opinion on the Subject I will not take a side along Party lines, unlike you. If it involves Clinton you are Party line all the way.

I believe Reagan was the greatest President to live in my time, but I still recognize he made mistakes. Try doing that with Clinton!
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
ROTFLMAO! You're getting bored? Sure you are, now that you've admitted that you didn't even know about the Marine barricks bombing in Beruit. Now that you're challenged to actually put out some facts here, you're "bored." Not a big surprise. :D

I never said I did not know about the Beruit bombing, I said I did not know much about it. Big difference. Unlike you I try to be informed on an issue before I will pass judgement or give my opinion on it. If I do not know details enough to have an educated opinion on the Subject I will not take a side along Party lines, unlike you. If it involves Clinton you are Party line all the way.

I believe Reagan was the greatest President to live in my time, but I still recognize he made mistakes. Try doing that with Clinton!

It has been so long ago that I don't remember the exact chronological order of everything. I just remember Ronnie telling Libya if anything happened again he was coming after the big cheese. The dang fool called the bluff. Ronnie bombed his home and we haven't heard anything of him since.
 

Latest posts

Top