Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Deceks7, Jun 8, 2006.

  1. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
     
  2. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    He admitted that the Saudi's offered him Bin Laden and he turned them down. He turned them down cause he was too busy trying to get cash for his future presidential library from the Saudi's.
     
  3. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    That doesn't even make sense.
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Well, yeah it might have been easier if we knew then what we know now. Hell, Reagan and Bush 41 could have killed him in the 80's instead of supplying him with Stinger missiles to kill Russians. Neither Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43 could foretell the future, as there are no crystal balls. Clinton did deal with what he was facing at the time including use of diplomatic pressure, special ops surveilance, . . . and military force.

    I understand that Clinton had moral issues, my only point was to refute some remarks made here that Clinton had "done nothing" about terror and was not "forceful" militarily. The facts don't suport this.

    And I don't think Clinton is a great military strategist, either and he didn't try to be. The great military strategists were serving under him. I just think he was a prudent and deliberate President concerning when and where it was in the best interests of the United States to order the military to execute their mission. And when not to, which as you point out, is sometimes the better course.
     
  5. LsuCraig

    LsuCraig Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,607
    Likes Received:
    55
    It makes sense. The Saudi's offered Clinton bin Laden and he said no.
     
  6. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    I was referring to the part where you said the reason he refused the Saudis offer for bin Ladin (fact) was becuase he wanted Saudi contributions for his library (fiction you just made up).
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Is that what he said? No.

    On 60 Minutes he said the accusation that he had opportunities to get Osama bin Laden delivered to him by the Saudis were, "absolutely, flatly untrue," describing it as "bull".

    "Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan," Clinton told the Long Island Association on Feb. 15, 2002. "He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

    "They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

    "So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    fair enough.

    And vice versa obviously! What exactly is your point?
     
  9. marcmc99

    marcmc99 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    31
     
  10. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    How?

    I don't understand this reasoning.
     

Share This Page