Hillary fans...READ THIS

[PHDPLEASE]

For those of you thinking about voting for Hillary Clinton, I hope you read this articlein the WSJ and think twice. Normally, I don't put too much stock in comparing Bill's actions to hers...but this is one episode that REALLY got me fuming...the article is too lengthy to post here, so click on the link below and read on...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

[Hillary44]

So the Clintons dropped the ball on letting terrorist escape?

Bush has let Osama Bin Laden off the hook by sending the majority of our troops in the wrong direction years ago chasing WMD's which were never there.

[PHDPLEASE]

So the Clintons dropped the ball on letting terrorist escape?

Bush has let Osama Bin Laden off the hook by sending the majority of our troops in the wrong direction years ago chasing WMD's which were never there.

Actually, this article deals with Bill Clinton and the fact that he GRANTED CLEMENCY to ADMITTED members of a terrorist group responsible for an attack in NYC. If you read the WHOLE article, which I doubt you did, you would know that "escape" has nothing to do with the point. These terrorists NEVER ASKED for clemency - which is the FIRST STEP in receiving a pardon - and Clinton initiated the clemency procedure HIMSELF, due in part becuase of PRESSURE from Hispanic political leaders.

That being said...

Clinton did have at least three opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden (see "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner), but that is neither here nor there.

As for Bush "sending troops in the wrong direction", I have several responses for you:

A) Iraq had the CAPABILITIES to produce WMD WELL BEFORE we went in under Bush (i.e. under the Clinton administration).

B) Sadam claimed that his country HAD WMD (in order to scare the crap out of the Iranians) - the CIA simply didn't have enough resources to dispute the claim - and in short Sadam's bluff against the Iranians backfired and gave the U.S. an excuse to invade.

C) Bush could never "go after" bin Laden because of the restrictions placed on CIA and DIA by Pakistani intelligence regarding excursions into the Pakistan / Afghanistan border areas.

D) There have been unconfirmed (government denied) reports that CIVILIAN (contract) employees sent in to search for WMD's in Iraq found that (a) there were bunkers along the Tigris River with radioactive residue and (b) the CIVILIANS experienced something akin to radiation poisoning after leaving the sites.

I'm not defending Bush...I really could give a hoot about him, but I hate it when folks accept what the media (READ LEFT WING) tells them without checking their facts.

[58ford]

Typical Liberal behavior.

[Bluesman]

So the Clintons dropped the ball on letting terrorist escape?

Bush has let Osama Bin Laden off the hook by sending the majority of our troops in the wrong direction years ago chasing WMD's which were never there.
The weapons were there. Evidence was found. I do think if we had acted earlier then Sadam would not have been as successful in sending the weapons to Syria.

[PHDPLEASE]

The weapons were there. Evidence was found. I do think if we had acted earlier then Sadam would not have been as successful in sending the weapons to Syria.

Yes...most analysts agree that the WMD's (completed or not) were moved to Syria when the invasion was beginning.

[fuzzis]

Yes...most analysts agree that the WMD's (completed or not) were moved to Syria when the invasion was beginning.

Yeah, no. "Most" analysts do not agree that WMD's were moved to Syria.

Intelligence sources have absolutely evidence that such a thing happened, and our government has stopped talking about the possibility. They can speculate that it did, but there's no evidence. There is evidence that pre-war estimates of what Saddam actually had were inflated.

[dollfus46]

So the Clintons dropped the ball on letting terrorist escape?

Bush has let Osama Bin Laden off the hook by sending the majority of our troops in the wrong direction years ago chasing WMD's which were never there.

"Dropped the ball?" "Letting terrorists escape?" "Bush has let Osama Bin Laden of the hook..." I'm speechless. You don't debate with this logic.

[Fire Extinguisher]

"Mass casualties and extensive property damage are the trademarks of weapons of mass destruction, making their detection, prevention, and destruction an FBI priority. A weapon of mass destruction (WMD), though typically associated with nuclear/radiological, chemical, or biological agents, may also take the form of explosives, such as in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1995. A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders."

ME THINKS THAT THEY FOUND A BUNCH OF WMD'S.......

Its the intent... a roadside bomb or car bomb that kills or injures many.... a freaking mortar round is a WMD for goodness sake!

[58ford]

WMD are a fiction created by Liberals. Not that WMD do not exist, merely that no WMD ever found will be acknowledged to be WMD.

[dollfus46]

Actually, this article deals with Bill Clinton and the fact that he GRANTED CLEMENCY to ADMITTED members of a terrorist group responsible for an attack in NYC. If you read the WHOLE article, which I doubt you did, you would know that "escape" has nothing to do with the point. These terrorists NEVER ASKED for clemency - which is the FIRST STEP in receiving a pardon - and Clinton initiated the clemency procedure HIMSELF, due in part becuase of PRESSURE from Hispanic political leaders.

That being said...

Clinton did have at least three opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden (see "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner), but that is neither here nor there.

As for Bush "sending troops in the wrong direction", I have several responses for you:

A) Iraq had the CAPABILITIES to produce WMD WELL BEFORE we went in under Bush (i.e. under the Clinton administration).

B) Sadam claimed that his country HAD WMD (in order to scare the crap out of the Iranians) - the CIA simply didn't have enough resources to dispute the claim - and in short Sadam's bluff against the Iranians backfired and gave the U.S. an excuse to invade.

C) Bush could never "go after" bin Laden because of the restrictions placed on CIA and DIA by Pakistani intelligence regarding excursions into the Pakistan / Afghanistan border areas.

D) There have been unconfirmed (government denied) reports that CIVILIAN (contract) employees sent in to search for WMD's in Iraq found that (a) there were bunkers along the Tigris River with radioactive residue and (b) the CIVILIANS experienced something akin to radiation poisoning after leaving the sites.

I'm not defending Bush...I really could give a hoot about him, but I hate it when folks accept what the media (READ LEFT WING) tells them without checking their facts.

PHDPLEASE, you are just pissin' in the back of a jet engine to even try to 'splain this to brainwashed folk. He/she is going to justify anything the Clintons did in order to justify voting for Hillary. I doubt most democrats would appreciat Billy boy for this stunt just like I can't justify some stuff G. Bush has done. It's okay not to agree with everything the politicians we voted for do.

[dollfus46]

B) Sadam claimed that his country HAD WMD (in order to scare the crap out of the Iranians) - the CIA simply didn't have enough resources to dispute the claim - and in short Sadam's bluff against the Iranians backfired and gave the U.S. an excuse to invade.


Let's not forget that the U.S. did not invade. Something like 77 countries took part in one way or another and that there was a resolution in the UN sanctioning it. The countries in the UN believed Saddam had WMD's. That inspectors' rooms were bugged so Saddam knew what was being inspected and Iraqi were seen running stuff out the back door while we were walking in the front. That many places Saddam marked as off limits to the inspectors. Saddam brought this all on himself, while Bush detractors want to hang the entire thing on George Bush and take none of this into account nor the fact that WMD's were sighted by Iraqi officers, being moved out of Iraq by train Too easy.

[PHDPLEASE]

PHDPLEASE, you are just pissin' in the back of a jet engine to even try to 'splain this to brainwashed folk. He/she is going to justify anything the Clintons did in order to justify voting for Hillary. I doubt most democrats would appreciat Billy boy for this stunt just like I can't justify some stuff G. Bush has done. It's okay not to agree with everything the politicians we voted for do.

LMAO!!! Well put sir!:laugh:

[PHDPLEASE]

Yeah, no. "Most" analysts do not agree that WMD's were moved to Syria.

Intelligence sources have absolutely evidence that such a thing happened, and our government has stopped talking about the possibility. They can speculate that it did, but there's no evidence. There is evidence that pre-war estimates of what Saddam actually had were inflated.

No evidence and no concrete evidence are two different things...much like comparing innocent and "not guilty"...that being said...I will clarify...most analysts that SUPPORT the notion that Iraq had successfully developed and produced WMD HYPOTHESIZED that they were moved to Syria. Sorry for the error in syntax.;)

[Hillary44]

The weapons were there. Evidence was found. I do think if we had acted earlier then Sadam would not have been as successful in sending the weapons to Syria.

What evidence was found?

They never found WMD. EVER. The weapons inspectors even had access to the Presidential Palace. Did you not see Bush admit that he had BAD intelligence or are you aware of something the administration and military admit wasn't there.

This kind of statement give you no credibility.

[Conveyor Belt]

What evidence was found?

They never found WMD. EVER. The weapons inspectors even had access to the Presidential Palace. Did you not see Bush admit that he had BAD intelligence or are you aware of something the administration and military admit wasn't there.

This kind of statement give you no credibility.

Actually, they found WMD and traces of WMD several times. I think they found a vial of ricin and some old gas. They just didn't find the mountains of stuff Saddam said he had.

Then again, you're looking for something the size of a school bus in an area the size of California... and it's probably buried long ago... so, good luck with that.

[fuzzis]

Actually, they found WMD and traces of WMD several times. I think they found a vial of ricin and some old gas. They just didn't find the mountains of stuff Saddam said he had.

Then again, you're looking for something the size of a school bus in an area the size of California... and it's probably buried long ago... so, good luck with that.

...and we've been there long enough to have found it. Or to have gotten folks to talk about exactly where it was. So it's more than likely that those folks in the intelligence community who said that the first Gulf War and the resulting UN Sanctions destroyed Saddam's WMD capabilities were right.

[Conveyor Belt]

...and we've been there long enough to have found it. Or to have gotten folks to talk about exactly where it was. So it's more than likely that those folks in the intelligence community who said that the first Gulf War and the resulting UN Sanctions destroyed Saddam's WMD capabilities were right.

I donno. We're still looking for lots of things from the past that are bigger than a mass of WMD's.

Hell, wasn't there a story a few weeks ago about a guy finding a secret Nazi bunker that was the size of a football field or something? At that thing was above ground for the most part, and people have been looking for it since WWII. Lost kids and bank robbers. I have no faith in the human race's ability to 'find' anything.

[ComputerDude]

Why do we find it necessary to continue to try and point fingers at one president or another and complain how they handled terrorists? NO president in the last thirty years did a good job handling them so lets stop trying to blame one over the other.
Reagan sold weapons to Osama
Bush had the chance to assassinate Saddam during the first gulf war and ordered the troops to retreat.
Clinton did what-ever the republicans keep trying to pin on him.
Bush 2.0 did and didn't do A LOT of things right.
THEY'VE ALL SCREWED UP! We should be more concerned with who's going to fix it instead of dwelling in the past.

[PHDPLEASE]

Why do we find it necessary to continue to try and point fingers at one president or another and complain how they handled terrorists? NO president in the last thirty years did a good job handling them so lets stop trying to blame one over the other.
Reagan sold weapons to Osama
Bush had the chance to assassinate Saddam during the first gulf war and ordered the troops to retreat.
Clinton did what-ever the republicans keep trying to pin on him.
Bush 2.0 did and didn't do A LOT of things right.
THEY'VE ALL SCREWED UP! We should be more concerned with who's going to fix it instead of dwelling in the past.

Actually, the entire point of this thread was to point out that (A) Bill Clinton granted clemency to members of a terrorist group that (1) admittedly caused an explosion in NYC and (2) would not renounce violence and (3) never asked for clemency in the first place (Clinton was pressured by Hispanic political groups) AND (B) Hillary's response was the typical flip-flop.

I wasn't "blaming" anyone for anything. These are facts, not speculations. As for "Reagan selling weapons to Osama"...well that's not entirely accurate. The U.S. supported Afhgan fighters during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, yes. Was Osama bin Laden a bad-a$$ freedom fighter who received direct support from the U.S.? No...

1) All U.S. support (money, weapons, etc.) was routed through Pakistan and the Pakistani intelligence service distributed goods to whom THEY thought was best. The U.S. RARELY had any direct contact with Afghan fighters and NEVER had direct contact with bin Laden.

2) OBL (or UBL) was a bratty, overly-pious rich kid (READ ZEALOT) who was kicked out of his country (Saudi Arabia) for pi$$ing the royals off. He went to Afghanistan because he knew his money would secure a place of power. He rarely actually "fought" any battles.

-Source, "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner
-Source, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll

[ComputerDude]

Actually, the entire point of this thread was to point out that (A) Bill Clinton granted clemency to members of a terrorist group that (1) admittedly caused an explosion in NYC and (2) would not renounce violence and (3) never asked for clemency in the first place (Clinton was pressured by Hispanic political groups) AND (B) Hillary's response was the typical flip-flop.
And I say, SO WHAT??? Terrorism is a sore subject with the candidates right now thanks to how things were handled the past six years, so for the most part they're all trying to side-step that subject and focus more on domestic issues. The article you linked to is just the opinion of somebody. And obviously somebody who has reasons to be bitter since her brother was on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. No president does anything 100% right (or even 10% in the case of the current guy. :smt118 )
So you can sit there and link and quote article after article all day long if you want, and you can dig up as much as you want on anybody currently running for office. In the end the big picture is (as I said) no president has handled terrorism the right way and anybody associated with them is surely going to try and distance themselves from past mistakes.

[Bluesman]

What evidence was found?

They never found WMD. EVER. The weapons inspectors even had access to the Presidential Palace. Did you not see Bush admit that he had BAD intelligence or are you aware of something the administration and military admit wasn't there.

This kind of statement give you no credibility.
It was there. They found barrels of the stuff. Weapons grade chemicals. It was only reported on once or twice and the mainstream media swept it under the rug cause they didn't want to admit that it was really there.

[Bluesman]

What evidence was found?

They never found WMD. EVER. The weapons inspectors even had access to the Presidential Palace. Did you not see Bush admit that he had BAD intelligence or are you aware of something the administration and military admit wasn't there.

This kind of statement give you no credibility.
Even Sadam wouldn't be stupid enough to store the crap in HIS PALACE... Maybe in a Kurd village or something but not in his palace...

[Bluesman]

I donno. We're still looking for lots of things from the past that are bigger than a mass of WMD's.

Hell, wasn't there a story a few weeks ago about a guy finding a secret Nazi bunker that was the size of a football field or something? At that thing was above ground for the most part, and people have been looking for it since WWII. Lost kids and bank robbers. I have no faith in the human race's ability to 'find' anything.
And not only that but archealogists look for crap all the time that we should have had plenty of time to find already.... Hell, they give degrees in Egyptology...

[fuzzis]

It was there. They found barrels of the stuff. Weapons grade chemicals. It was only reported on once or twice and the mainstream media swept it under the rug cause they didn't want to admit that it was really there.

The final report from the CIA says that it wasn't there and that those being detained for possible knowledge should be released.

[PHDPLEASE]

The final report from the CIA says that it wasn't there and that those being detained for possible knowledge should be released.

I have always dreamed of working for the CIA...I would love to serve my country...so this may seem like a paradox...but -

As much as I admire the men and women who work (and worked) for the CIA, their reporting is often flawed and based on what people want to hear...three excellent examples come to mind:

1) The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) produced by the CIA regarding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan claimed that it would never happen...and the PDB's (President's daily briefings) regarding that invasion the week of the invasion stated those claims on the DAY BEFORE THE INVASION, even though satelite images clearly showed Soviet forces massing on the border.

2) CIA reports regarding the potential aftermath of the Soviet/Afghan war indicated that moderate tribal leaders would form their own government, rather than the newly-formed group of zealots comprised mostly of students (known today as the Taliban). In fact, top CIA officials ignored repeated warnings (written by field officers and analysts) concerning the growing trend of zealots and their pursuit of power.

3) CIA also stated that Iraq had indeed acquired WMD prior to the invasion.

[fuzzis]

3) CIA also stated that Iraq had indeed acquired WMD prior to the invasion.

And there were CIA agents who were saying that we shouldn't and couldn't trust the information coming out of Iraq because it couldn't be verified. There were those sounding the alarm very early in the process...including intelligence officials in other countries. Those in charge in *this* country chose to ignore it because what they were hearing didn't fit the picture of what they wanted to have happen.

[Bluesman]

I still think the world is better off without the likes of Saddam... and with Bin Laid on the run...

[PHDPLEASE]

And there were CIA agents who were saying that we shouldn't and couldn't trust the information coming out of Iraq because it couldn't be verified. There were those sounding the alarm very early in the process...including intelligence officials in other countries. Those in charge in *this* country chose to ignore it because what they were hearing didn't fit the picture of what they wanted to have happen.

While this may be true, I have to address two issues here:

1) The general "rule of thumb" for intelligence verification is that two independent sources must verify the "new" intelligence...so yes, verification is indeed difficult in intelligence operations.

2) Intelligence officials in other countries (even friendly ones) are often the CAUSE of U.S. intelligence failures. That being said...trusting their assessment is risky at best.

[Mike]

So vote for Hillary. I hope she wins the nomination. I'm afraid McCain will have actual trouble with Obama, although the R's haven't publicly leveled their sites on him yet, so he may be an easier target than I think.

Hillary, on the other hand, will be a hoot to see face McCain in a national election.