Obama, Asleep at the Switch?

Thing1 said:
Oh, gee- they were already in the country? How could they possibly be stopped or apprehended if they were already here?

What an excuse-maker you are. Bush dismissed the threat, and was casual about it. And it was over a month before the attacks.

It's great when you & Dixie get going on the Bush apologism.
Click to expand...

And Obama was complacent about the threat, and went to play golf and party with Jay-Z and Beyonce!

Let's be clear... this is the OBAMA Apology Thread! Bush hasn't been president for 5 years.
 
Dixie said:
Sudan offered to turn him over to the US and Clinton declined. He could have easily been charged for the bombings of two American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, a base in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, or the 1993 WTC attack. I would say this puts Osama in a bit of a different category than whatever nameless persons were implicated in the memo Bush received.

But this isn't about Clinton's failures, or Bush's... it's about Obama not being held to the same standard by liberals. You see, Obama is Liberal and Black, and by golly, if there is a such thing as reincarnation, I want to come back as a black liberal! Because you can apparently get away with anything, you can't be held accountable, can't be criticized, and never are responsible for your actions.
Click to expand...

We have been through this many times, many years ago, Dixie... and I schooled your sorry ass then, and I will quickly do so now.

You cannot name one shred of evidence about Osama bin Laden's involvement with any illegal indictable activities against our country that the US was aware of prior to his departure from the Sudan to Afghanistan in May of 1996.

that was a fact when I schooled you on politics.com and it remains a fact today.
 
You cannot name one shred of evidence about Osama bin Laden's involvement with any illegal indictable activities against our country that the US was aware of prior to his departure from the Sudan to Afghanistan in May of 1996.
Click to expand...

1993 WTC bombing & 1993 CIA shooting. Now we can hem haw about "illegal indictable activity" but that sounds like a bit of a cop out. Before the planes hit the towers in 2001, there were no "legal indictable activities" perpetrated by the hijackers. What you have done, is establish a criteria that is impossible to meet until after the fact. Under this criteria, no one is responsible for the Boston bombers, because they hadn't committed any "legal indictable offense" before the bombing. With terrorism, you have to stop the terrorists BEFORE they act, BEFORE they commit a legally indictable offense.
 
NOVA said:
If he was crazy enough that even the Russians requested that we check him out, he should have been on the top of any list to watch for the next 25 years.....
he and everyone that associated with him.....especially when he goes back to Russia for 6 months and we don't suspect anything about it ?

Haaah...somebody kinda dropped the ball here....there were enough red flags to see if you were looking....
Click to expand...

Lol, any port in a storm, huh. Let's say he was on top of the watch list, how, exactly, would that have changed anything? Would he be bugged? Followed? Would he be denied his civil rights after coming up clean? You clowns, any excuse will do when you want to make this Obama's fault.

Edit: Oh my, Dixie just said about other attacks "Before the planes hit the towers in 2001, there were no "legal indictable activities" perpetrated by the hijackers. What you have done, is establish a criteria that is impossible to meet until after the fact."

Yet this is not what you two said about Tsarnaev. What a pair of buffoons you are.
 
Dixie said:
1993 WTC bombing & 1993 CIA shooting. Now we can hem haw about "illegal indictable activity" but that sounds like a bit of a cop out. Before the planes hit the towers in 2001, there were no "legal indictable activities" perpetrated by the hijackers. What you have done, is establish a criteria that is impossible to meet until after the fact. Under this criteria, no one is responsible for the Boston bombers, because they hadn't committed any "legal indictable offense" before the bombing. With terrorism, you have to stop the terrorists BEFORE they act, BEFORE they commit a legally indictable offense.
Click to expand...

Those attacks took place, but as I said, we had no knowledge or evidence of OBL's involvement with them prior to May '96. We had no justification to take custody of OBL, a foreign national, on foreign soil, prior to his departure from the Sudan.
 
maineman said:
We have been through this many times, many years ago, Dixie... and I schooled your sorry ass then, and I will quickly do so now.

You cannot name one shred of evidence about Osama bin Laden's involvement with any illegal indictable activities against our country that the US was aware of prior to his departure from the Sudan to Afghanistan in May of 1996.

that was a fact when I schooled you on politics.com and it remains a fact today.
Click to expand...

CIA paramilitary officer Billy Waugh tracked down Bin Ladin in 1995 in the Sudan and prepared an operation to apprehend him, but was denied authorization.
Yet the CIA was financing assassination attempts on OBL in 1996.....why is that, if there was no evidence of "any illegal indictable activities against our country" ?
Did we suddenly have justification to have him killed in 1996 ?

Was Clinton condoning the murder of a foreigner for no reason.....why finance his assassination if he was no threat to us?

In August 1996, bin Laden declared war against the United States, just 3 months after leaving Sudan.

There are a lot of issues you conveniently ignore and don't seem to ask questions about.....The 9/11 Commission was nothing but a whitewash job to cover
Clinton's ass after the fact, and in the process, shift the blame to Bush for everything that that would stick.....and pinheads believe the spin as gosple....

The fact that Bush gets a 'memo' 3 weeks before 9/11, AFTER all the terrorists are already in the country, starting in the last year of Billys term seems
to just fly over your heads as irrelevant.....all Thingy can parrot is "Bush got a memo".....like it means something.
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
the CIA was financing assassination attempts on OBL in 1996
Click to expand...

link?

I believe that Waugh was gathering intel on a variety of Islamic extremist leaders. I have not seen anything that said the CIA was trying to KILL OBL prior to May '96.
 
christiefan915 said:
Lol, any port in a storm, huh. Let's say he was on top of the watch list, how, exactly, would that have changed anything? Would he be bugged? Followed? Would he be denied his civil rights after coming up clean? You clowns, any excuse will do when you want to make this Obama's fault.

Edit: Oh my, Dixie just said about other attacks "Before the planes hit the towers in 2001, there were no "legal indictable activities" perpetrated by the hijackers. What you have done, is establish a criteria that is impossible to meet until after the fact."

Yet this is not what you two said about Tsarnaev. What a pair of buffoons you are.
Click to expand...

maineman said:
link?

I believe that Waugh was gathering intel on a variety of Islamic extremist leaders. I have not seen anything that said the CIA was trying to KILL OBL prior to May '96.
Click to expand...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden


I didn't say it was PRIOR to May '96.....and what difference does it make if was April or June.....the fact the the CIA as paying for his murder is whats relevant in light
of what you claim, that the US had no justification, evidence, or reason to deem him a threat and take him into custody...
The CIA was paying Egyptian or Saudi regimes to do the killing.

Clinton was into 'rendition' in those days, Sandy Berger admitted that in a tv interview and I think to the commission....
 
Originally Posted by christiefan915
Lol, any port in a storm, huh. Let's say he was on top of the watch list, how, exactly, would that have changed anything? Would he be bugged? Followed? Would he be denied his civil rights after coming up clean? You clowns, any excuse will do when you want to make this Obama's fault.

Edit: Oh my, Dixie just said about other attacks "Before the planes hit the towers in 2001, there were no "legal indictable activities" perpetrated by the hijackers. What you have done, is establish a criteria that is impossible to meet until after the fact."
Click to expand...
Yet you find it so easy to blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks and that getting the "memo" didn't raise the alarm to catch these guys....

Before the planes hit the towers in 2001, there were no "legal indictable activities" perpetrated by the hijackers and the fact that they were already in country
from 2000, before Bush was elected don't seem to matter to asshole like Thingy1.....
 
NOVA said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden


I didn't say it was PRIOR to May '96.....and what difference does it make if was April or June.....the fact the the CIA as paying for his murder is whats relevant in light
of what you claim, that the US had no justification, evidence, or reason to deem him a threat and take him into custody...
The CIA was paying Egyptian or Saudi regimes to do the killing.

Clinton was into 'rendition' in those days, Sandy Berger admitted that in a tv interview and I think to the commission....
Click to expand...

it makes a great deal of difference. If our intelligence was obtained after May of '96, then the complaint that Sudan offered up OBL but Clinton didn't take him is proven to be bullshit. OBL LEFT the Sudan in May of that year.
 
Dixie said:
There is a good example of something you blamed off on Bush, when it was EXACTLY the same kind of thing. What was he supposed to do with a memo? You can't apprehend someone based on a memo, you have to make an arrest if a crime is committed, but no crime had been committed. Of course, this didn't mean a goddamn thing to liberals who were politicizing anything in order to destroy Bush.
Click to expand...
And how long did Clinton have that information? And what did HE do with it?
 
maineman said:
it makes a great deal of difference. If our intelligence was obtained after May of '96, then the complaint that Sudan offered up OBL but Clinton didn't take him is proven to be bullshit. OBL LEFT the Sudan in May of that year.
Click to expand...


Really....so their is no evidence in May and then possibly in June the CIA is financing his assassination....?.....how lame and laughable, even for an apologist like you.
We'll never know the truth of this in any case....20 years is a long time to try an reconstruct details like this.....

There was an assassination attempt on OBL as early as 1994 this is believed to have been set up by the Saudis....we can prove nothing now, but we can use a little

common sense to guess if the CIA was financing it as rumored....again, the truth won't be known....

Clinton didn't take OBL because he was following US law....we all understand that
Today, Obama would be calling in the drones and US law be damned.....thats an irony. Its a different world.
 
NOVA said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden


I didn't say it was PRIOR to May '96.....and what difference does it make if was April or June.....the fact the the CIA as paying for his murder is whats relevant in light
of what you claim, that the US had no justification, evidence, or reason to deem him a threat and take him into custody...
The CIA was paying Egyptian or Saudi regimes to do the killing.

Clinton was into 'rendition' in those days, Sandy Berger admitted that in a tv interview and I think to the commission....
Click to expand...


Wikipedia?

The site that let's you EDIT the information to fit your viewpoint?

Try again with a more reputable site this time.
 
it IS a different world... yet, as long as the right keeps throwing up the canard that Clinton failed to get OBL when he was offered, I will point out that Clinton has NO justification that would allow him to take custody of OBL, a foreign national on foreign soil, prior to May of '96. That's a fact.

It's also a fact that the day before 9/11, Asscroft diverted $50+M away from the DOJ counter terrorism budget, even though his boss had been warned weeks before that AQ was planning on attacking within the US using airplanes. It's a fact that anti-terrorism was seen as so last century to the Bush administration... they quit drone surveillance of OBL, they were more interested in star wars and the war on porn than they were on terrorism... that's the pre-9/11 Bush administration reality.

The right denigrates Clinton wrongfully, and gives Dubya a free pass, solely because of the (R) after his name.
 
maineman said:
it IS a different world... yet, as long as the right keeps throwing up the canard that Clinton failed to get OBL when he was offered, I will point out that Clinton has NO justification that would allow him to take custody of OBL, a foreign national on foreign soil, prior to May of '96. That's a fact.

It's also a fact that the day before 9/11, Asscroft diverted $50+M away from the DOJ counter terrorism budget, even though his boss had been warned weeks before that AQ was planning on attacking within the US using airplanes. It's a fact that anti-terrorism was seen as so last century to the Bush administration... they quit drone surveillance of OBL, they were more interested in star wars and the war on porn than they were on terrorism... that's the pre-9/11 Bush administration reality.

The right denigrates Clinton wrongfully, and gives Dubya a free pass, solely because of the (R) after his name.
Click to expand...

Okay, here is the thing, you are trying to make this about us criticizing Clinton, and it's not. It's about a completely different standard YOU LEFTIES have established for Obama (or Clinton) as opposed to President Bush. If it's "asleep a the switch" to get a memo and fail to act (still don't know how you apprehend someone based on a memo), then it MUST be "asleep at the switch" to have a man in your custody and release him, never to follow up further.

My thread was intended to make this point. You missed the point, and immediately launched into this defense of Clinton, but no one mentioned Clinton. However, if we are going to hold Bush to some ridiculous standard of "asleep at the switch" we have to also hold Clinton to the same standard, but you don't want to do that. You liberals want two sets of standards, one which applies to Bush and Republican presidents, and one that applies to Democrats and Liberals.
 
...they were more interested in star wars and the war on porn than they were on terrorism...
Click to expand...

And Obama is more interested in playing golf and partying with the stars, than protecting us from domestic terrorists.


See how that works?
 
maineman said:
it IS a different world... yet, as long as the right keeps throwing up the canard that Clinton failed to get OBL when he was offered, I will point out that Clinton has NO justification that would allow him to take custody of OBL, a foreign national on foreign soil, prior to May of '96. That's a fact.

It's also a fact that the day before 9/11, Asscroft diverted $50+M away from the DOJ counter terrorism budget, even though his boss had been warned weeks before that AQ was planning on attacking within the US using airplanes. It's a fact that anti-terrorism was seen as so last century to the Bush administration... they quit drone surveillance of OBL, they were more interested in star wars and the war on porn than they were on terrorism... that's the pre-9/11 Bush administration reality.

The right denigrates Clinton wrongfully, and gives Dubya a free pass, solely because of the (R) after his name.
Click to expand...

Clinton could have done anything he wanted to do....he was certainly of lying to Congress and the American people about many other things....OBL should have presented no problem .

Are you implying that $50 million would have prevented 9/11....

The warning came AFTER all the terrorists were in country....the pilots came into the US during the last year of Clinton, of course he busy getting blow jobs from
female underlings....probably got distracted......
AQ was attacking the US airlines for years already, nothing new there.

As you can see after Boston, OBL, alive or dead doesn't deter terrorism....a figurehead and nothing more.

And advancements from missile defense technology is right now protecting South Korea, Japan, Israel, and the US.....among others.....

So really, blow it out of your ass......you're as predictable as you ever were, same shit, different day.....Demo apologist and blame Bush....like a silly parrot.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Wikipedia?

The site that let's you EDIT the information to fit your viewpoint?

Try again with a more reputable site this time.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if he went and edited the article to make his point ala' Yurt, but I don't think he's even as intelligent as Yurt. Yes, I know that's an oxymoron.

Dixie said:
And Obama is more interested in playing golf and partying with the stars, than protecting us from domestic terrorists.


See how that works?
Click to expand...

Yet your boyfriend Dubya still spent twice the time golfing by this time in his presidency than Obama. During two wars.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Wikipedia?

The site that let's you EDIT the information to fit your viewpoint?

Try again with a more reputable site this time.
Click to expand...

I am going to take you to task over Wikipedia, they are in the main as accurate as any other source and with an added benefit of being more up to date. The contentiousness centres mostly around politics but since the advent of Wikiscanner that can match edits to Wikipedia entries to the computer networks from which they come, that has been drastically reduced. I can give examples of my own edits which I made recently to the entry about Costa Rica. I put in something about shark fin fishing but it was taken out, so I put it back in again. Wiki then informed me, after I complained, that there was another entry on shark finning and that's why they removed it. They also have the ability to lock down really contentious entries or to only allow certain users to modify content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top