The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If we're going to rehash old stuff, I'm game -The previous administration was offered bin Laden by the Sudan - Clinton has said so in his own words and it is recorded - but did not take him.

And last I checked, JW - even though we don't have bin Laden , there hasn't been another attack. So I would suggest the current administration has done something.

Actually, that is the result of the anti-terrorist rock I've been carrying in my pocket since 9/11.

Whether Clinton did or did not do the right thing is irrelevant in response to that inane billboard. The billboard is claiming that having a Republican in office is somehow going to magically make us safer than having a Democrat in office. The reality is that we were attacked with a Republican in office. What happened before not withstanding, there is concrete proof that having a Republican in office is not a mystical talisman against terrorist attack. Period.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Whether Clinton did or did not do the right thing is irrelevant in response to that inane billboard.

Hey, all I was doing was responding to JW saying that the Clinton admin warned the Bush admin about bin Laden. If Clinton had taken bin Laden there would have been no need for the warning. I'm not addressing the billboard.

But while we're at it, if it is logical to say Bush is responsible for 9/11 because the warning wasn't heeded, then it is also logical to say that Bush is reponsible for no attacks on American soil now. I'm not saying either is logical, I'm saying that I don't understand why the first is logical, as JW seems to think based on his posting.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...If Clinton had taken bin Laden there would have been no need for the warning....

And I was just pointing out that Clinton did not have the evidence to "take" bin Laden. Bush did.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

And I was just pointing out that Clinton did not have the evidence to "take" bin Laden. Bush did.

Hmm....

Cause to take bin Laden

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition.

This article, along with Clintons own voice, might suggest he did.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

This article, along with Clintons own voice, might suggest he did.

Any ideas on why the 9/11 Commission rejected that assertion?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Any ideas on why the 9/11 Commission rejected that assertion?

I have my thoughts on the 9/11 commission, but don't have the time to go into them now.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I have my thoughts on the 9/11 commission, but don't have the time to go into them now.

Understood

Perhaps you could come back to that on a slow Obama news day.