Able Danger warned of attack on USS Cole

[Gand1]

Did you even read!!! Nothing you posted blames Clinton! That is all. Your anger really is getting the best of you.

It is obviously impossible to debate with you since you don't even want to try to listen to anyone.

I'm done.

 

[dannybin1742]

but but but clinton........ hes not in office anymore, and he also didn't start a war

where were you guys when we were witnessing the "criminalization of politics" over lewinsky? talk about double standards.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kage69
From the time of taking office, to Sept. 11th 2001, what did GWB do to address terrorism? Anyone? Anyone?

From the time fo taking office, to Jan. 20, 2001, what did WJC do to address terrorism?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Well, Here was Slick's speech Dec 16 1998. You know, the one where he deemed Iraq a major threat and it was "Iraq's last chance"...

Interesting that you could argue there was no evidence of anything yet Slick himself was pretty damning of Iraq (at times). He's tried to change his story many times since, but we know how that goes.

Come back when you can provide something other than rhetoric and childish trash-talk. Perhaps some "evidence" or "proof" or even, maybe, a link or two?

I guess Texas Governor George Walker Bush in 1998 was planning his Iraq War and duped the President! :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess Texas Governor George Walker Bush in 1998 was planning his Iraq War and duped the President! :laugh:

Nah, it has to be false reporting by CNN.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

this thread represents the sad state that Republicans are in these days, not that Democrats are any better btw, resorting to digging up old info on Bill Clinton who has been out of office for nearly 6-7 years by now. It's sad, it's pathetic, and it really shows how little they care about what is actually going on in America these days. I hope America sees the Republican party for the hypocritical, lying, self-serving, obtuse, and destructive party that it is.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: kage69
From the time of taking office, to Sept. 11th 2001, what did GWB do to address terrorism? Anyone? Anyone?

From the time fo taking office, to Jan. 20, 2001, what did WJC do to address terrorism?

I, for one, remember a launch of Cruise Missles on an al Quida camp in Afghanistan where they only missed UBL by a couple hours -
while the GOP was claiming 'Wag the Dog' and saying that it was not nearly as important to go after Terrorist Organizations in foriegn countries
as it was to keep drumming up any charges they though they could get to stick to Clinton
and try to embarass the Office of the President
using Ken Starr's agenda to lay the groundwork for a simpleton like Dubya to be perceived as even remotely capable of being elected.

Or is your selective memory limited to a fifteen minute recall duration ?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I, for one, remember a launch of Cruise Missles on an al Quida camp in Afghanistan where they only missed UBL by a couple hours -

Or is your selective memory limited to a fifteen minute recall duration ?

[/b]"Clinton also attempted to rewrite history regarding his efforts to combat terrorism and to have Osama bin Laden killed. He quoted an unnamed journalist as saying, "You were talking about a lot of this stuff, the terrorism and stuff, for years and we never paid any attention." Alter reported that Clinton claimed to have repeatedly tried to have bin Laden killed. But a week or so after September 11, he told Tom Brokaw on NBC News that he had tried only once, by firing a missile, but bin Laden narrowly escaped. Clinton added, "We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action." The AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer charged that the Clinton administration had chances to take out bin Laden, but refused to authorize it."[/b]

Clinton Speaks Out

Kinda throws a kink in that one, don't it?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I, for one, remember a launch of Cruise Missles on an al Quida camp in Afghanistan where they only missed UBL by a couple hours -

Or is your selective memory limited to a fifteen minute recall duration ?

[/b]"Clinton also attempted to rewrite history regarding his efforts to combat terrorism and to have Osama bin Laden killed. He quoted an unnamed journalist as saying, "You were talking about a lot of this stuff, the terrorism and stuff, for years and we never paid any attention." Alter reported that Clinton claimed to have repeatedly tried to have bin Laden killed. But a week or so after September 11, he told Tom Brokaw on NBC News that he had tried only once, by firing a missile, but bin Laden narrowly escaped. Clinton added, "We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action." The AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer charged that the Clinton administration had chances to take out bin Laden, but refused to authorize it."[/b]

Clinton Speaks Out

Kinda throws a kink in that one, don't it?

Does anyone have Kenneth Starrs home phone? I am sure he can manufacture a new indictment and impeach Clinton all over again!!

for ol time sake!

 

[kage69]

From the time fo taking office, to Jan. 20, 2001, what did WJC do to address terrorism?

A pathetic retort from a hopeless partisan that doesn't answer my question - what a shock. Capt Kirk is quite accurate in his estimation of you it seems. Do real conservatives a favor: turn off your computer.


Edit: Sorry, got you confused with another cheerleader.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Todd33
Able Danger was setup a few months before Clinton left office. Unless I missed something, this all read like internal problems, how was the White involved? The whole cover up recently was done by the current Pentigon, does Clinton control that too? Smells like right wing smear, if all else fails attack Clinton?

Besides the "cover-up", criticial intelligence was overlooked, ignored, and destroyed. Have you actually read up on Able Danger before dismissing it as "right wing smear"?

The 9/11 Commission had the bullsh!t Bush's minions concocted from "Able Danger" and they IGNORED IT BECAUSE IT WAS CONTRARY TO ALL OTHER EVIDENCE.

In other words, "Able Danger" is right wing CYA bullsh!t.

Interesting how it turned out right. Twice, both on 911 and the USS cole.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: kage69

From the time fo taking office, to Jan. 20, 2001, what did WJC do to address terrorism?

A pathetic retort from a hopeless partisan that doesn't answer my question - what a shock. Capt Kirk is quite accurate in his estimation of you it seems. Do real conservatives a favor: turn off your computer.

You need to turn yours off, if you believe that Clinton did anything serious on the terror front. That "cruise missile attack" you speak of ... are you referencing the Sudan one that took out a medicine factory and actually spurred a lawsuit against the US, 3 days after Slick admitted to "relations with that woman"? Perhaps you've forgotten. Read about the lawsuit here.

Coming in here calling someone partisan with that kind of logic ... pot, go set on the kettle.

 

[kage69]

You need to turn yours off, if you believe that Clinton did anything serious on the terror front.

Wow, great comeback! Heh. In addition to ignoring the fact that it took the Towers falling to get Bush to pay attention to Islamic fundie terrorists, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that Clinton actually did try to take out OBL, despite an at-times-uncooperative Pentagon and a down right pathetic and childish rivalry between the FBI and the CIA. Clinton actually came close to getting OBL, the mf'er avoiding the business ends of a few Tomahawks quite narrowly. There are many in our government who think Hamid Gul is to blame for that. Some other attempts at OBL weren't as close obviously, but hey, you YABAs know a thing or two about bad intelligence, right?

Regardless, failed efforts are still efforts, and represent far more than Bush's utter avoidance of the issue in the first 9 or so months of his office. I doubt Bush could have even spelled Al Qaeda on 9/10.

Clinton wasn't successful in taking out OBL, yes, everyone realizes that. Where we seem to differ is whether or not his admin's failings were an excuse for Bush to sit on his @ss for 9 months.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: kage69
Wow, great comeback! Heh. In addition to ignoring the fact that it took the Towers falling to get Bush to pay attention to Islamic fundie terrorists, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that Clinton actually did try to take out OBL, despite an at-times-uncooperative Pentagon and a down right pathetic and childish rivalry between the FBI and the CIA. Clinton actually came close to getting OBL, the mf'er avoiding the business ends of a few Tomahawks quite narrowly. There are many in our government who think Hamid Gul is to blame for that. Some other attempts at OBL weren't as close obviously, but hey, you YABAs know a thing or two about bad intelligence, right?

And just who was in charge of things at that time? Why Janet "Waco" Reno, the worst attorney general we've ever had. Clinton's accounts of "tried to take out OBL" have varied between "many times" and "just once", depending on who he was talking to and when.

Regardless, failed efforts are still efforts, and represent far more than Bush's utter avoidance of the issue in the first 9 or so months of his office. I doubt Bush could have even spelled Al Qaeda on 9/10.

Failed efforts are still efforts. That's one for the sig line.

Clinton wasn't successful in taking out OBL, yes, everyone realizes that. Where we seem to differ is whether or not his admin's failings were an excuse for Bush to sit on his @ss for 9 months.

Some here don't believe his administration had any failings in this department to begin with. WE differ, apparently, on just how hard Slick worked against terror.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Oh, shut up already. You're the worst offender in cluttering the thread with posts that have no "evidence" or contributions about -- let's all shout it together now -- ABLE DANGER!!! You've posted 16 times in this thread. Only two of them added any information about ... ABLE DANGER! The rest were attacks on others, mostly for not adding information about -- wait for it -- ABLE DANGER!

Then I'm still ahead of you, because you came in with nothing, like usual. ...

Ahead? My one post contributed just as much information as 14 (that's 87%) of yours. I can live with that.

By the way, have any of the Clinton-bashers -- ABLE DANGER!!!! -- offered any evidence yet to support the OP's allegation that Clinton "ignored" ABLE DANGER!'s warning about the USS Cole? ABLE DANGER! Any at all? I hate to presume it's just another lie by the Clinton-bashers, but that's where the evidence points.

Well, Here was Slick's speech Dec 16 1998. You know, the one where he deemed Iraq a major threat and it was "Iraq's last chance"...

Interesting that you could argue there was no evidence of anything [That's a total straw man, for the record.]yet Slick himself was pretty damning of Iraq (at times). ...

And? Where does that provide evidence Clinton "ignored" ABLE DANGER!'s warning about an attack on the USS Cole? Where does it suggest Clinton even knew about ABLE DANGER!'s warning about the attack? Where does it even provide evidence Clinton was aware of ABLE DANGER!?

Face it, the Topic Summary is a lie, another lame Clinton-bash by those desperate to duhvert attention from their failure in the White House. Your link is totally irrelevant to my question. How about you try to stay on-topic for a change?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't "critical intelligence" a lot more obvious it retrospect? As far as I know, none of us are intelligence agents or analysts, I doubt we have a real good handle on how obvious the information would have been at the time. Obviously I don't have any better of an idea than the rest of you, but it makes more sense that they simply didn't know the importance of what they were looking at because they didn't have the frame of reference that we do. The other option is that they knew the full impact of the intelligence, and simply disregarded it. I'm having trouble coming up with a motive for that one.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

I find it ridiculous that the lefties parrot the "Bush Memo" that supposedly warns him directly about 9/11 and then he is accused of ignoring "criticial intelligence". Yet Rice has told us that intelligence was nothing new, and although she's been called a liar (among other things) by the lefties here, no one has proven her wrong.

Dismissing Able Danger (and, in one case, ignoring its very existence) is the ultimate in hypocrisy and ignorance.

Well, if it makes any difference, I'm not as interested in the Bush memo as some people seem to be...for the same reason I gave about Able Danger. Second guessing intelligence work seems like a silly concept to me. If we're going to discuss the WAY they do business, that's one thing, but picking out specific things and saying they should have been obvious at the time makes little sense.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

this whole thread is simply pointless. clinton has been out of office for 6 years now. his mistakes have been well documented, there is no need to revisit the past. we have far too many important things going on with our current administration and president to worry about what Clinton did or did not do. why the only reason why people would want to bring up Clinton again would be to deflect and distract people from what's going on right now in the White House.

 

[Ferocious]

Did Bush ever get justice for our slain sailors?

He's been President how long now?

First the Cole and then 9/11.

He attacks Saddam???

 

[TheNoblePlatypus]

I'd be more inclined to believe that the intelligence communities felt that "Able Danger" was encroaching into their territories. If they were going to put up such a fight to keep "Able Danger" from having any intelligence connections with the FBI and CIA, what makes you assume their information actually got to see the light of day in Clinton's office?


Considering the time frame when the smearing happened and when Shaffer's security clearance was revoked to prevent him from testifying, I would say this is someone else's agenda and has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush. Do you people actually read the articles you post, or just henpick through them to try and attack each other?