Clinton Vows "No Safe Harbor" for USS Cole Attackers

Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Clinton Vows "No Safe Harbor" for USS Cole Attackers

In a ship-side ceremony commemorating the 17 young American men and women "standing guard for peace," who died in a terrorist attack on the USS Cole, President Clinton said the spirit of those honored today "must surely confound the minds of the hate-filled terrorists who killed them....To those who attacked them we say, you will not find a safe harbor. We will find you. And justice will prevail."

Speaking October 18 in Norfolk, Virginia, at a ceremony attended by members of Congress and the Cabinet, leaders of the U.S. armed services, and Secretary of Defense William Cohen, as well as USS Cole crew members injured in the attack and family members of the killed and injured, Clinton said of the victims that "All these very different Americans, all with their different stories, their lifelines and their love ties, answered the same call of service and found themselves on the USS Cole headed for the Persian Gulf where our forces are working to keep peace and stability in a region that could explode and disrupt the entire world."

Listing the lost crew members by name, Clinton recalled that some of them followed the family tradition of Navy service, others were bound for college, and one of them had worked for him in the White House. "In the names and faces of those we lost and mourn," he said, "the world sees our nation's greatest strength -- people in uniform rooted in every race, creed and region on the face of the earth, yet bound together by a common commitment to freedom and a common pride in being American."

He said "That same spirit is living today as the crew of the USS Cole pulls together in a determined struggle to keep the determined warrior afloat....Their tragic loss reminds us that even when America is not at war, the men and women of our military still risk their lives for peace."



Clearly, Clinton thought we were not at war after the attacks on our interests/citizens in East Africa, Saudi Arabia, New York, Saudi Arabia, Qatar...he owes us all an apology.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
rolleye.gif
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: conjur
rolleye.gif
Translation:
"wag the dog! Repubs wouldn't let him!"

I guess you were, what, 12 years old when we attacked Afghanistan and the Sudan? You were too busy trading Michael Jordan NBA cards and learning what the phrase "wet dream" means.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
"America is not at war" ...classic. How many attacks happened while Clinton was asleep at the wheel? (well, actually, he wasn't asleep...he was using cigars are sexual aids while OBL was killing Americans). Did I miss any attacks that happened on his watch?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Clinton was in office for 3 months between Cole and 9/11. Bush was in office 8 months. Neither did anything about it, but the insane rightwingers only want to talk about Clinton.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Clinton was in office for 3 months between Cole and 9/11. Bush was in office 8 months. Neither did anything about it, but the insane rightwingers only want to talk about Clinton.

East Africa? Barracks in Saudi? New York? Please do the math again, sir.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Weren't there several attacks foiled during Clinton's administration? LAX and millenium to name a few?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Clinton was in office for 3 months between Cole and 9/11. Bush was in office 8 months. Neither did anything about it, but the insane rightwingers only want to talk about Clinton.

Actually, I don't want to talk about either. I want to talk about what to do to prevent future attacks. The leftists are the ones who have picked this up as a political football (as predicted...trying to leverage it into an election win).

I think the leftists can argue all they want about Iraq, they even have some valid points. After all, they are the "internationalist peace loving communi...err, social...err, folks"

But the argument that "Clinton did more" is laughable, and irrelevant. Neither one did enough to prevent 9/11. Kudos to a few on the left, like Chess9, who aren't buying into it. Shame on the rest of you.

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Well, John Galt wants to talk about Clinton Clinton Clinton. Maybe Clinton molested him with a cigar.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Weren't there several attacks foiled during Clinton's administration? LAX and millenium to name a few?

Ayup. And the capture of the Al Qaeda member in Port Angeles, WA led to uncovering Al Qaeda cells in Montreal and Jordan.

Also, the Bush-God fanboys fail to realize Clinton did a lot to combat Al Qaeda. The full extent of the network wasn't really known until '98/'99. The CIA dropped the ball big-time in not going into Afghanistan. Clinton was forced to rely upon Pakistan's ISI which ended up being a waste as they were feeding us false information and were actually linked to Al Qaeda, themselves.

The Pentagon screwed up in Mogadishu, costing the lives of 18 Army Rangers.

Clinton approved every request for rendition that was presented to him. He also eventually approved the capture and/or killing of bin Laden. The Pentagon and CIA just did not fully cooperate due to the pressure being applied by the Republicans. The CIA didn't want another Mogadishu to occur and didn't want to risk the lives of its agents and become the scapegoat. The Pentagon didn't want to act pre-emptively.

But, the Bush-God fanboys conveniently neglect all of that and focus on cigars and "wag the dog".
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, John Galt wants to talk about Clinton Clinton Clinton. Maybe Clinton molested him with a cigar.

Because I believe that if Clinton would have taken us to war after the, say, 3rd attack, 9-11 might have been prevented....see how dumb your arguments sound now?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, John Galt wants to talk about Clinton Clinton Clinton. Maybe Clinton molested him with a cigar.

Because I believe that if Clinton would have taken us to war after the, say, 3rd attack, 9-11 might have been prevented....see how dumb your arguments sound now?

What do you consider the 3rd attack? The USS Cole? It wasn't until Jan. 27, 2001 that the CIA confirmed Al Qaeda was to blame. Bush was in the White House.


But, if you're saying you would have supported Clinton in a pre-emptive attack in removing the Taliban and destroying Al Qaeda, I'm with you!
 

JackStorm

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2003
1,216
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
But the argument that "Clinton did more" is laughable, and irrelevant. Neither one did enough to prevent 9/11. Kudos to a few on the left, like Chess9, who aren't buying into it. Shame on the rest of you.

I couldn't agree more. Both Clinton and Bush fvcked up when it came to Al-Qaeda, and who fvcked up more, is, as you said, irrelevant. What we need to do now is focus on what can be done to prevent more attacks from happening. And quite frankly, the political hacks on both sides need to just drop it and get on with their lives/work.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, John Galt wants to talk about Clinton Clinton Clinton. Maybe Clinton molested him with a cigar.

Because I believe that if Clinton would have taken us to war after the, say, 3rd attack, 9-11 might have been prevented....see how dumb your arguments sound now?

What did the GOP traitors say when Clinton bombed AQ training camp in Afganistan? Did they say that was not enough and we should declare all out war? No. They called it "wag the dog" and ridiculed him.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I see the apologists are out in force today...too funny
There is nothing to apologize for. Bush dropped the ball on 9/11/2001, not Clinton.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I see the apologists are out in force today...too funny
There is nothing to apologize for. Bush dropped the ball on 9/11/2001, not Clinton.

You are right. You are funny, also.

Thank you. But don't let that distract you from your Clinton bashing ;)
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Well, John Galt wants to talk about Clinton Clinton Clinton. Maybe Clinton molested him with a cigar.

Because I believe that if Clinton would have taken us to war after the, say, 3rd attack, 9-11 might have been prevented....see how dumb your arguments sound now?

What do you consider the 3rd attack? The USS Cole? It wasn't until Jan. 27, 2001 that the CIA confirmed Al Qaeda was to blame. Bush was in the White House.


But, if you're saying you would have supported Clinton in a pre-emptive attack in removing the Taliban and destroying Al Qaeda, I'm with you!

???
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Weren't there several attacks foiled during Clinton's administration? LAX and millenium to name a few?

Ayup. And the capture of the Al Qaeda member in Port Angeles, WA led to uncovering Al Qaeda cells in Montreal and Jordan.

Uh - nope. The LAX bombing was LUCK - and had nothing to do with Clinton or Clarkes little "Shake the trees" plan. Unless ofcourse you are calling Janet Reno a liar.

Yes, by luck catching the guy led to further cells being discovered but they would have had nothing without luck and an alert Ms. Dean.

CkG
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Weren't there several attacks foiled during Clinton's administration? LAX and millenium to name a few?

Ayup. And the capture of the Al Qaeda member in Port Angeles, WA led to uncovering Al Qaeda cells in Montreal and Jordan.

Uh - nope. The LAX bombing was LUCK - and had nothing to do with Clinton or Clarkes little "Shake the trees" plan. Unless ofcourse you are calling Janet Reno a liar.

Yes, by luck catching the guy led to further cells being discovered but they would have had nothing without luck and an alert Ms. Dean.

CkG

Still beating dead horses, eh, CkG?
 

fjord

Senior member
Feb 18, 2004
667
0
0
Any real attempt at capturing the historical context of above stated terrorist attacks--including 9/11-- must include a serious analysis of the Reagan administration and their disastrous policies.