Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.

Politics > Politics-USA > Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Politics > Politics-USA
User:	"Harry Hope"
Date:	20 Aug 2003 10:55:20 PM
Object:	Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.

User: "Gabagimpy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 10:02:16 AM

"Kevin Torkelson" <kgtorkelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:F651b.9$jT2.1021146@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

9-11 was on his watch

And the African Embassy bombings, WTC I, Somalia, USS Cole were all on
Clinton's watch and he did NOTHING.

Alot of the world terrorists were got a tried and some executed on Clinton
watch

Name a few.
.

User: "Gabagimpy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 02:01:37 PM

Clinton caught the foot soldiers who did it, but he didn't go after the
leaders or the terrorist infrastructure. And Clinton was a VERY persuasive
president. If he went on TV and said something like "An attack on an
American Embassy/Naval Ship is an attack on American itself..." he could
have EASILY gotten congress to pass whatever anti-terror bills that he
wanted.
That and he went to war in Kosovo when it was no threat to the US. I'm sure
he could have mustered support to go after terrorism too.
.

User: "steveo"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	21 Aug 2003 02:29:25 PM

Gabagimpy wrote:

Clinton caught the foot soldiers who did it, but he didn't go after the
leaders or the terrorist infrastructure. And Clinton was a VERY persuasive
president. If he went on TV and said something like "An attack on an
American Embassy/Naval Ship is an attack on American itself..." he could
have EASILY gotten congress to pass whatever anti-terror bills that he
wanted.

That and he went to war in Kosovo when it was no threat to the US. I'm sure
he could have mustered support to go after terrorism too.

Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in
developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or
WAV sound)
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this
terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers
hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would
rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all
the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be
tough.
One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical
markers in explosives "a phony issue."
Taggants value disputed
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on
explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on
which both parties agree.
"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't
let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.
The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would
help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get
the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the
bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.
"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill
they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.
Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for
about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for
fighting terrorism.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged
from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the
White House wants. Some they're not going to get."
Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in
explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."
"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also
said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if
Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is
expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional
leaders.
.

User: "Gabagimpy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 02:33:35 PM

Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.

As I said. If Clinton REALLY, REALLY wanted to go to war on terrorism,
nothing could have stopped him. He was just that popular with the public.
He got his war on Kosovo with a little arm-twisting and wheel greasing, he
could have easily gotten his war on terror. Don't blame republicans for
stopping his half-assed bill.
.

User: "steveo"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	21 Aug 2003 02:36:33 PM

Gabagimpy wrote:

Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.

You think so, huh? Well, he REALLY, REALLY did not want to be impeached,
but the Republicans had there way. Yes, he was popular with the public.
But, he wasn't popular with the Republicans in Congress. I will continue
to blame them for stopping his bill.
.

User: "Gabagimpy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 02:45:16 PM

"steveo" <steve@notospam.com> wrote in message
news:5b91b.955$nA5.178338@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...

Gabagimpy wrote:

Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.

As I said. If Clinton REALLY, REALLY wanted to go to war on terrorism,
nothing could have stopped him. He was just that popular with the

public.

He got his war on Kosovo with a little arm-twisting and wheel greasing,

could have easily gotten his war on terror. Don't blame republicans for
stopping his half-assed bill.

He was impeached because of the LAW. Once again, how was he able to get
support for his war on Kosovo but not terrorism? I'll tell you why, because
Clinton pushed for the war on Kosovo and he got it. He didn't push for the
war on terror.
.

User: "steveo"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	21 Aug 2003 02:53:51 PM

Gabagimpy wrote:

"steveo" <steve@notospam.com> wrote in message
news:5b91b.955$nA5.178338@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...

Gabagimpy wrote:

Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.

As I said. If Clinton REALLY, REALLY wanted to go to war on terrorism,
nothing could have stopped him. He was just that popular with the

public.

He got his war on Kosovo with a little arm-twisting and wheel greasing,

could have easily gotten his war on terror. Don't blame republicans for
stopping his half-assed bill.

He was impeached because of politics. He broke no law and was never convicted
of a crime.
The Kosovo action was a NATO action. Republicans did not give him the support
that he wanted:
http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-99/04-30-99/d06wn129.htm
Democrats criticize GOP for vote on Clinton's Kosovo policy
By Tom Raum, Associated Press writer
WASHINGTON -- Democratic congressional leaders accused Republicans yesterday of
undercutting vital American interests by assaulting President Clinton's policy
on Kosovo. A Senate showdown loomed, meanwhile, on whether to try to limit the
president's war powers or give him a freer hand.
As Republicans and Democrats battled over Clinton's job as commander in chief,
some GOP leaders were having second thoughts about the ballooning size of an
emergency spending bill to pay for the conflict in Yugoslavia.
Key members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees were considering
shrinking similar bills they were preparing to pay for the fighting, already
roughly double the $6.05 billion Clinton requested.
On both sides of the Capitol, Democrats were reeling from an unexpected 213-213
vote by the House the night before that withheld support for the NATO air
campaign, now in its second month.
House Democratic leader ***** Gephardt of Missouri called it "a low moment in
foreign policy and the history of this institution." He blamed "right-wing
extremists" in the House for orchestrating the outcome.
The vote, combined with a vote earlier in the day to require Clinton to obtain
express congressional approval before sending "ground elements" to the conflict,
sends "a muddled message at best, at worst a very negative message," Gephardt
said. Democrats said the phrase "ground elements" was so vague that it could
apply to troops already in the region and even restrict the planned use of U.S.
Apache attack helicopters. Republicans said they meant only ground troops that
would take part in an invasion.
The vote on the air campaign caught Democratic leaders by surprise. They had
expected the largely symbolic measure to be approved, considering it had the
support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
But other House leaders, including House GOP Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas, worked to
corral Republican opposition. Twenty-six Democrats joined Republicans in voting
against airstrikes.
On the Senate side, meanwhile, Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.C., said: "A lot
of senators are scratching their heads today wondering how did this happen, how
did they vote that way and what can we do in the Senate to help rectify it?"
But administration allies in the Senate had problems of their own.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was meeting Thursday to consider an
effort by a bipartisan group led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Biden,
D-Del., that would authorize the president to use "all necessary means" to bring
the war to a conclusion, including ground troops.
McCain is invoking a provision of the War Powers Act of 1973 that guarantees a
Senate floor vote next week. But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.,
opposes the measure, saying it gives Clinton too free a hand.
Republican aides said Lott planned to support a move to replace the McCain-Biden
measure with one similar to that passed by the House requiring congressional
approval for any ground offensive.
GOP Appropriations leaders were considering trimming back spending bills
Democrats claim are bloated with special-interest pet projects.
They were under pressure from lawmakers complaining that the measures contain
too much pork-barrel spending as well as from those unwilling to spend anything
extra for an unpopular war.
House Republicans were considering shrinking or eliminating $1 billion in
military construction projects they have included for U.S. bases around the world.
Several Republicans said the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, Sen. Ted
Stevens, R-Alaska, was considering trimming his $12 billion measure to perhaps
$7 billion. Stevens refused to discuss his plans during a brief interview.
Gephardt, at a news conference, said he found it ironic that Republicans would
vote against the air campaign and against widening the war with ground forces --
but seemed to have little problem assembling legislation to pay for it and
"putting in everybody in town's wish list."
"It's ridiculous to jack this one way up in price," Gephardt said.
Hastert expressed doubt that Wednesday's votes would jeopardize the bill
providing money for the military operation.
"I just don't think so," the House speaker told reporters. "We'll see what
happens next week."
Meanwhile, a 10-member congressional delegation headed by Rep. Curt Weldon,
R-Pa., headed to Vienna, Austria, to meet with members of the Russian Duma to
discuss possible ways of resolving the Balkans crisis.
"We need to be engaging Russia on Kosovo," Weldon said. Joining him were: Reps.
Jim Gibbons, R-Nev.; Jim Saxton, R-N.J.; Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.; Don Sherwood,
R-Pa.; Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii; Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y.; Dennis Kucinich,
D-Ohio; Corrine Brown, D-Fla.; and Bernie Sanders, Ind-Vt.
On the refugee question, J. Brian Atwood, administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, told a Senate Commerce subcommittee that 16,500 more
refugees had arrived from Kosovo in Macedonia and Albania over the past two days.
"It's going to be a constant crisis," he said. ___________
.

User: "Brian"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, howaboutone.	24 Aug 2003 01:12:27 PM

steveo wrote:

Gabagimpy wrote:

"steveo" <steve@notospam.com> wrote in message
news:5b91b.955$nA5.178338@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...

Gabagimpy wrote:

Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.

As I said. If Clinton REALLY, REALLY wanted to go to war on terrorism,
nothing could have stopped him. He was just that popular with the

public.

He got his war on Kosovo with a little arm-twisting and wheel greasing,

could have easily gotten his war on terror. Don't blame republicans for
stopping his half-assed bill.

He was impeached because of politics. He broke no law and was never convicted of a
crime.

Wrong on both counts.
Obstruction of justice.
Perjury.
Paid huge fines (or more accurately, got the fools who donated to his "defense fund"
to pay them)
Lost his law lisence.
Is barred for life from ever appearing before the USSC.

The Kosovo action was a NATO action.

Not till after willieboy got us in there.
By the way, what ever happened to your hero's promise to have our military home from
Kosovo by Christmas?
Oh, thats right, he never said WHICH christmas.

Republicans did not give him the support that he wanted:

They arent required to.
And according to the article you posted, they had good, legitimate reasons for not
supporting him.

http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-99/04-30-99/d06wn129.htm

Democrats criticize GOP for vote on Clinton's Kosovo policy
By Tom Raum, Associated Press writer

WASHINGTON -- Democratic congressional leaders accused Republicans yesterday of
undercutting vital American interests by assaulting President Clinton's policy
on Kosovo. A Senate showdown loomed, meanwhile, on whether to try to limit the
president's war powers or give him a freer hand.
As Republicans and Democrats battled over Clinton's job as commander in chief,
some GOP leaders were having second thoughts about the ballooning size of an
emergency spending bill to pay for the conflict in Yugoslavia.
Key members of the House and Senate Appropriations committees were considering
shrinking similar bills they were preparing to pay for the fighting, already
roughly double the $6.05 billion Clinton requested.
On both sides of the Capitol, Democrats were reeling from an unexpected 213-213
vote by the House the night before that withheld support for the NATO air
campaign, now in its second month.
House Democratic leader ***** Gephardt of Missouri called it "a low moment in
foreign policy and the history of this institution." He blamed "right-wing
extremists" in the House for orchestrating the outcome.
The vote, combined with a vote earlier in the day to require Clinton to obtain
express congressional approval before sending "ground elements" to the conflict,
sends "a muddled message at best, at worst a very negative message," Gephardt
said. Democrats said the phrase "ground elements" was so vague that it could
apply to troops already in the region and even restrict the planned use of U.S.
Apache attack helicopters. Republicans said they meant only ground troops that
would take part in an invasion.
The vote on the air campaign caught Democratic leaders by surprise. They had
expected the largely symbolic measure to be approved, considering it had the
support of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
But other House leaders, including House GOP Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas, worked to
corral Republican opposition. Twenty-six Democrats joined Republicans in voting
against airstrikes.
On the Senate side, meanwhile, Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.C., said: "A lot
of senators are scratching their heads today wondering how did this happen, how
did they vote that way and what can we do in the Senate to help rectify it?"
But administration allies in the Senate had problems of their own.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee was meeting Thursday to consider an
effort by a bipartisan group led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Biden,
D-Del., that would authorize the president to use "all necessary means" to bring
the war to a conclusion, including ground troops.
McCain is invoking a provision of the War Powers Act of 1973 that guarantees a
Senate floor vote next week. But Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.,
opposes the measure, saying it gives Clinton too free a hand.
Republican aides said Lott planned to support a move to replace the McCain-Biden
measure with one similar to that passed by the House requiring congressional
approval for any ground offensive.
GOP Appropriations leaders were considering trimming back spending bills
Democrats claim are bloated with special-interest pet projects.
They were under pressure from lawmakers complaining that the measures contain
too much pork-barrel spending as well as from those unwilling to spend anything
extra for an unpopular war.
House Republicans were considering shrinking or eliminating $1 billion in
military construction projects they have included for U.S. bases around the world.
Several Republicans said the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, Sen. Ted
Stevens, R-Alaska, was considering trimming his $12 billion measure to perhaps
$7 billion. Stevens refused to discuss his plans during a brief interview.
Gephardt, at a news conference, said he found it ironic that Republicans would
vote against the air campaign and against widening the war with ground forces --
but seemed to have little problem assembling legislation to pay for it and
"putting in everybody in town's wish list."
"It's ridiculous to jack this one way up in price," Gephardt said.
Hastert expressed doubt that Wednesday's votes would jeopardize the bill
providing money for the military operation.
"I just don't think so," the House speaker told reporters. "We'll see what
happens next week."
Meanwhile, a 10-member congressional delegation headed by Rep. Curt Weldon,
R-Pa., headed to Vienna, Austria, to meet with members of the Russian Duma to
discuss possible ways of resolving the Balkans crisis.
"We need to be engaging Russia on Kosovo," Weldon said. Joining him were: Reps.
Jim Gibbons, R-Nev.; Jim Saxton, R-N.J.; Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.; Don Sherwood,
R-Pa.; Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii; Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y.; Dennis Kucinich,
D-Ohio; Corrine Brown, D-Fla.; and Bernie Sanders, Ind-Vt.
On the refugee question, J. Brian Atwood, administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development, told a Senate Commerce subcommittee that 16,500 more
refugees had arrived from Kosovo in Macedonia and Albania over the past two days.
"It's going to be a constant crisis," he said. ___________

User: "Brian"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, howaboutone.	24 Aug 2003 01:08:26 PM

steveo wrote:

Gabagimpy wrote:

Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.

Reguardless of the facts, apparantly.
.

User: "Kevin Torkelson"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 01:08:17 PM

They were captured and tried I know I was in the middleeast at that time,
get your facts straight, and as far as Bin Laden was concerned Clinton tried
to get him but the UN and our government officals told him to back off.
"Gabagimpy" <spacehut2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y951b.24016$ev.4860160@twister.nyc.rr.com...

"Kevin Torkelson" <kgtorkelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:F651b.9$jT2.1021146@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

9-11 was on his watch

And the African Embassy bombings, WTC I, Somalia, USS Cole were all on
Clinton's watch and he did NOTHING.

Alot of the world terrorists were got a tried and some executed on

Clinton

watch

Name a few.

User: "Gabagimpy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 01:10:09 PM

"Kevin Torkelson" <kgtorkelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lU71b.2369$oe6.2171@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

They were captured and tried I know I was in the middleeast at that time,
get your facts straight, and as far as Bin Laden was concerned Clinton

tried

to get him but the UN and our government officals told him to back off.

First of all, don't top post. Second of all, can you name a few of them?
How about some dates or locations? And I notice that you didn't even try to
tackle all the numerous international terror attacks on US interests that
Clinton ignored.
Oh, and YOU should get your facts straight. Syria offered us bin Laden in
an attempt to win our support for their bid to the UN Security Council. It
was CLINTON that refused the offer because he didn't want to hurt his
precious poll numbers.
.

User: "Eric Salmassy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 02:06:27 PM

"Gabagimpy" <spacehut2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:5W71b.24323$ev.4937857@twister.nyc.rr.com:

"Kevin Torkelson" <kgtorkelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lU71b.2369$oe6.2171@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

They were captured and tried I know I was in the middleeast at that
time, get your facts straight, and as far as Bin Laden was concerned
Clinton

tried

to get him but the UN and our government officals told him to back
off.

February/March 1995 Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center
bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States.
Spring 1996 President Clinton signed a top secret order that authorized the
CIA to use any and all means to destroy bin Laden's network
July 1997 According to Islamic sources, a US-backed multinational mercenary
force is formed with the aim of abducting or killing bin Laden. Witnesses
claim to see 11 black Land Cruisers crossing into the Afghan city of Khost
along with 2 helicopters
June 1998 A raid is conducted in Albania against a cell of an Islamic
terrorist movement by security personnel from the U.S. and Albania. Two
suspected employees of bin Laden are arrested. The CIA takes custody of a
van-load of documents and computer gear. Two weeks later, another raid was
conducted and two more suspected bin Laden associates arrested. They were
Egyptian nationals and were turned over to anti- terrorist officials in
Egypt
June 8, 1998 The grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996,
issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden with "conspiracy to attack
defense utilities of the United States."
August 20, 1998 US retaliation against bin Laden--cruise missiles attack a
suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Al Shifa, a
pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum.
November 4, 1998 A new superceding indictment is issued against bin Laden,
Muhammad Atef and a host of other suspects. They are charged with bombing
of two US embassies and conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism
against Americans abroad. Two rewards of $5 million each are offered for
Atef and bin Laden. Atef is described as bin Laden's chief military
commander
January 16, 1999 The US Attorney's office files its most complete
indictment to date of Osama bin Laden and 11 other suspected members of his
terrorist organization
May 29, 2001 Four followers of Osama bin Laden are found guilty of charges
stemming from the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/etc/cron.html
That's a whole lot of "ignoring".

Oh, and YOU should get your facts straight. Syria offered us bin
Laden in an attempt to win our support for their bid to the UN
Security Council.

Got a cite for this? Was bin Laden ever even in Syria? Me thinks you are
full of *****.
The thing that cracks me up about you Clinton haters is that you'll believe
*anything*.
We've all seen posts about how "Clinton had turned down" an offer from
Sudan for bin Laden even *after* the Khobar Towers bombing (June 1996), the
African Embassy bombings (August 1998) and the USS Cole bombing (October
2000). That Clinton, what a *****! Unfortunately for that theory, bin
Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was in Afghanistan before *any* of
those events, so it is unclear exactly how Sudan could have turned him
over.
Facts are inconvenient things.
.

User: "lare"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	23 Aug 2003 03:25:31 PM

Credit to Clinton!
In warfare (going after Bin Laden) the best means is using the least
amount of force with the least amount of casualties to eliminate your
enemy. That is not always possible.
But a surgical strike using limited air power, covert operatives,
commandos etc., may take longer than using brute force, but the cost
in lives, dollars and political ill will is far more desirable.
Let's ask this question. . .for America and the West, what positive
results are going to come out of the invasion of Iraq. Don't tell me
that we have eliminated a nation with WMD.
Nations who have nukes for example, can be countered due to the threat
of retaliation. But terrorists are another matter. . .
.

User: "Brian"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	24 Aug 2003 12:59:29 PM

Eric Salmassy wrote:

"Gabagimpy" <spacehut2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:5W71b.24323$ev.4937857@twister.nyc.rr.com:

"Kevin Torkelson" <kgtorkelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lU71b.2369$oe6.2171@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

They were captured and tried I know I was in the middleeast at that
time, get your facts straight, and as far as Bin Laden was concerned
Clinton

tried

to get him but the UN and our government officals told him to back
off.

Funny, the only source you have is PBS, and they show no sources.
Also funny how you deleted so many related NGs.
(yes, I trim the economics group because it is unrelated, and "impeach.bush"
because only blind partisan idiots would post there)

February/March 1995 Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center
bombing, is captured in Pakistan and extradited to the United States.

Spring 1996 President Clinton signed a top secret order that authorized the
CIA to use any and all means to destroy bin Laden's network

July 1997 According to Islamic sources, a US-backed multinational mercenary
force is formed with the aim of abducting or killing bin Laden. Witnesses
claim to see 11 black Land Cruisers crossing into the Afghan city of Khost
along with 2 helicopters

June 1998 A raid is conducted in Albania against a cell of an Islamic
terrorist movement by security personnel from the U.S. and Albania. Two
suspected employees of bin Laden are arrested. The CIA takes custody of a
van-load of documents and computer gear. Two weeks later, another raid was
conducted and two more suspected bin Laden associates arrested. They were
Egyptian nationals and were turned over to anti- terrorist officials in
Egypt

June 8, 1998 The grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996,
issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden with "conspiracy to attack
defense utilities of the United States."

August 20, 1998 US retaliation against bin Laden--cruise missiles attack a
suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Al Shifa, a
pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum.

November 4, 1998 A new superceding indictment is issued against bin Laden,
Muhammad Atef and a host of other suspects. They are charged with bombing
of two US embassies and conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism
against Americans abroad. Two rewards of $5 million each are offered for
Atef and bin Laden. Atef is described as bin Laden's chief military
commander

January 16, 1999 The US Attorney's office files its most complete
indictment to date of Osama bin Laden and 11 other suspected members of his
terrorist organization

May 29, 2001 Four followers of Osama bin Laden are found guilty of charges
stemming from the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/etc/cron.html

That's a whole lot of "ignoring".

Oh, and YOU should get your facts straight. Syria offered us bin
Laden in an attempt to win our support for their bid to the UN
Security Council.

Got a cite for this? Was bin Laden ever even in Syria? Me thinks you are
full of *****.

The thing that cracks me up about you Clinton haters is that you'll believe
*anything*.

We've all seen posts about how "Clinton had turned down" an offer from
Sudan for bin Laden even *after* the Khobar Towers bombing (June 1996), the
African Embassy bombings (August 1998) and the USS Cole bombing (October
2000). That Clinton, what a *****! Unfortunately for that theory, bin
Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was in Afghanistan before *any* of
those events, so it is unclear exactly how Sudan could have turned him
over.

Facts are inconvenient things.

User: "steveo"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	21 Aug 2003 02:14:57 PM

Gabagimpy wrote:

"Kevin Torkelson" <kgtorkelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lU71b.2369$oe6.2171@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

They were captured and tried I know I was in the middleeast at that time,
get your facts straight, and as far as Bin Laden was concerned Clinton

tried

to get him but the UN and our government officals told him to back off.

First of all, don't top post. Second of all, can you name a few of them?
How about some dates or locations? And I notice that you didn't even try to
tackle all the numerous international terror attacks on US interests that
Clinton ignored.

Oh, and YOU should get your facts straight. Syria offered us bin Laden in
an attempt to win our support for their bid to the UN Security Council. It
was CLINTON that refused the offer because he didn't want to hurt his
precious poll numbers.

Same old lies. Try some truth:
U.W. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts
To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/national-reporting/works/100301a.html
Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A01
The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to
the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring
of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to
officials and former officials in all three countries.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in
secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel
on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking
a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration
finally gave up on the capture.
Sudan expelled bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan. From there, he is
thought to have planned and financed the twin embassy bombings
of 1998, the near-destruction of the USS Cole a year ago and last month's
devastation in New York and Washington.
Bin Laden's good fortune in slipping through U.S. fingers torments some former
officials with the thought that the subsequent attacks might
have been averted. Though far from the central figure he is now, bin Laden had
a high and rising place on the U.S. counterterrorism agenda.
Internal State Department talking points at the time described him as "one of
the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist
activities in the world today" and blamed him for planning a failed attempt to
blow up the hotel used by U.S. troops in Yemen in 1992.
"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant
difference," said a U.S. government official with
responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism. "We probably never would
have seen a September 11th. We would still have had networks
of Sunni Islamic extremists of the sort we're dealing with here, and there
would still have been terrorist attacks fomented by those folks.
puumba-shancher[190] cat clinton*aden
U.W. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts
To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/national-reporting/works/100301a.html
Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A01
The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to
the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring
of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to
officials and former officials in all three countries.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in
secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel
on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking
a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration
finally gave up on the capture.
Sudan expelled bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan. From there, he is
thought to have planned and financed the twin embassy bombings
of 1998, the near-destruction of the USS Cole a year ago and last month's
devastation in New York and Washington.
Bin Laden's good fortune in slipping through U.S. fingers torments some former
officials with the thought that the subsequent attacks might
have been averted. Though far from the central figure he is now, bin Laden had
a high and rising place on the U.S. counterterrorism agenda.
Internal State Department talking points at the time described him as "one of
the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist
activities in the world today" and blamed him for planning a failed attempt to
blow up the hotel used by U.S. troops in Yemen in 1992.
"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant
difference," said a U.S. government official with
responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism. "We probably never would
have seen a September 11th. We would still have had networks
of Sunni Islamic extremists of the sort we're dealing with here, and there
would still have been terrorist attacks fomented by those folks.
But there would not have been as many resources devoted to their activities,
and there would not have been a single voice that so
effectively articulated grievances and won support for violence."
Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such
option in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence
environment of the time, they said, there was no choice but to allow bin Laden
to depart Sudan unmolested.
"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that
time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States,"
said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.
Three Clinton officials said they hoped -- one described it as "a fantasy" --
that Saudi King Fahd would accept bin Laden and order his
swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995
bombing in Riyadh. But Berger and Steven Simon, then director for
counterterrorism on the National Security Council (NSC) staff, said the White
House considered it valuable in itself to force bin Laden out
of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses,
investments and training camps.
"I really cared about one thing, and that was getting him out of Sudan," Simon
said. "One can understand why the Saudis didn't want him --
he was a hot potato -- and, frankly, I would have been shocked at the time if
the Saudis took him. My calculation was, 'It's going to take
him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time.' "
Conflicting Agendas
Conflicting policy agendas on three separate fronts contributed to the missed
opportunity to capture bin Laden, according to a dozen
participants. The Clinton administration was riven by differences on whether
to engage Sudan's government or isolate it, which influenced
judgments about the sincerity of the offer. In the Saudi-American
relationship, policymakers diverged on how much priority to give to
counterterrorism over other interests such as support for the ailing
Israeli-Palestinian talks. And there were the beginnings of a debate,
intensified lately, on whether the United States wanted to indict and try bin
Laden or to treat him as a combatant in an underground war.
In 1999, Sudanese President Omar Hassan Bashir referred elliptically to his
government's early willingness to send bin Laden to Saudi
Arabia. But the role of the U.S. government and the secret channel from
Khartoum to Washington had not been disclosed before.
The Sudanese offer had its roots in a dinner at the Khartoum home of Sudanese
Foreign Minister Ali Othman Taha. It was Feb. 6, 1996 --
Ambassador Timothy M. Carney's last night in the country before evacuating the
embassy on orders from Washington.
Paul Quaglia, then the CIA station chief in Khartoum, had led a campaign to
pull out all Americans after he and his staff came under
aggressive surveillance and twice had to fend off attacks, one with a knife
and one with claw hammers. Now Carney was instructed, despite
his objections, to withdraw all remaining Americans from the country.
Carney and David Shinn, then chief of the State Department's East Africa desk,
considered the security threat "bogus," as Shinn described
it. Washington's dominant decision-makers on Sudan had lost interest in
engagement, preparing plans to isolate and undermine the regime. The
two career diplomats thought that was a mistake, and that Washington was
squandering opportunities to enlist Sudan's cooperation against
radical Islamic groups.
One factor in Washington's hostility was an intelligence tip that Sudan aimed
to assassinate national security adviser Anthony Lake, the
most visible administration critic of Khartoum. The Secret Service took it
seriously enough to remove Lake from his home, shuffling him
among safe houses and conveying him around Washington in a heavily armored
car. Most U.S. analysts came to believe later that it had been a
false alarm.
Taha, distressed at the deteriorating relations, invited Carney and Shinn to
dine with him that Tuesday night. He asked what his country
could do to dissuade Washington from the view, expressed not long before by
then-United Nations Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright, that Sudan
was responsible for "continued sponsorship of international terror."
Carney and Shinn had a long list. Bin Laden, as they both recalled, was near
the top. So, too, were three members of Egypt's Gamaat
i-Islami, Arabic for Islamic Group, who had fled to Sudan after trying to kill
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Sudan also played host to
operatives and training facilities for the Palestinian Islamic Resistance
Movement, or Hamas, and Lebanon's Hezbollah.
"It was the first substantive chat with the U.S. government on the subject of
terrorism," Carney recalled.
Taha mostly listened. He raised no objection to the request for bin Laden's
expulsion, though he did not agree to it that night. His only
rejoinders came on Hamas and Hezbollah, which his government, like much of the
Arab world, regarded as conducting legitimate resistance to
Israeli occupation.
Sudanese President Bashir, struggling for dominance over the fiery cleric
Hassan Turabi, had already made overtures to the West. Not long
before, he had delivered the accused terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal" to
France. Less than a month after Taha's dinner, he sent a
trusted aide to Washington.
Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, then minister of state for defense, arrived
unannounced at the Hyatt Arlington on March 3, 1996. Using standard
tradecraft, he checked into one room and then walked to another, across Wilson
Boulevard from the Rosslyn Metro.
Carney and Shinn were waiting for him, but the meeting was run by covert
operatives from the CIA's Africa division. The Washington Post does
not identify active members of the clandestine service. Frank Knott, who was
Africa division chief in the directorate of operations at the
time, declined to be interviewed.
In a document dated March 8, 1996, the Americans spelled out their demands.
Titled "Measures Sudan Can Take to Improve Relations with the
United States," the two-page memorandum asked for six things. Second on the
list -- just after an angry enumeration of attacks on the CIA
station in Khartoum -- was Osama bin Laden.
"Provide us with names, dates of arrival, departure and destination and
passport data on mujahedin [holy warriors] that Usama Bin Laden has
brought into Sudan," the document demanded. The CIA emissaries told Erwa that
they knew of about 200 such bin Laden loyalists in Sudan.
During the next several weeks, Erwa raised the stakes. The Sudanese security
services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden
for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was
prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom
was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any
legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist.
Saudi Arabia, he said, was the most logical destination.
Susan Rice, then senior director for Africa on the NSC, remembers being
intrigued with but deeply skeptical of the Sudanese offer. And
unlike Berger and Simon, she argued that mere expulsion from Sudan was not
enough.
"We wanted them to hand him over to a responsible external authority," she
said. "We didn't want them to just let him disappear into the
ether."
Lake and Secretary of State Warren Christopher were briefed, colleagues said,
on efforts launched to persuade the Saudi government to take
bin Laden.
The Saudi idea had some logic, since bin Laden had issued a fatwa, or
religious edict, denouncing the ruling House of Saud as corrupt.
Riyadh had expelled bin Laden in 1991 and stripped him of his citizenship in
1994, but it wanted no part in jailing or executing him.
Saudis Feared a Backlash
Clinton administration officials recalled that the Saudis feared a backlash
from the fundamentalist opponents of the regime. Though regarded
as a black sheep, bin Laden was nonetheless an heir to one of Saudi Arabia's
most influential families. One diplomat familiar with the talks
said there was another reason: The Riyadh government was offended that the
Sudanese would go to the Americans with the offer.
Some U.S. diplomats said the White House did not press the Saudis very hard.
There were many conflicting priorities in the Middle East,
notably an intensive effort to save the interim government of Prime Minister
Shimon Peres in Israel, which was reeling under its worst spate
of Hamas suicide bombings. U.S. military forces also relied heavily on Saudi
forward basing to enforce the southern "no fly zone" in Iraq.
Resigned to bin Laden's departure from Sudan, some officials raised the
possibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea
was never seriously pursued because bin Laden had not been linked to a dead
American, and it was inconceivable that Clinton would sign the
"lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances.
"In the end they said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him
go to Somalia,' " Erwa, the Sudanese general, said in an
interview. "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they said, 'Let him.' "
On May 15, 1996, Foreign Minister Taha sent a fax to Carney in Nairobi, giving
up on the transfer of custody. His government had asked bin
Laden to vacate the country, Taha wrote, and he would be free to go.
Carney faxed back a question: Would bin Laden retain control of the millions
of dollars in assets he had built up in Sudan?
Taha gave no reply before bin Laden chartered a plane three days later for his
trip to Afghanistan. Subsequent analysis by U.S. intelligence
suggests that bin Laden managed to draw down and redirect the Sudanese assets
from his new redoubt in Afghanistan.
From the Sudanese point of view, the failed effort to take custody of bin
Laden resulted primarily from the Clinton administration's divisions on how
to relate to the Khartoum government -- divisions that remain today as
President Bush considers what to do with nations with a history of support
for terrorist groups.
Washington, Erwa said, never could decide whether to strike out at Khartoum or
demand its help.
"I think," he said, "they wanted to do both."
.

User: "Brian"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	24 Aug 2003 01:04:42 PM

Mark wrote:

Oh, and YOU should get your facts straight. Syria offered us bin Laden in

an attempt to win our support for their bid to the UN Security Council.

was CLINTON that refused the offer because he didn't want to hurt his
precious poll numbers.

This rumor you list as a fact has be proven to be false time and time
again... bin laden was NOT offered to the US... more right wing spin

Then why'd willieboy say he was wrong not to accept sudans offer?

"Gabagimpy" <spacehut2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5W71b.24323$ev.4937857@twister.nyc.rr.com...

"Kevin Torkelson" <kgtorkelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lU71b.2369$oe6.2171@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

They were captured and tried I know I was in the middleeast at that

time,

get your facts straight, and as far as Bin Laden was concerned Clinton

tried

to get him but the UN and our government officals told him to back off.

First of all, don't top post. Second of all, can you name a few of them?
How about some dates or locations? And I notice that you didn't even try

tackle all the numerous international terror attacks on US interests that
Clinton ignored.

Oh, and YOU should get your facts straight. Syria offered us bin Laden in
an attempt to win our support for their bid to the UN Security Council.

was CLINTON that refused the offer because he didn't want to hurt his
precious poll numbers.

User: "Michael"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	21 Aug 2003 04:22:31 PM

Please everyone, top post all you want. First of all, it makes it easier to read
if we don't have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of every message.
Second of all, Gabagimpy is not the Boss of this newsgroup.
Gabagimpy wrote:

"Kevin Torkelson" <kgtorkelson@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lU71b.2369$oe6.2171@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

They were captured and tried I know I was in the middleeast at that time,
get your facts straight, and as far as Bin Laden was concerned Clinton

tried

to get him but the UN and our government officals told him to back off.

First of all, don't top post. Second of all, can you name a few of them?
How about some dates or locations? And I notice that you didn't even try to
tackle all the numerous international terror attacks on US interests that
Clinton ignored.

Oh, and YOU should get your facts straight. Syria offered us bin Laden in
an attempt to win our support for their bid to the UN Security Council. It
was CLINTON that refused the offer because he didn't want to hurt his
precious poll numbers.

--
"These are the basic ideas that guide my tax policy: lower income taxes
for all, with the greatest help for those most in need. Everyone who pays income
taxes benefits � while the highest percentage tax cuts go to the lowest income
Americans. I believe this is a formula for continuing the prosperity we've
enjoyed, but also expanding it in ways we have yet to discover. It is an
economics of inclusion. It is the agenda of a government that knows its limits
and shows its heart."
� President George W. Bush
.

User: "Brian"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	24 Aug 2003 12:51:31 PM

Kevin Torkelson wrote:

*****.
Willieboy himself has admitted that he messed up by not accepting sudans offers.
.

User: "Gus"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	25 Aug 2003 10:52:47 AM

Brian wrote:

Kevin Torkelson wrote:

*****.
Willieboy himself has admitted that he messed up by not accepting sudans offers.

Can you dredge up a citation for that, by any chance?
.

User: "Gabagimpy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 11:56:41 AM

Where? In Iraq? There was no Al Qaida in Iraq before GWB. And the root

cause

for Islamic terrorism has increased during GWB's term. Thanks to him,

Arabs

hate the U.S. even more than before.

Afghanistan, new laws at home, all those terrorists in Guantanamo just to
name a few. And if you don't believe Saddam is a terrorist, why did Clinton
bomb him then?

2. Zero terror attacks on US soil since 9/11

How many terror attacks on US soil before 9/11? Plus, he's laid the

groundwork

for future attacks, by increasing the hate and contempt towards Americans.

There were tons of attacks internationally under Clinton in which he didn't
go after the culprits (African Embassies, USS Cole, WTC I, Somalia). The
terrorists had to get our attention some how. Maybe if Billyboy had
squashed them at their first, second or even third attack, 9/11 might not
have happened.

3. He's trying to limit the affirmative action *****.

In what way? What exactly has he done to eliminate affirmative action

policies?
He tried to get rid of the unfair racial points system at the college in
Michigan. That's could be political suicide for any politican, but he took
it on. And as a result, there were some modifications to the laws of
letting students in based on their race. So there.

So try again. Give one valid example of something good he's done for the
country.

I just gave 3.
.

User: "steveo"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	21 Aug 2003 02:19:02 PM

Gabagimpy wrote:

Where? In Iraq? There was no Al Qaida in Iraq before GWB. And the root

cause

for Islamic terrorism has increased during GWB's term. Thanks to him,

Arabs

hate the U.S. even more than before.

Afghanistan, new laws at home, all those terrorists in Guantanamo just to
name a few. And if you don't believe Saddam is a terrorist, why did Clinton
bomb him then?

Clinton bombed Saddam because was he not allowing weapons inspectors into Iraq.

2. Zero terror attacks on US soil since 9/11

How many terror attacks on US soil before 9/11? Plus, he's laid the

groundwork

for future attacks, by increasing the hate and contempt towards Americans.

There were tons of attacks internationally under Clinton in which he didn't
go after the culprits (African Embassies, USS Cole, WTC I, Somalia). The

I have already shown this to be a lie.

terrorists had to get our attention some how. Maybe if Billyboy had
squashed them at their first, second or even third attack, 9/11 might not
have happened.

3. He's trying to limit the affirmative action *****.

In what way? What exactly has he done to eliminate affirmative action

policies?

He tried to get rid of the unfair racial points system at the college in
Michigan. That's could be political suicide for any politican, but he took
it on. And as a result, there were some modifications to the laws of
letting students in based on their race. So there.

So try again. Give one valid example of something good he's done for the
country.

I just gave 3.

User: "Gabagimpy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 02:20:12 PM

Clinton bombed Saddam because was he not allowing weapons inspectors into

Iraq.
And that's why Bush attacked Iraq.

I have already shown this to be a lie.

What are you talking about? What's this "lie"? There were terror attacks
on Clinton's watch and he did nothing about them.
.

User: "Eric Salmassy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 03:21:55 PM

"Gabagimpy" <spacehut2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MX81b.24639$ev.4965519@twister.nyc.rr.com:

Clinton bombed Saddam because was he not allowing weapons inspectors
into

Iraq.

And that's why Bush attacked Iraq.

In what alternate universe? The inspectors *were* in Iraq. I know Bush
has tried to rewrite history about this, but they were there. Who do you
think Hans Blix was anyway?

I have already shown this to be a lie.

What are you talking about? What's this "lie"? There were terror
attacks on Clinton's watch and he did nothing about them.

User: "john grove"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	29 Aug 2003 12:31:35 PM

January 16, 1999 The US Attorney's office files its most complete
indictment to date of Osama bin Laden and 11 other suspected members of his
terrorist organization

Don't forget that NOTHING happened over the Y2K time frame because the
feds were
focused and paid ATTENTION, a US border official halted a car filled
with explosives trying to
enter at Port Angeles WA from Canada, with a map with LAX circled.
Compared to the GOP congress refusing to fund a $300 million computer
system to track foreign
students: Result, the Atta crew gets flight school in FLORIDA! But
then its hard to track all
those flight students studying for pharmacutical import training.
JG

May 29, 2001 Four followers of Osama bin Laden are found guilty of charges
stemming from the 1998 US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/etc/cron.html

User: "steveo"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	21 Aug 2003 02:34:08 PM

Gabagimpy wrote:

Clinton bombed Saddam because was he not allowing weapons inspectors into

Iraq.

And that's why Bush attacked Iraq.

That is a total fabrication. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq. They had
to leave when Bush announced that he was going to attack. Have you forgotton
the many reports of Hans Blix to the U.N. that the inspectors weren't finding
anything?

I have already shown this to be a lie.

What are you talking about? What's this "lie"? There were terror attacks
on Clinton's watch and he did nothing about them.

1. 1993 WTC bombing: The perpetrators caught, tried, and sentenced to
life in prison.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/index.html
2. 1995 bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Perpetrators were the same
as those in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/28/saudi.probe.pm/
3. 1996 Khobar Towers bombing: The investigation which started in the
Clinton administration ended up in indictments in June of 2001.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/21/khobar.indictments/
4. African embassy bombings: Two arrests in July of 1999.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/eafricabo
mbing.htm
5. USS Cole bombing: An investigation (started by Clinton) resulted
in the arrest of 5 in Yemen including 2 Egyptians in January 2001.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/yemen_usscole010111.html
Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in
developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or
WAV sound)
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this
terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers
hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would
rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all
the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be
tough.
One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical
markers in explosives "a phony issue."
Taggants value disputed
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on
explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on
which both parties agree.
"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't
let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.
The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would
help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get
the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the
bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.
"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill
they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.
Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for
about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for
fighting terrorism.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged
from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the
White House wants. Some they're not going to get."
Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in
explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."
"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also
said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if
Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is
expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional
leaders.
.

User: "Gabagimpy"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 02:47:46 PM

"steveo" <steve@notospam.com> wrote in message
news:Q891b.952$nA5.178214@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...

Gabagimpy wrote:

Clinton bombed Saddam because was he not allowing weapons inspectors

into

Iraq.

And that's why Bush attacked Iraq.

That is a total fabrication. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq. They

had

to leave when Bush announced that he was going to attack. Have you

forgotton

the many reports of Hans Blix to the U.N. that the inspectors weren't

finding

anything?

The only reason Saddam let the inspectors back in was because we threatened
war! Clinton didn't get the inspectors back in with his bombing effort.
And when the inspectors did get back in, Saddam was pulling his old tricks:
"you can look here, but you can't look here", etc.

I have already shown this to be a lie.

What are you talking about? What's this "lie"? There were terror

attacks

on Clinton's watch and he did nothing about them.

As I said in another post, Clinton caught the perpetrators, not the leaders
or the organization. And he could have had his war on terror if he really
fought for it.
.

User: "Brian"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, howaboutone.	24 Aug 2003 01:19:21 PM

steveo wrote:

Gabagimpy wrote:

Clinton bombed Saddam because was he not allowing weapons inspectors into

Iraq.

And that's why Bush attacked Iraq.

That is a total fabrication. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq.

You're both half right.
They were in Iraq, but saddam wasnt allowing them to do their job.

They had to leave when Bush announced that he was going to attack. Have you
forgotton the many reports of Hans Blix to the U.N. that the inspectors weren't
finding anything?

Not where saddam allowed them to look.

I have already shown this to be a lie.

What are you talking about? What's this "lie"? There were terror attacks
on Clinton's watch and he did nothing about them.

1. 1993 WTC bombing: The perpetrators caught, tried, and sentenced to
life in prison.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/index.html

2. 1995 bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Perpetrators were the same
as those in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/28/saudi.probe.pm/

3. 1996 Khobar Towers bombing: The investigation which started in the
Clinton administration ended up in indictments in June of 2001.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/21/khobar.indictments/

4. African embassy bombings: Two arrests in July of 1999.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/eafricabo
mbing.htm

5. USS Cole bombing: An investigation (started by Clinton) resulted
in the arrest of 5 in Yemen including 2 Egyptians in January 2001.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/yemen_usscole010111.html

Republicans stonewalled Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in
developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess. (1.6 MB AIFF or
WAV sound)

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this
terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers
hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would
rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all
the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be
tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical
markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on
explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on
which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't
let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would
help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get
the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the
bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill
they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for
about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for
fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged
from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the
White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in
explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also
said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if
Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is
expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional
leaders.

User: "Bill Stender"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	24 Aug 2003 07:54:32 PM

Name three good things Bush has done

showed the hand of the oligarchy, its greed, cynicism, and criminality.
(and as a bonus, showed how unimpressive their intelligence is)
forced the world's population to decide which side they were on.
(and over 90% are opposed to it)
seriously undermined the US economy.
(reform was never in the cards anyway)
in short, he has sparked a revolution!
.

User: "Brian"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how aboutone.	24 Aug 2003 11:50:42 PM

Bill Stender wrote:

Name three good things Bush has done

showed the hand of the oligarchy, its greed, cynicism, and criminality.
(and as a bonus, showed how unimpressive their intelligence is)

forced the world's population to decide which side they were on.
(and over 90% are opposed to it)

seriously undermined the US economy.
(reform was never in the cards anyway)

in short, he has sparked a revolution!

YAWN
.

User: "scribner"
Title: Re: Name three good things Bush has done............... OK, how about one.	21 Aug 2003 02:06:57 PM

Cut taxes for the rich
Invaded Iraq, not liberated - and killed thousands of civilians including
children and tens of thousands of poor conscripted soldiers - not to mention
our own soldiers who have been killed and injured.
Do you really feel safer for yourself and your family now than you did
before Bush....
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F44F553.59DE108B@erols.com...

Michael wrote:

Gabagimpy wrote:

1. He's fighting terrorism (Carter & Clinton had their shots and blew

it).

Where? In Iraq? There was no Al Qaida in Iraq before GWB. And the root

cause

for Islamic terrorism has increased during GWB's term. Thanks to him,

Arabs

hate the U.S. even more than before.

2. Zero terror attacks on US soil since 9/11

How many terror attacks on US soil before 9/11? Plus, he's laid the

groundwork

for future attacks, by increasing the hate and contempt towards

Americans.

I'm sure you enjoy believing all of that.
Of course, its still *****.

3. He's trying to limit the affirmative action *****.

In what way? What exactly has he done to eliminate affirmative action

policies?

So try again. Give one valid example of something good he's done for the
country.

Cut taxes.
Strong leadership in the face of terrorism.
(no, that strong leadership has NOT increased terrorism)
Liberated the iraqi and afghani people.