<p>interesteddad: why didnt clinton accept bin laden’s head on a silver platter when sudan offered it?</p>
<p>For Vyse, the “extreme left” begins with Atilla the Hun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah. During a period when the Clinton administration was signficantly increasing federal funding to hire police in major cities, build prisons, etc. </p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since you seem to be mostly concerned with NYC, Sen. Clinton successfully got $24 billion in federal money to help rebuild the World Trade Center. You can read a synopsis of her political career and Senate record here:</p>
<p><a href=“Hillary Clinton - Wikipedia”>Hillary Clinton - Wikipedia;
<p>For most of her public life, she has been interested in childrens’ issue, health care (including the State Children’s Health Insurance Program), and military affairs.</p>
<p>The Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States. They offered to deport him to Saudi Arabia. Clinton couldn’t get the Saudis to take the deal (they were protecting him). In fact, the accounts I’ve read suggest that the Saudis probably helped engineer bin Laden’s move from Sudan to Afghanistan, just like Prince Bandahar talked George Bush into helping fly 100 members of the bin Laden family out of the United States on Sept 11th and 12th when US citizens were grounded.</p>
<p>Maybe you should try a few sources other than Sean Hannity:</p>
<p><a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005[/url]”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005</a></p>
<p>lol, your counter source is a George Soros funded far left think tank, and you’re lecturing me about legitimacy?</p>
<p>My source was actually the washington post, but nice try</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2</a></p>
<p>Try reading your own source. The Post is quite clear that the Sudanese offered to turn Bin Laden over to the Saudis and the Saudis refused. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to the 9-11 Commission report (page 80 of the PDF file), bin Laden flew a chartered plane from Khartoum to Jalalabad, Pakistan with a refueling stopover in the United Arab Emirates.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf</a></p>
<p>You have to understand that, in the Middle East, our “allies” (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, etc.) are just as happy to work against us.</p>
<p>All of this stuff is well documented in a number of books. Or just read the 9-11 Commission report for the Cliff Notes version.</p>
<p>In a nutshell, the Saudis had cut a deal with bin Laden. They would look the other way, and even allow Saudi funding of his operations, in exchange for his agreement not to use terrorism on Saudi soil against the royal family. That agreement only fell apart in the last few years. So, throughout the 1990s, the Saudis had no qualms about assuring us of their assistance while at the same time supporting bin Laden. It’s pretty much the same game that Pakistan is playing today.</p>
<p>In a way, the same dynamic is why we are making no headway in Iraq. The Saudis will spend any amount necessary to ensure that the Shia in Iraq do not prevail. Where do you think the money for the Sunni resistance is coming from? The Sunnis won’t participate in a government because they believe that they will have a fighting chance to regain control of the country with Saudi, Jordan, and Egyptian funding. Malaki is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He’s a puppet of the Shia and is using whatever government (not very damn much) exists to undercut Sunni participation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My posts go straight to the topic of whether a disbelief in the science of evolution affects a person’s ability to govern, the subject of this thread. </p>
<p>Isn’t it interesting that you want to suppress anything that challenges your mystical belief that “R-good” “D-bad”?</p>
<p>Someone who worked directly with clinton doesnt agree than Slick willy exahusted all his options to make it happen.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm[/url]”>http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm</a></p>
<p>You’re putting words in my mouth. I feel Hillary is unworthy because she’s corrupt and hateful, Edwards is unworthy because he’s a slimy trial lawyer, and obama is unworthy because he’s unproven (although he’s somehwta starting to grow on me; I’ll listen to what he has to say).</p>
<p>I’m cynical about all politicians, but I feel that those who have adopted conservatism–siding with the interests of business, economic prosperity, and capitalism–are more deserving of my vote.</p>
<p>In other words, you’re willing to tolerate well-documented Republican corruption and ineffectiveness to get some financial end achieved, no matter what the consequences for others. A few extra casualties here and there, small price to pay to keep your guys in power. </p>
<p>Never mind that we simply can’t afford to keep taking on national debt the way your neocon-in-conservative-clothing guys are piling it up. Why let facts cloud your judgement about who is “worthy”?</p>
<p>Again, read your own source. Mansoor Ijez says that he was a go between from Sudan offering to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis. The Saudis would not do the deal.</p>
<p>This stuff continues to this day. Read the accounts of what it took for the CIA to get any cooperation from the Saudis, the UAE, and Oman even after 9-11. These countries basically stonewalled our efforts to sever the financial networks until bin Laden screwed up and started attacking on Saudi soil. It was only then that these countries started assisting us.</p>
<p>Having read/skimmed this thread from the beginning I have a suggestion for those who are arguing with interesteddad, stop.
He is killing you with his command of the facts and skill with the language. While he is quite kind in his remarks and is not attempting to make you look and sound foolish, his command of facts is doing just that.
Knowing when and how to retreat is a requirement of wisdom, I suggest those of you arguing with interesteddad begin to display wisdom now.</p>
<p>Sorry, Tommybill, but I think I have to take issue with that. First of all, I think arguing with anyone here with a view toward changing their minds is just silly. I’d like to think this is a place for an exchange of ideas. That said, I think that an overreliance on the type of “facts” some posters use is misplaced. One downside of the information age is that support for almost any position can be found somewhere on the internet. So just citing a source that supports your version of “fact” is unpersuasive. Telling someone that they should read sources “other than Sean Hannity” is all welll and good, but then citing Mediamatters.com, funded indirectly by George Soros, seems inconsistent. Citing Wikipedia at all seems unpersuasive - in fact courts and law schools are wrestling with the idea of prohibiting the use of that source as a citation - it is too open to revision and abuse.
And facts, without context and understanding, are not always helpful. For example, the claim that Rudy Giuliani’s accomplishment in cutting NYC crime was no more than a result of federal funding for police provides a sample of facts without context. I don’t knw if Rudy would make a good president - I have some strong reservations - but I was there and I do know that his accomplishments in NYC were a triumph of will, not manpower. He chose to attack crime problems head on, to address quality of life issues like the squeegee men who terrified many elderly residents, to hire and support police leaders who insituted computerized crime profiling programs targeting certain areas, bringing in major entertainment corporations to build family entertainment in what had been the cesspool of 42nd street, and so on. You could have given his predecessor 100,000 cops and it wouldn’t have made a difference - no will. So yes - it is a fact that the feds provided additional funding for police - but it is incorrect to assume that that was the proximate cause of the effect of crime reduction. Facts without context.</p>