Obama spanks Wall Street.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Quote:

Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon.

Let them go at it. We need a population reduction.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Quote:

Not our fucking problem if two nuclear powers on the planet we inhabit go to war? C'mon.

Meh. We receive more crud from the testing in the 60s than we would if those two attention whores burn each other to cinders.

The Chinese will catch some, though. Boo hoo hoo.

[tw]

A long list of denials without a single supporting fact? Let's add reality to some of your denials:

The 1996 Federal Communication Act:

Originally Posted by TGRR

That was no accomplishment. The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, ...

Meanwhile the act forced anti-innovative communication companies to either provide a stifled 1981 technology called DSL, OR open their lines so that anyone could provide broadband. Yes, DSL technology was demonstrated even in 1981 when American communication companies were routinely stifling innovation - until 1996. Technology that should have been widely available in the 1990s still was not available until the 1996 Federal Communication Act all but required it.

Stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.):

Originally Posted by TGRR

Um, yeah. Credible link to these threats?

You are supposed to learn basic history before having opinions. Those attacks stopped by Clinton are common knowledge. Even described in detail by Richard Clark who was head of the White House CounterTerrorism Security Group (CSG). It takes almost nothing to learn how Clinton mobilized then entire government resulting in Diana Dean finding an LAX bomb in WA. Same attacks to even sink the USS The Sullivans failed (because bombers loaded too much explosives and sunk their own boat).

Clinton regarded bin Laden as the number one threat to America which is why he even created Alec Station - a group assigned only to get bin Laden. As Richard Clark so bluntly said, "George W Bush, who failed to act on the threats from Al Qaeda despite repeated warnings ..." Clinton personally warned President-elect Bush of the threat he considered the most dangerous. Nobody could have asked more of Clinton. When Cofer Black warned of the Millennium attack in December 1999, Clinton responded by mobilizing every government agency. FISA judges (secret courts to authorize wiretaps during national emergencies) were swamped with subpoena requests. Even the RCMP were informed of sleeper cells they did not know about. You did not know any of this? Meanwhile, George Jr latter disbanded Alec Station because terrorism was not a threat.

All that is common knowledge to those who learn. Naysaying is how those without knowledge use Limbaugh tactics to deny reality.

No credible links are necessary because you are expected to first know this basic history before having opinions. If you know Clinton did so little, then you must deny what every informed American knows: what Diana Dean did.

Originally Posted by TGRR

Not our fucking problem.

A language often associated with those who always know and need not learn facts. Therefore you know Pakistan is not our f problem?

Knowledge easily identifies what is probably the greatest threat to the world and the US: Pakistan. Apparently you did not learn a long list of reasons why, or just don't care to know. So you have no appreciation of what Clinton did.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Clinton regarded bin Laden as the number one threat to America which is why he even created Alec Station - a group assigned only to get bin Laden.

Then why didn't he take him out when Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter? Sounds like revisionist history to me.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Then why didn't he take him out when Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter? Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Because Bin Ladin was never handed to him on a silver platter. That business has been debunked more times than I care to mention, and people STILL trot it out.

Clinton was a schmoe. Very few people will argue against that. But the "silver platter" business isn't true. It's just a stale Rovian talking point...effective vs Gore back in 2000, but a lie nonetheless.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by tw

You are supposed to learn basic history before having opinions.

Hey...conversation over.

When you can speak in a civil tone, let me know and we can continue.

TGRR,
Knows that appeal to "common knowledge" isn't evidence for a position.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Hey...conversation over.

When you can speak in a civil tone, let me know and we can continue.

TGRR,
Knows that appeal to "common knowledge" isn't evidence for a position.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Heh:

No credible links are necessary because

.

And that's all she wrote.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Because Bin Ladin was never handed to him on a silver platter. That business has been debunked more times than I care to mention, and people STILL trot it out.

From factcheck -

Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa's claims were not in fact present for the meeting.

Bill & Hillary's "Position"

U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
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.

It would be virtually unheard of to have concrete evidence on a matter like this.

[TGRR]

Odd that the man in question was never a representative of the Sudanese government, and Sudan says they have no fucking clue who he is or what he was talking about.

But some neocon nutcase named Lawrence Wright says otherwise, so all involved people are therefore lying or part of a conspiracy.

Also...Newsmax? Are you taking the piss? Why not just link to Rush Limbaugh and be done with it?

[classicman]

Look it up yourself then. The newsmax link is audio of Clinton himself. If you had cared to actually read the links or check out the cites instead of frothing at the mouth like an idiot. The Washington Post link or the Factcheck ink weren't good enough? There were tons of links on subject. Do your homework next time. THis time you get an "F" as in FAIL.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Look it up yourself then. The newsmax link is audio of Clinton himself. If you had cared to actually read the links or check out the cites instead of frothing at the mouth like an idiot. The Washington Post link or the Factcheck ink weren't good enough? There were tons of links on subject. Do your homework next time.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec..._chance_1.html

So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.

Originally Posted by classicman

THis time you get an "F" as in FAIL.

And you get a "P" as in Partisan Hack, Gullible, 1 each.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Then why didn't he take him out when Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter?

He repeatedly did using what was available. What secret did you withhold rather than contribute?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

And you get a "P" as in Partisan Hack, Gullible, 1 each.

Why? Because he opposes your view? I fail to understand your logic.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why? Because he opposes your view? I fail to understand your logic.

Naw, because he decided to start screeching at me because I wouldn't accept the word of one neocon freak over everyone actually involved and/or present when the situation occurred.

Sorry if you're having trouble with it.