I saw Billy boy on CNN this afternoon saying that the makers of the 9-11 miniseries about what led up to the sept 11 attacks "should tell the truth".

Truth.......that's something we can all appreciate, right? The ironic thing is that Bill is the same president that I saw on my television wagging his finger at me (and the rest of America) while telling a bold faced lie. It was a lie that he later had to own , as we all know. A lot of democrats and liberals are going to jump in and say things like "it was nothing, just a BJ, it wasn't national security or war". The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton is a liar, and liars don't simply make a bad judgement call now and then, it is ingrained into their very being. The fact that Clinton addressed the nation with his lie is proof positive that he doesn't feel that the American public deserves the truth, but now he wants to hold others accountable to standards and ethics that he could not muster himself.

Bill Clinton asking for "the truth" to be told...................what a concept!

__________________
Are you a spineless slave to political correctness?

I did not... (thump)... refuse... (thump)... to... (thump)... take... (thump)... Bin Laden... (thump)... when... (thump)... Sudan... (thump)... offered... (thump)... him ... (thump)... to ... (thump)... us.

Sorry, Bill, but if you didn't have such a clearly documented history of lying to the American people, directly and without difficulty, maybe it would be easier to believe you.

Matt

Yeah, doesn't he understand the Republican concept of Truthiness ?

__________________
DSM

Of course there has to be a thread about Clinton's lying about having an affair during the time when the Senate Intelligence Committee comes out with a report that says the Bush administration lied us into war.

Hmmm.....which lie is worse for the country? Which lie got our soldiers killed? Hmmmm I wonder.

He admitted to lying. So now, what he did wrong is a matter of record, it's part of history. He has to live with that on his record. If you don't call something a lie and expose it, it will continue to be told as if it was true. Then it becomes history. He may be a liar, you may call him hypocrite, but the point is that he is calling out a lie where he sees one so it doe not later become "truth". You have never, ever lied, right? Have you? At least once or twice in your life? Guess what, you are a liar. I have lied before, which would make a liar too. Whatever character failings he may have, he is still wanting to make sure something incorrect is not disseminated. Whether you are a liar or not, would you want something said about you that you thought was not true?

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

You've missed the point, Sam.

Clinton is a documented liar.

Therefore, his denials about the Sudan / Bin Laden episode are suspect.

Because as a proven liar, Bill Clinton is not worthy of trust.

Matt

Forget the honesty factor, he had the chance to take Bin Laden from the Sudan (as i've said many times before) and he refused. Bin Laden then went on to kill 3000 Americans....do the math.

Because he would have had to have broken the law to do so.

Do you disagree that it would be against the law to 'render' a person, pick them up without having a charge against them? Do you disagree that if he bombed the UAE Royal family that was with Bin Laden the day Clinton tried to bomb him it would have been a big problem? Do you deny that the Senate Intelligence Report had just proven that Bush lied us into war with fabricated intelligence?

Yeah, right, they had him on their crosshairs... Ready to take the shot sir! Click... This whole pointing the finger in hindsight is crap. If somebody prior to 9/11 is going to be blamed for not stopping Bin Laden, ALL prior presidents (and the current one) should be blamed for it. He was a terrorist, we were supposed to be going after terrorists even before 9/11. Everyone since the time we were training him has had a hand in making Bin Laden what he is.

__________________
Fortunatus sum! Pila mea de gramine horrido modo in pratum lene recta volvit!

Sam, he would not have broken the law - Bin Laden could have been detained as a material witness in the first WTC bombing, which would have been sufficient legal justification to accept him from Sudan and hold him.

Clinton just didn't pack the gear to get aggressive with him. So he let him go, and US sailors were murdered in 2000, and 3000 people were murdered in 2001 as a result.

It is nice to see you finally admit that Clinton was offered Bin Laden, though.

Matt

Yes, I do disagree - there was sufficient cause to hold him as a material witness in the WTC bombing case at the very least.

The Senate Report on Iraq has nothing to do with Clinton passing on Bin Laden, so please stop trying to shift the topic. You know there are threads to discuss the senate report.

In 1996, when Clinton passed on taking Bin Laden, there was still one WTC bombing conspirator outstanding, and it would have been easy to get a court to hold Bin Laden as a material witness, if the effort had been made.

Matt

I didn't admit to any such lie.

He was not offered Bin Laden. He caught wind of Sudan asking Saudi Arabia to take him. He couldn't legally do anything about it.

By that point Al Qaeda had already formally declared war on the U.S. in an actual written binding document, and the group was headed up by Osama, that would have been sufficient grounds to charge him as a war criminal.

Really, it should be CARTER that we blame for 9/11, since he brokered the funding from private Saudi coffers to international islamic extremists in Afghanistan that were bent on stopping the Soviets, and provided training and weapons via Pakistan's ISI. Carter CREATED the Taliban. Reagan expanded the project, Bush I was ceo of the CIA, and Bush II ignored any possibility of an OBL threat. Clinton is a link in the chain of people that "woulda, coulda, shoulda" and with elections coming up, it's helpfull to republicans if they can help people forget about the suspicion that Bush II is mired in, and tell people that Clinton COULD HAVE KILLED OBL, but didn't. Bush II could have done a lot of things too, but you don't hear so much about that on TV because it's unpatriotic to question the decider. "I don't remember reading that memo" is so textbook plausible denieability.