Mr. Clinton claimed that he tried to kill Bin Laden in an interview with Chris Wallace and is attempting to write history again. Now I have never blamed Mr. Clinton for 911, but for him to claim he tried to kill Bin Laden, but never got the chance stands in stark opposition to the facts. Mr. Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudanese government but refused the offer. Mr. Clinton claims this never happened also, but I am providing a link to a tape where in his own words he tries to explain why he refused. We are constantly slammed by liberals with claims of Mr. Bush lied. Will they take their own patron saint to task for the same type of behavoir, or will they tow the partisan line, and give him a pass? The real question is are you offended by this latest tactic to write history, by someone who has been a known liar in the past? My money is on total hypocrisy from the left!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic
2006-09-24 23:28:56 · 12 answers · asked by Bryan 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
SPY: I am not quoting anyone. I provided this link because the tape of Mr. Clinton is located there. You can argue media bias, but not the man's own words on tape. Nice try!
2006-09-25 00:39:59 · update #1
Hamburger Helper: Same answer as I gave Spy. I don't source NewsMax as a source. It is a link to specific taped content of Mr. Clinton. Don't like the source find another, but the content is not in dispute in this case.
2006-09-25 00:44:14 · update #2
Liberals amuse me. They just can't stay on point. Can't argue specific provable allegations, fall back on the old standby. Attack Bush! This question is not about Bush, it is about Clinton specifically.
2006-09-25 00:47:16 · update #3
sarsar: Believe it or not I agree with you. I have seen very few politicians who are above lying to make themselves look good. I am just sick of the liberal double standard. Bush bad! Clinton saint! Doesn't matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.
2006-09-25 01:06:50 · update #4
Prem Palmer: This isn't about Bush. What I saw was Clinton lose his cool and start fumbling for lies to cover lies.
Does anyone else see a pattern with the liberal answers? They can't defend Clinton, and they can't bring themselevs to chastise his actions, so they give him a pass and attack Bush.
2006-09-25 07:08:57 · update #5
He's a politician so of course he's a lier! Aren't they all? I like Clinton better than Bush, but I'm sure he is not telling the truth about Bin Laden (at least not the whole truth). But you tell me of a politician that hasn't lied and I just might call you a liar for saying it! jk about the last part!
2006-09-24 23:48:16 · answer #1 · answered by smoothsophie 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
We already know Clinton is a liar about other things, why should this be any different? Unless he claims that the missiles he launched at the baby food factory or whatever the heck it was were to try to get bin Laden, then yes he lied. Again. And as always, the left will protect him, because that's the way politics work. Don't think for a moment the the Republicans wouldn't do the same thing (ie watergate), they just tend to have a little bit more honor than the libs.
2006-09-25 06:35:23 · answer #2 · answered by letitcountry 4 · 1⤊ 5⤋
In 10 years no one will care about President Bush if you haven't figured it out yet! As far as Clinton and Osama bin Laden, there are several books 1. Ghost Wars 2. Imperial Hubris; President Clinton did authorize a secret plan and hired some very elite operatives to kill Osama bin Laden. Slammed by liberals, conservatives is like a child playing a game, the real facts are that President Clinton tried, although failed, and President Bush has absolutely accomplished null! I guess to wrap it up is like saying...if you like Bush, then your idea of politics is like an illusion from David Cooperfield!
We are being lead by the most ignorant President in our history, in a time where we need some intelligence in the White House.
2006-09-25 07:00:27 · answer #3 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 4⤊ 4⤋
No more than Bush is. Bush lied and people died. Deal with it.
Oh also didn't you see Chris Wallace blubbering and funbling. What a joke he is. To think Clinton can be manipulated like the bumbling idiot Bush.
2006-09-25 09:58:29 · answer #4 · answered by P P 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bill Clinton came closer to killing bin Laden than Bush. After the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered missile strikes to knock out bin Laden. Intelligence mistimed and the missiles just missed bin Laden. He had left the meeting a half an hour earlier. However they still attacked al qaeda training camps. Richard Clarke confirm all of this. Clarke also said they stopped al qaeda from attacking the US during the millennium period and gain UN sanctions against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The 911 Commission concluded that there was no concrete evidence to prove Sudanese officials were going to extradite bin Laden to the US. The source that you provide is not a credible source. I've never heard of that CRAPPYweb site. READ RICHARD CLARKE'S book. He'll tell you the truth.
according to richard clarke...
HEMMER: You paint a picture of a White House obsessed with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Why do you believe that was the case?
CLARKE: Because I was there and I saw it. You know, the White House is papering over facts, such as, in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Even though they knew at the time from me, from the FBI, from the CIA that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
HEMMER: The White House says that before they even arrived at the White House, the previous administration was obsessed with nothing. I want you to look at a picture that we saw last week from NBC News -- an Al Qaeda terrorist training camp outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan. They allege, at the time, why wasn't anything done to take al Qaeda out. This was August of 2000. ( Full story)
CLARKE: Well, a great deal was done. The administration stopped the al Qaeda attacks in the United States and around the world at the millennium period, they stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia, they stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world, they authorized covert lethal action by the CIA against al Qaeda, they retaliated with cruise missile strikes into Afghanistan, they got sanctions against Afghanistan from the United Nations. There was a great deal the administration did, even though at the time, prior to 9/11, al Qaeda had arguably not done a great deal to the United States.
If you look at the eight years of the Clinton administration, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of fewer than 50 Americans over those eight years. Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 Americans were killed in Lebanon and there was no retaliation. Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed on Pan-Am 103 and there was no retaliation.
I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal. In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this "little terrorist" [Osama] bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.
HEMMER: It seems like this could go for pit for pat, almost a ping-pong match. [I'd like to] show you a couple of images of the USS Cole bombing in October 2000, a few weeks before the election that saw George Bush take the White House. Prior to that, August 1998 in Tanzania and Kenya, the U.S. Embassy bombings there. If you want to go back to Beirut, Lebanon, the early 1980's, the White House is now saying go back to 1998, back to the fall of 2000.
CLARKE: Right, and what happened after 1998? There was a military retaliation against al Qaeda and the covert action program was launched, the U.N. sanctions were obtained. The administration did an all-out effort compared to what the Bush administration did. The Bush administration did virtually nothing during the first months of the administration, prior to 9/11.
President Bush himself said in a book when he gave an interview to Bob Woodward, he said "I didn't feel a sense of urgency about al Qaeda. It was not my focus, it was the focus of my team." He is saying that. President Bush said that to Bob Woodward. I'm not the first one to say this.
2006-09-25 06:50:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Not only did he lie about the only one trying to kill Bin Laden he also lied about not ever criticizing President Bush.Thats his favorite past time is going to other countries and bashing him and the administration and our country.Only president in history to do that.Shows the lack of class..,but then trailer trash is trailer trash.What other President do you know that steals sheets and silver ware from Air Force one upon departure from the White House and stealing furniture from the White House and then trashed the White House when they left and removed the W key off of all the computers in the White House?And this is the Democrats King??KIng of Trailer Trash.
2006-09-25 06:45:39 · answer #6 · answered by halfbright 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
When will people learn that all politicians are liars?
It is in their nature and it is a clause to being a political member that you must be able to tell a good lie with a straight face and be able to lie to cover up any other lie that is revealed as a lie.
2006-09-25 06:42:28 · answer #7 · answered by 4mika 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Clinton is incapable of telling the truth .
He ran on a middle class tax cut and we got thr biggest tax increase in history
2006-09-25 07:08:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
President Clinton admitted he lied.
That makes him less of a liar than President Bush since Bush hasn't admitted it, yet.
Well, I never, I am not voting for either of them again!!
2006-09-25 06:38:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Politicians lie and omit . . . it's the norm. At least Mr. Clinton doesn't manipulate votes.
2006-09-25 06:47:17 · answer #10 · answered by Kat 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋