The Clinton Presidency and the WTC

“Bacpac, if only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.”

“like SUPA-kleet?”

“Hey, congrats to Bill and Hillary on their 26th wedding aniversary! Seams like just yestarday they were sucking PBR straight from the keg, square dancin' at the reception, and prepairing to move into their first house trailor!”

“and tokin' it up, yo!”

“Nigey, you so bad.
















You forgot about them pickin' out a china pattern down to the WalMart. YEEEHAWWW!”

“Hey, I didn't know Bill and Hilary were cousins.”

“26 years ago was about the time dubya was dealing with his second drunk driving conviction, wasn't it?”

“Seems he passed along the excellent geneological trait to his children!”

“No boundries.”

“The first daughters (first juvenile delinquents?) are over 18 and legally adults and responsible for their own actions. That puts them in the same category as Hillary was to Bill or Billy Carter was to Jimmy.

Like most conservatives, you have a double standard.”

“How about a double shot?

26 years ago.....was that AFTER Dubya deserted his Natl Guard unit?”

“It's boundaries. Nothing worse than a misspelled insult.”

“You make a good argument Gordo.

Let's bash those kids! That will show them!! Who needs a double standard when you can have no standard!

kleety, thanks for the Miss Manners assist.”

“bacpac, I assume that was on another thread? I couldn't find a source in this one. If you could direct me to the original post, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!”

“Yawn.”

“So you really don't have any source, bacpac. I must say I'm shocked.”

“I hear the gun, bacpac, but I don't see the bullets flying. Must be blanks.”

“Awwww! Tehipite and bacpac...together again! Feels just like old times, ey boys? Or, at least last November.”

“Tehipite, I don't appreciate being called a liar. If you can't find the post don't insult me.”

“Yes, everybody should remember their etiquette when it comes to bacpac. He is above insulting anyone.
I suggest you quit insulting our intelligence, pac.”

“We could all take a lesson from you, dun.”

“>Tehipite, I don't appreciate being called a liar.

I was hoping you'd fall into that trap. ;-)

Let's recap for the studio audience. You called me a liar (along with jmitch and possibly others) when you said:

>This is just Clinton appologists who make up the facts just like they make up excuses.

I then posted sources for the specific assertions jmitch and I had made. On its face, that disproves your claim that we were making up facts--regardless of any dispute about the veracity of the information provided in those sources. Ready to apologize for calling me a liar?

Anyway, your response to what I posted was to a) disagree with my interpretation of "lethal finding" (fair enough; we can agree to disagree on that one, and I'm confident any reasonable person not blinded by partisan motivations would agree with me); and b) claim to have posted a source. I asked (very politely) for a thread title (as you know, it's impossible to find anything here otherwise), and you declined to provide one.

I'm sure you did post some kind of source for something; I'm also fairly sure that it doesn't support your claim that the reports I posted were false. (We have already disposed of your claim that we had no sources backing us up...and by the way, how about that apology?) I think you're backing out because you just can't hold your own. From what I have observed, you're either not articulate enough, or you're simply too lazy, to make a coherent argument. Instead, you rely on bluster and intimidation to carry your points; you figure if you say something loudly enough, and make it unpleasant enough to deal with you, no one will stand up to you. Maybe that works on a lot of people, but it sure doesn't say much for the validity of your points.”

“What source did you find that Clinton was waiting for permission? I never saw that post. If you think a 'lethal finding' is an order for an assasination I am not surprised.

I am tired of your vain attempts to argue a point with no merit. I don't consider you to be either credible or rational in your thinking. Your view of reality is so narrow in scope it limits your ability to consider alternative thought.

Truthfully I am just tired of listening to your rants. I accept your apology.”

“Awww...bacpac doesn't like me. I'm bleeding interally, as Bernie Ohls would say. ;-)

Anyway, thanks for illustrating my point. You fall back on exactly the modus operandi I described earlier: asserting opinions without supporting evidence, and insulting your opponent. If my point is truly without merit, then you can present a rational argument to that effect; if my sources are incorrect, then you can present evidence to impeach them. In short, anyone who makes any assertion, about anything, had better be prepared to back it up. Anyone who doesn't is just another ignorant blowhard.

You do make a small attempt to argue semantics, to which I will happily respond. A lethal finding may well not constitute an order to assassinate--but that isn't what I was arguing, because it isn't what you said; in fact, this is the first time anyone has used the word 'order' in this context. You said Clinton didn't authorize the assassination, which is not synonymous with ordering it. (For example, if you authorize someone to use your credit card, you aren't ordering them to use it.) As described in the article, this particular lethal finding appears to fall well within the definition of 'authorizing' bin Laden's assassination.

As for 'waiting for permission', no one on this thread has asserted that he was; so the fact that you would harp on that point is a little mystifying.”

“my facts are right, as reported by newsweek and the nyt (sorry
for omitting the previous pakistani prime minister was
overthrown, regardless, clinton couldn't get approval for any
operation) none of us know all of the facts or circumstances, so
why pass blame? let's be objective and fair. bacpac, your dislike
for clinton may be understandable, but to insinuate that clinton
is to blame for the attacks is unreasonable. ps- does anyone
know any good trails in the catskills?
jmitch
2:39:25 PM
10/9/01”

“tehipite, Reread the post from jmitch posted on this thread. Permission? Approval? Semantics?

Clearly you have not been able to substantiate this misinformation.

You are right about one thing it is not easy to find a previous post on this website. I managed to do it by being persistent. I had this conversation a week or two before the Newsweek story broke. Previous to my post the media had reported that the US could not locate Bin Laden. More than a week after I made that post the media reported that Clinton did know where Bin Laden was. Unless you can find evidence that the media reported this earlier my source is credible.

http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/today_mess.asp?threadid=10193&age=30#206328">My source”

“Sorry, I misspoke. My source is credible. Unless you can find an earlier admission that the Clinton administration knew where Bin Laden was it is irrefutable.”

“Third time is a charm My original post”

“And on the lighter side . . . Osama Hunter”

“tehipite, I recognize that you have little or no concept of miltary service. The US government does not authorize killings or lethal findings. They give orders.”

“Why is this an issue?

U.S intelligence knew of bin laden's exact location at least twice in recent years, and that was reported in the NY Times and Washington post after the fact, about a year to 1-1/2? years ago (the dates are fuzzy).

According to the articles high level meetings decided against action both times because osama was in villages surrounded by women and children, so launching a cruise missile was not a good idea.

According to CNN and MSNBC, clinton authorized covert surveillance in Afghanistan by U.S. Special Forces in 1998, and our forces have been on the ground there since. That's what the Pentagon is admitting to, so the real date was probably earlier. In addition, at least one spy satellite was dedicated to that region of the world at the same time. Intelligence gathering aircraft have been operating extensively in the region since the gulf war, and increased after 1995. The dude is good at hiding. Maybe we'll have better luck finding him now that every knows we are hunting him and there are no more limits on what the U.S. is allowed to do.

Claims that clinton ignored terrorism during his term are unfounded. Due to the sensitive nature of espionage and the risk to U.S. servicemen, the clinton administration didn't talk about it. It was kept secret. Now the clinton bashers are using his silence against him.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike clinton. This is not one of them.”

“Gordon thanks for bringing us back to original point. Clinton had the intelligence and the means to get Bin Laden, but for political reasons he chose not to.”

“Avoiding the killing of several hundred women and children is not a 'political' decision, even if it meant osama got away that time. That was a no-brainer. That's one decision he got right.”

“You guys are just pissin' on each other's shoes.

Its always Clinton's fault.......”

“That Clinton guy, when will he ever stop????”

“He's a stud!”

“Personally knows Osama Bin Lauden.”

“Of course!
Willy blows the sax and Osama beats the congas!”

“this thread has become pitiful. it seems that clinton haters will do anything to reinforce their hate for him, whether it be to make up facts, ignore them, or wallow in ignorance.
as i have said, there are reasons to dislike clinton, he is far from perfect, he is definitely open to criticism. (refer to msnbc's op-ed story on their website today) but bacpac, you seem more obsessed with clinton than the so-called clinton apologists. you are so biased that you sacrifice reason and objectivity. to lash out and rant against other persons on this post is innapropriate. to use my words to make a non-point is a waste of time. tehipite, stop wasting your time, some people are so stuck in their own biases and dislikes, they seemingly cannot even conceive of even considering a different perspective. still waiting for some info on those catskills.”

“Sorry, I don't know squat about the Catskills.
By the way, when are the cat lovers gonna raise a stink about the name, "Cats-Kills"?

The Clinton haters really know no boundaries.
I believe it has something to do with crank though.
1. To much crank
2. Not enough crank
3. Too cranky”

“jmitch, so not reprimand for your own false statements? Why is it OK for you to lash out?”

“I'm going to name my NEXT son CLINTON!!!”

“Hmmmmmm.....
Willy Terrific”

“NO, Clint!”

“My bad”

“bacpac, thanks for posting that link--it goes a long way toward clarifying where the disagreement lies. It appears that all along you've really been arguing that Clinton didn't order military action against OBL; jmitch and I were talking about covert CIA activities.

So assuming your information is trustworthy, it still doesn't directly contradict anything either jmitch or I have said. Reread our posts carefully and you'll see that this is the case--and that your accusation of "making up facts" (just now renewed against jmitch) is entirely wrong.”

“What kind of car would young Clint Terrific drive when he turns 16? A Ford Turas from Pinkley Ford? The special limited edition Pinkleyturas.

"It took me forever to find my PinkleyTuras but once I did I loved it!"

I love my PinkleyTuras so much I have it buffed every five days!"”

“Bill Clinton was a great President! All ya haters just can't except the fact that GW only won by default and hasn't a chance for a second term.

It'll take a couple of years to mop up the dammage done by this renegade, but eventually the country will be back on the right track.”

“tehipite, Why are you ignoring the claim that Clinton could not get permission to go after Bin Laden? Because it is false? Hmmmmm.”