Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

McGentrix wrote:

parados wrote:
old europe wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm unable to understand your logic, okie.
You and 6 billion other people that don't suck up every word of Sean Hannity.

The blind leading the blind.

Okie's logic is fine, but you can't get past the preconceived notions cemented in your heads to see it.

That logic that, because Clinton didn't invade Sudan, the Sudanese must have offered bin Laden to Clinton?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
old europe wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm unable to understand your logic, okie.
You and 6 billion other people that don't suck up every word of Sean Hannity.

The blind leading the blind.

Okie's logic is fine, but you can't get past the preconceived notions cemented in your heads to see it.

That logic that, because Clinton didn't invade Sudan, the Sudanese must have offered bin Laden to Clinton?

No, that is the logic your brain has twisted what Okie said into.

0 Replies

Well, you're welcome to explain how from Clinton's words it can be concluded that there has been an offer. The (bipartisan) 9/11 committee didn't reach that conclusion, but go ahead....

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
old europe wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm unable to understand your logic, okie.
You and 6 billion other people that don't suck up every word of Sean Hannity.

The blind leading the blind.

Okie's logic is fine, but you can't get past the preconceived notions cemented in your heads to see it.

That logic that, because Clinton didn't invade Sudan, the Sudanese must have offered bin Laden to Clinton?

No, that is the logic your brain has twisted what Okie said into.

OK, McG.. I would love for you to point out the logic of there was an offer. Okie can't do it. Perhaps you can since you seem to understand him.

"They released him. We didn't bring him here." Where is the evidence of or even the implied offer? I see none..

In 2001, the Taliban took Osama into custody. They released him. Bush didn't bring him here. If we follow your logic there can be no question that Bush was offered Bin Laden but he didn't accept the offer.

0 Replies

I'd love to see McG explain that one. Yeah.

McGentrix wrote:

"...so I did not bring him here..."

How does this interpret to the liberal mind? Were Clinton was not offered something, why would he say that?

During his visit to Afghanistan, Bush vowed that he will bring bin Laden to justice. So what does that mean, to the conservative mind? That he is still waiting for an offer? Of course, that would explain a lot...

0 Replies

parados wrote:

old europe wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but I'm unable to understand your logic, okie.
You and 6 billion other people that don't suck up every word of Sean Hannity.

I could name plenty I do not agree with Hannity on. Right now, I think he is wrong in regard to the terminals deal. But his interpretation of the Clinton statement makes perfect sense. I've tried my best to explain the statement. I see McGentrix may try to explain it to you. Best of luck McGentrix.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I could name plenty I do not agree with Hannity on. Right now, I think he is wrong in regard to the terminals deal. But his interpretation of the Clinton statement makes perfect sense. I've tried my best to explain the statement.

okie, it's okay with me if Hannity's interpretation of Clinton's statement makes sense. I'm not arguing against that.

However - as you are saying yourself - it is an interpretation. Yes, Hannity's interpretation might make sense (I disagree). But that's not the issue.

The issue is: is Clinton's statement proof that there has been such an offer? Absent further evidence (or a clarification from Mr. Clinton), the only valid answer has to be: No!

YOU said:

okie wrote:

I recall Clinton himself said OBL was offered

Well, that's not true. Can his words be interpreted to reach that conclusion? Yes. Can his words be interpreted to reach a different conclusion? Yes, as well.

And again: the bipartisan 9/11 committee reached the conclusion that bin Laden has not been offered to the United States.

Now, you can go with Hannity's interpretation, or you can go with the 9/11 committee's statement.

However, the statement that Clinton himself said that "bin Laden was offered to him" is not true.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
By the way okie, when are you going to apologize to Old Europe?

......By the way, the availability of OBL in Sudan was before he was "released" and he went to Afghanistan. ...

yo okster!

you still haven't explained why bush, with all of this empirical knowledge of the whereabouts of obl; did not on in the first minute, of the first hour of the first day of his administration (the day that cheney crowed would return integrity to the office..), demand that the taliban turn over bin laden.

why didn't bush "bring him to here" ?

0 Replies

I have not heard any report that the Taliban "offered" him. I would say that is a pretty good reason. The reason for Bush not bringing him here was because he didn't have an opportunity or offer. Invasion for the purpose of capturing him was obviously not a clear option before 911. It certainly was not for the reason that we had no basis to "hold him" as the reason given by Clinton.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

The issue is: is Clinton's statement proof that there has been such an offer? Absent further evidence (or a clarification from Mr. Clinton), the only valid answer has to be: No!

There has been other evidence. Also, would you ask a pathological liar to clarify an earlier self-incriminating statement? I wouldn't. Concerning 911 Commission, the final report reveals poor research into information they should have done better on. I'm not that impressed.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Also, would you ask a pathological liar to clarify an earlier self-incriminating statement?

Wait a second! I thought you were talking about Clinton not Bush. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

So c'mon, Roxxxanne - who's the avatar?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

snood wrote:
So, Roxxxanne - who is that in your avatar?

That is a self-portrait by the great Mexican artist and, for a time, San Franciscan Frida Kahlo.

0 Replies

Okay, I'll do some research, since I know not of this person.

0 Replies

Wow. Colorful character.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

The issue is: is Clinton's statement proof that there has been such an offer? Absent further evidence (or a clarification from Mr. Clinton), the only valid answer has to be: No!

There has been other evidence. Also, would you ask a pathological liar to clarify an earlier self-incriminating statement? I wouldn't. Concerning 911 Commission, the final report reveals poor research into information they should have done better on. I'm not that impressed.

Alright then: present the other evidence.

I don't think Clinton is/was a pathological liar, but even if that would be the case, I don't think all the 9/11 committee did was call Clinton and go, "Uh, Sir, did Sudan offer bin Laden to you?" - "No, why do you ask?" - "Well, we need that for our official, bipartisan report! Thanks for helping!"

okie, just to clarify: are you asking me to rather trust Hannity's interpretation than the official 9/11 committee's findings? I mean, if that is the yardstick here, you should say so up front, huh?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I have not heard any report that the Taliban "offered" him. I would say that is a pretty good reason. The reason for Bush not bringing him here was because he didn't have an opportunity or offer. Invasion for the purpose of capturing him was obviously not a clear option before 911. It certainly was not for the reason that we had no basis to "hold him" as the reason given by Clinton.

i didn't say offer. i said demand.

see, you keep carping on how clinton didn't do something about obl. yet you will not address how bush, with all of this alledgedly well known information, didn't step right up and demand that the taliban turn obl over to him.

the only thing that had changed was, at the time bush took office, it had been confirmed that bin laden was behind the cole bombing in late 2000. so bush walked into office the first day with more evidence and info on bin laden than clinton had for all but a few weeks of his presidency.

0 Replies

Great movie about the artist:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120679/

Salma Hayek was nominated for an Oscar and the cinematographer was none other than Rodrigo Prieto who photographed "Brokeback Mountain."

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Alright then: present the other evidence.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9721
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

I only picked a couple out of dozens of references. You can find websites with the opposite spin, explaining all of this away for lack of absolute proof, etc, The fact remains theres alot of smoke, evidence if you will, you cannot say there is no other evidence, that Clinton's statement is an isolated unsupported statement.

Quote:

I don't think Clinton is/was a pathological liar, but even if that would be the case, I don't think all the 9/11 committee did was call Clinton and go, "Uh, Sir, did Sudan offer bin Laden to you?" - "No, why do you ask?" - "Well, we need that for our official, bipartisan report! Thanks for helping!"

Does the image of Sandy Berger stuffing confidential papers in his pants during his preparation to testify before the commission give you a picture of trusting the Clinton administration as a bunch of people engaged in presenting the facts or people engaged in a CYA operation?

Quote:

okie, just to clarify: are you asking me to rather trust Hannity's interpretation than the official 9/11 committee's findings? I mean, if that is the yardstick here, you should say so up front, huh?

No, I'm asking you to read the quote or listen to the quote yourself and think for yourself based on common sense? It has nothing to do with Hannity. Forget Hannity. Forget your own biases based on who repeats the quote. They are not the issue here. Concerning the quote, forget the 911 committee. They can't change what Clinton said. Don't try to change the quote. Take it for what it says and forget what all the Clinton defenders spin the situation now.

As far as Clinton is concerned, this was before 911, so I can even understand why Osama Bin Laden was not as high of a priority. I do not look at the fact that Clinton passed on the opportunities to get Bin Laden as totally bizarre. It was a mistake but understandable. The reason I entered this debate is to try to dispel the efforts to alter history here and absolve Clinton of what happened, and then proceed to call Hannity a liar day in and day out. Why not admit the truth and be done with it? It was pre-911. Clinton made his mistakes, but if he were in office after 911, his attitude might have changed as well. I simply have "blame Bush for everything" fatigue. The Democrats evidently have never done anything wrong, ever. And if there is any hint that they did, the mission becomes, rewrite history. When is that party going to have a positive program that stands for something, anything, except blame Bush and demonize Bush for everything?

0 Replies

"blame bush fatigue" ain't gonna get it...

why didn't bush "bring him here" ?

0 Replies

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know