Hillary Rodham Clintestorni in Baghdad

[jizzmonkey]

Hillary Clinton follows Bush to Iraq

Friday 28 November 2003, 23:17 Makka Time, 20:17 GMT

Former American first lady Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has visited Baghdad hot on the heels of a lightning stealth visit by US President George Bush, cautioning that Washington still faced a "big challenge" in the country.

Clinton was spending one day in the insurgency-ridden Iraqi capital, during which she met top US civilian and military officials including US overseer Paul Bremer and ground forces commander Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez.

She also lunched with troops from her home state of New York in the dining hall at the former city centre palace of ousted leader Saddam Hussein, which is now the seat of the US-led occupation administration.

Unlike the US president, who never left the main military camp at Baghdad airport during his two-and-a-half hour stopover, Clinton then left the heavily fortified complex around the palace to go and visit troops.

She also met Iraqi officials, including the sole woman member of the US-installed interim cabinet, public works minister Nasrin Mustafa Sadiq Barwari.

Clinton warned that the US-led occupation still faced many enemies in Iraq and urged the US administration to change its reconstruction strategy to allow the United Nations a greater role in postwar Iraq.

"It is no longer sufficient for our military to win battles but they have to win the hearts and minds. It is a very big challenge," said Clinton, who visited Baghdad as part of a tour of conflict zones that saw her spend Thanksgiving with US troops in Afghanistan.

"We are in a very difficult political situation, trying to expedite a process for self-governance that will be very challenging," Clinton said. "We have a lot of adversaries that wish us and the Iraqi people nothing but bad news."

Clinton said it was still not too late to give the United Nations a leading role in administering Iraq to relieve expense and pressure from the US-led occupiers, but was pessimistic this would take place.

"We face a very big hill to climb. We face a complex security situation. The process of putting together self-governance in a short period of time is very difficult. We still need more help, more support from the international community."

"I am a big believer that we ought to internationalise this, but it will take a big change in our administration's thinking," Clinton said. "I don't see that it is forthcoming."

The former first lady, who is now a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she had "wanted to come to Iraq to let the troops know about the great job they are doing."


OOOOOOOKKKKay, that would have been a real morale booster for me :roll:

[Vance]

:cantbeli:

[Deuterium]

I garuntee there wasn't any standing ovations for this farce. Now if she had brought some cheerleaders with her, that's another story.

[IDFM203]

Can someone in the U.S. military (or just anyone that might know about this) explain or confirm what I read somewhere where she made Marines act as waiters while she was in the white house and made very low comments in general about U.S. military personal.

Can someone confirm or deny this and if it is true, explain what happened.

Thanks………. :D

shalom :D

[Ratamacue]

She also lunched with troops from her home state of New York in the dining hall at the former city centre palace of ousted leader Saddam Hussein, which is now the seat of the US-led occupation administration.
Just because she's a New York Senator doesn't mean she's a New Yorker. :bash:

[Deuterium]

She also lunched with troops from her home state of New York in the dining hall at the former city centre palace of ousted leader Saddam Hussein, which is now the seat of the US-led occupation administration.

Just because she's a New York Senator doesn't mean she's a New Yorker. :bash:

Man are you cynical!

[JF45]

She also lunched with troops from her home state of New York in the dining hall at the former city centre palace of ousted leader Saddam Hussein, which is now the seat of the US-led occupation administration.
When the math club guys are eating in the corner of the cafeteria, aren't they technically still lunching with the jocks.

[Vance]

Like we give a crap what she says anyways.

[jdbjdb]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/hillary_rudy.jpg

[fred_engles]

So, let me get this straight:

When Dubya visits, unannounced, the troops for 2 1/2 hours, never leaving the airport, and while evidently putting the troops in danger
But other soldiers grew angry that their departure from the airport was delayed for an hour, while they waited for Air Force One to leave. Finding the door barred, about 50 troops got into a shouting match with the soldier blocking their exit. The streets of Baghdad were too dangerous to delay their departure any longer, they shouted.

"Do you have any idea how many IEDs are on this road?" one soldier who didn't give his name shouted, referring to improvised explosive devices or roadside bombs. "I have to get back to my base. I don't want to lose a soldier because the president wants us to sit here."
A.P. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/27/international1503EST0555.DTL)then it's a great and heroic thing. But when Sen. Clinton does the same thing, but actually had the guts to announce her visit and leave the bloody airport, it's a bad and cowardly thing? Not to mention that she was in Kabul the day before, where Dubya hasn't [and won't] dare set foot.

I'm genuinely curious. Explanations?

[Vance]

Well Fred I'll let the other guys deal with you but I gotta say this -


1000TH POOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSTTTT!


:D

[jizzmonkey]

So, let me get this straight:

When Dubya visits, unannounced, the troops for 2 1/2 hours, never leaving the airport, and while evidently putting the troops in danger
But other soldiers grew angry that their departure from the airport was delayed for an hour, while they waited for Air Force One to leave. Finding the door barred, about 50 troops got into a shouting match with the soldier blocking their exit. The streets of Baghdad were too dangerous to delay their departure any longer, they shouted.

"Do you have any idea how many IEDs are on this road?" one soldier who didn't give his name shouted, referring to improvised explosive devices or roadside bombs. "I have to get back to my base. I don't want to lose a soldier because the president wants us to sit here."
A.P. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/27/international1503EST0555.DTL)then it's a great and heroic thing. But when Sen. Clinton does the same thing, but actually had the guts to announce her visit and leave the bloody airport, it's a bad and cowardly thing? Not to mention that she was in Kabul the day before, where Dubya hasn't [and won't] dare set foot.

I'm genuinely curious. Explanations?


BULLOCKS!, fact of the matter is, Hillary clinton could be sitting next to me on fire, while I held an extinguisher, and I'd let the bitch burn.

Nothing personal :fork: I just cant stand the woman, I dont give two ****s about the bitch, I think its 8 years of her shere arrogance that took a **** on my view towards her, I dont care how many PHD's she's got. And the funny thing about it is I cant even back my hate for her up with any facts, and I dont care, Its a free country and I can hate whoever I want DAMIT!

ok I feel better now :D

[Deuterium]

So, let me get this straight:

When Dubya visits, unannounced, the troops for 2 1/2 hours, never leaving the airport, and while evidently putting the troops in danger
But other soldiers grew angry that their departure from the airport was delayed for an hour, while they waited for Air Force One to leave. Finding the door barred, about 50 troops got into a shouting match with the soldier blocking their exit. The streets of Baghdad were too dangerous to delay their departure any longer, they shouted.

"Do you have any idea how many IEDs are on this road?" one soldier who didn't give his name shouted, referring to improvised explosive devices or roadside bombs. "I have to get back to my base. I don't want to lose a soldier because the president wants us to sit here."
A.P. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/27/international1503EST0555.DTL)then it's a great and heroic thing. But when Sen. Clinton does the same thing, but actually had the guts to announce her visit and leave the bloody airport, it's a bad and cowardly thing? Not to mention that she was in Kabul the day before, where Dubya hasn't [and won't] dare set foot.

I'm genuinely curious. Explanations?

Well if you were a US soldier you'd understand.

[Deuterium]

So, let me get this straight:

When Dubya visits, unannounced, the troops for 2 1/2 hours, never leaving the airport, and while evidently putting the troops in danger
But other soldiers grew angry that their departure from the airport was delayed for an hour, while they waited for Air Force One to leave. Finding the door barred, about 50 troops got into a shouting match with the soldier blocking their exit. The streets of Baghdad were too dangerous to delay their departure any longer, they shouted.

"Do you have any idea how many IEDs are on this road?" one soldier who didn't give his name shouted, referring to improvised explosive devices or roadside bombs. "I have to get back to my base. I don't want to lose a soldier because the president wants us to sit here."
A.P. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/27/international1503EST0555.DTL)then it's a great and heroic thing. But when Sen. Clinton does the same thing, but actually had the guts to announce her visit and leave the bloody airport, it's a bad and cowardly thing? Not to mention that she was in Kabul the day before, where Dubya hasn't [and won't] dare set foot.

I'm genuinely curious. Explanations?


BULLOCKS!, fact of the matter is, Hillary clinton could be sitting next to me on fire, while I held an extinguisher, and I'd let the bitch burn.

Nothing personal :fork: I just cant stand the woman, I dont give two ****s about the bitch, I think its 8 years of her shere arrogance that took a **** on my view towards her, I dont care how many PHD's she's got.

Okay I'd put her out but I agree with the rest of his comments.

[Ratamacue]

Hillary Clinton doesn't give a flying f*ck about our troops.

[GearGod]

mmmmmmmm hilaryyyyy

http://hilaryduff.platinumstars.org/gal/Photo%20Shoots/Metamorphosis/n2.jpg

[Ratamacue]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5291

[California Joe]

She may be a polar opposite for most of the members of the Armed Forces on many issues but I don't really believe she'd like to see our soldiers die any more than the President would.

And her saying she loathed the military during Vietnam is getting a little bit worn out. Give me a frigging break with that. Whole lot of politicians and people in general probably don't want some bull**** they said 30 years ago reflecting their current views.

I don't like her but she ain't exactly Cruella DeVille.

[Uncle Chô]

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton has cautioned that Washington still faced a "big challenge" in the country.

Clinton warned that the US-led occupation still faced many enemies in Iraq and urged the US administration to change its reconstruction strategy to allow the United Nations a greater role in postwar Iraq.

"It is no longer sufficient for our military to win battles but they have to win the hearts and minds. It is a very big challenge,"

"We are in a very difficult political situation, trying to expedite a process for self-governance that will be very challenging," Clinton said. "We have a lot of adversaries that wish us and the Iraqi people nothing but bad news."

"We face a very big hill to climb. We face a complex security situation. The process of putting together self-governance in a short period of time is very difficult. We still need more help, more support from the international community."

Giving a crap of what she is saying ?

I don't think so. Sounds common sense to me.

Clinton or not Clinton.

What they -GW Bush and her- did is exactly the same. They tried to improve their own public images and made a show. Like "Royal" said in another post, they are both politicians with precise goals in mind. Despite what the naive average soldier might think at first :


"It helps a lot knowing that the Commander in Chief himself is going to come out here and make some of the same sacrifices away from his family, away from his home, to show that he is devoted and in the same position that we are," said Pvt. Patrick McFarland of the 1st Armored Division.


BTW, nobody noticed that Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spent the evening with injuried soldiers at an Army Hospital. I think this is a better way to understand the war damages at home :|

[Vance]

Giving a crap of what she is saying ?

I don't think so. Sounds common sense to me.

But it's the same stuff tons of people have said already. She's re-hashed this stuff so many times there's no use in listening now. WE GET IT.

[Uncle Chô]

Giving a crap of what she is saying ?

I don't think so. Sounds common sense to me.

But it's the same stuff tons of people have said already. She's re-hashed this stuff so many times there's no use in listening now. WE GET IT.
I get it too :D

But some people may also consider the following speech is the same old song again and again...


Thank you. I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere. Thank you for inviting me to dinner. General Sanchez, thank you, sir, for your kind invitation and your strong leadership. Ambassador Bremer, thank you for your steadfast belief in freedom and peace. I want to thank the members of the Governing Council who are here, pleased you are joining us on our nation's great holiday, it's a chance to give thanks to the Almighty for the many blessings we receive.

I'm particularly proud to be with the 1st Armored Division, the 2nd ACR, the 82nd Airborne. I can't think of a finer group of folks to have Thanksgiving dinner with than you all. We're proud of you. Today, Americans are gathering with their loved ones to give thanks for the many blessings in our lives. And this year we are especially thankful for the courage and the sacrifice of those who defend us, the men and women of the United States military.

I bring a message on behalf of America: We thank you for your service, we're proud of you, and America stands solidly behind you. Together, you and I have taken an oath to defend our country. You're honoring that oath. The United States military is doing a fantastic job. You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country. You're defeating Saddam's henchmen, so that the people of Iraq can live in peace and freedom.

By helping the Iraqi people become free, you're helping change a troubled and violent part of the world. By helping to build a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East, you are defending the American people from danger and we are grateful.

You're engaged in a difficult mission. Those who attack our coalition forces and kill innocent Iraqis are testing our will. They hope we will run. We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.

We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom.

Every day you see firsthand the commitment to sacrifice that the Iraqi people are making to secure their own freedom. I have a message for the Iraqi people: You have an opportunity to seize the moment and rebuild your great country, based on human dignity and freedom. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever.

The United States and our coalition will help you, help you build a peaceful country so that your children can have a bright future. We'll help you find and bring to justice the people who terrorized you for years and are still killing innocent Iraqis. We will stay until the job is done. I'm confident we will succeed, because you, the Iraqi people, will show the world that you're not only courageous, but that you can govern yourself wisely and justly.

On this Thanksgiving, our nation remembers the men and women of our military, your friends and comrades who paid the ultimate price for our security and freedom. We ask for God's blessings on their families, their loved ones and their friends, and we pray for your safety and your strength, as you continue to defend America and to spread freedom.

Each one of you has answered a great call, participating in an historic moment in world history. You live by a code of honor, of service to your nation, with the safety and the security of your fellow citizens. Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth. I'm proud to be your commander in chief. I bring greetings from America. May God bless you all.



One BIG difference : one has the power to act.

[budanski]

Kinda reminds me, three weeks ago, she (Sen. Clinton) secretly visited wounded soliders at Walter Reed Army Hospital, then told Democrats gathered in Iowa that the troops she met were paying the price for Bush's "failed policy" in Iraq.

She got it wrong, the American people including the troops and their families paid a heavy price (over 3,000 murdered) for the Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way.

[jizzmonkey]

its about time uncle chode.

[Vance]

But some people may also consider the following speech is the same old song again and again...
Which is why I don't listen to most of his speeches. :D Not saying he's bad, but he kind of says the same stuff over and over and gets redundant.

[duck]

Next let's have some entertainment for the troops-Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly as a stand-up trio.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Isnt it true that everytime they have a important figure come and visit Iraq that they have to divert units for V.I.P protection? With everyone going to visit Iraq these days, it takes alot of people making sure she/he doesnt get there ass rpg'd and shot up....which cost's $. Who pays for it? American tax payer's do....If I was american I'd be pissed everyone goes to visit Iraq and diverting troops from what they actually should be doing...Which is keeping the peace.

[JF45]

Next let's have some entertainment for the troops-Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly as a stand-up trio.
Or one big battle royale-last man standing toughman match.

[The Walrus]

She got it wrong, the American people including the troops and their families paid a heavy price (over 3,000 murdered) for the Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way.

I don't think Bush did anything about it until 9/11 either, come to think of it, the terrorists were planning and preparing for the attack when Bush was in power.
The 'war on terror' was a knee-jerk reaction to the biggest attack on US soil since two centuries ago (I think), any US president would have re-enacted the same policies that bush enacted after 9/11.

[jizzmonkey]

She got it wrong, the American people including the troops and their families paid a heavy price (over 3,000 murdered) for the Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way.

I don't think Bush did anything about it until 9/11 either, come to think of it, the terrorists were planning and preparing for the attack when Bush was in power.
The 'war on terror' was a knee-jerk reaction to the biggest attack on US soil since two centuries ago (I think), any US president would have re-enacted the same policies that bush enacted after 9/11.

I think you are smoking crack, clinton would have lobbed a few cruise missles into the desert and call it a day.

[The Walrus]

Ermmm... you still have yet to mention what Bush did to stop terrorism before 9/11, plus, what makes you think that Clinton wouldn't do the same and get a massive boost in approval rating and virtually guaruntee a next electoral term in the office.

[Vance]

Ermmm... you still have yet to mention what Bush did to stop terrorism before 9/11, plus, what makes you think that Clinton wouldn't do the same and get a massive boost in approval rating and virtually guaruntee a next electoral term in the office.
A President is only allowed two terms (8 years) in the White House, Clinton could'nt have been elected in 2000 anyways.

Bush did nothing to stop terrorism before 9/11 because, simply, there was no attack against Americans while he was in the White House until 9/11. On the other hand, there were many terrorist attacks against Americans during Clinton's 8 years in office and he possibly could have avoided 9/11.

[The Walrus]

I'm not ignorant enough not to know that US presidents can only have 2 runs in the office ;)
I was applying it to the hypothetical scenario ****monkey laid out with 9/11 happening when Clinton is in office.
And though there were attacks such as the USS Cole incident, they totally paled in comparison with 9/11, I just can't picture any president that wouldn't react to it in a major way, what I'm saying is that Bush didn't really do anything spectacular or brave (in terms of risk to his own political standing) by starting the war on terror.

[front]

I thought that Mrs. Clinton's visit was a brilliant and consumate political act... just as Bush's handlers thought his would be.

Why... who can tell our politicians what they may let their handlers spend their election fees on?

A visit to Iraq for both houses is a MUST at this time of year at THIS time of THIS year.

Bush, full of his usual political pushers, is tasked to tender his familiar facetious phrases on our holiday.

Hiliary... not content with her contempt to take our firearms from us in her latest attempt seeks to counter Bush as a strident politician would.

Yet don't get us wrong... Hilary can make the good things happen:

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2003/2003B21A55.html

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2003/2003B21B01.html

But yet the "lip" for Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the most greatest leader of the greatest military machine which the world has ever known, SNEAKS into Baghdad at night... and Hiliary blatantly strides in.

And 'budanski'? :

"She got it wrong, the American people including the troops and their families paid a heavy price (over 3,000 murdered) for the Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way."

You are now blaming September 11th on the "Clintons"? Hahahah!

Don't make us laugh. Oh... actually I forgot... you are another one of the idiots on this board. I'd recommend some books for you to read but I know it would be a waste of time... so I won't. :-)

cheers

front

[budanski]

And 'budanski'? :

"She got it wrong, the American people including the troops and their families paid a heavy price (over 3,000 murdered) for the Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way."

You are now blaming September 11th on the "Clintons"? Hahahah!

Don't make us laugh. Oh... actually I forgot... you are another one of the idiots on this board. I'd recommend some books for you to read but I know it would be a waste of time... so I won't. :-)

cheers

front

What is this? The head of the Budanski Witch Hunt. First your pathetic attempt at accusing me of being someone else now this. Admit it, you've got a thing for me and its not healthy.

Lets reread to you with what I commented.

Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way.
How is this not true?

•The first World Trade Center bombing was on February 26, 1993, one month into the Clinton Administration. The terrorists – Egyptians and Palestinians -- blew a hole six stories deep beneath the North Tower intending to topple it onto the South Tower and kill 250,000 people. It was – in the words of the definitive account – "the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted, anywhere, ever." Clinton did nothing. He did not even visit the site. Worse, he allowed the attack to be categorized as a criminal act by individuals, even though its mastermind – as the administration soon discovered -- was an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ramzi Youssef.

•The second attack took place 10 months later in Mogadishu, Somalia. It was an attack on American military forces who were in country to bring food to the starving Somalis. In the battle, which has been memorialized in Black Hawk Down, eighteen American soldiers were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets in a gesture designed to formally humiliate the world’s greatest super power. Clinton’s response? He turned tail and ran.

•In 1995, Ramzi Youssef was captured in the Philippines with plans to use commercial airliners to blow up CIA headquarters among other targets. This al-Qaeda plot was termed "Operation Bojinka," which means "the big bang." After the discovery of "Operation Bojinka," Al Gore was appointed to head a task force to tighten airport security. Its key recommendations, which would have prevented 9/11, were rejected by the White House on the grounds that they might be construed as "racial profiling."

•In 1996 the Khobar Towers – a barracks housing U.S. soldiers was blown up in Saudia Arabia by Iranian and Palestinian terrorists acting on behalf of al-Qaeda. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed but the Saudis refused to cooperate in tracking down the killers. The Clinton Administration did nothing.

•In 1998, the year of Lewinsky, al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania– under any circumstances an act of war. Two-hundred-and-forty-five people were killed and 6,000 injured, mainly Africans. Clinton’s response? The infamous strike on a medicine factory in the Sudan and a spray of missiles into an emptied terrorist camp in Khost.

•In October 2000, al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S Cole, an American warship, killing 17 servicemen. Another act of war. The Clinton response? Nothing.

•Every year that these terrorist attacks were taking place, Democrat congressional leaders supported bills to cut U.S. intelligence funding and/or hamstring CIA operations, and/or prevent the tightening of immigration controls – all of which would have strengthened American defenses against an al-Qaeda attack.

•Meanwhile, the principle ally of Saddam Hussein, the architect of suicide bombing, the creator of the first terrorist training camps, and the apostle of terror as a redemptive social cause -- Yasser Arafat -- was a "partner in peace" and the most frequent guest at the Clinton White House among foreign heads of state.

What was Clinton's response to these and were sufficient to give terrorists fears of an american retaliation? That, my commie friend, is a big fat NO.

Clinton pussy-footed around and refused 3 offers from other nations willing to hand bin Laden over. One example was here.

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Not only Monsoor but...
ACCORDING TO TIM CARNEY, THE LAST U.S. AMBASSADOR to Sudan, whose posting ended in 1997, “The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren’t taking them up on it. The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan’s willingness to engage us on some serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications—at least for what happened at the U.S. Embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization.” He tells Rose, “It was worse than a crime. It was a f**kup.”

More:

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

Clinton could not be reached for comment yesterday, but a former senior White House official acknowledged that the Sudan episode had been a "screw-up".

A second offer to get Bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Clinton's election campaign in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president's chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help to extract Bin Laden.

Details of the meeting are confirmed in an exchange of e-mails between the White House and Ijaz, which have been seen by The Sunday Times. According to Ijaz, the offer involved setting up an Islamic relief fund to aid Afghanistan in return for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the Gulf state. America could then extract Bin Laden from there.

Wow, quite damning aint it?

btw, what books you recommend? I heard Noam Chomsky has got a new book out, can I borrow?

Oh, and in case you come up with any other scheme to try and insult me...
http://www.noisedesignlab.com/buddy/BigCupof.jpg

[ibstolidude]

So, let me get this straight:

When Dubya visits, unannounced, the troops for 2 1/2 hours, never leaving the airport, and while evidently putting the troops in danger
But other soldiers grew angry that their departure from the airport was delayed for an hour, while they waited for Air Force One to leave. Finding the door barred, about 50 troops got into a shouting match with the soldier blocking their exit. The streets of Baghdad were too dangerous to delay their departure any longer, they shouted.

"Do you have any idea how many IEDs are on this road?" one soldier who didn't give his name shouted, referring to improvised explosive devices or roadside bombs. "I have to get back to my base. I don't want to lose a soldier because the president wants us to sit here."
A.P. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/11/27/international1503EST0555.DTL)then it's a great and heroic thing. But when Sen. Clinton does the same thing, but actually had the guts to announce her visit and leave the bloody airport, it's a bad and cowardly thing? Not to mention that she was in Kabul the day before, where Dubya hasn't [and won't] dare set foot.

I'm genuinely curious. Explanations?

regardless of your preference of Sen Clinton or POTUS Bush the article is bunk/crap...how is it that Mr Jim Kane reported on the events of the trip he did not attend???

[jizzmonkey]

I thought that Mrs. Clinton's visit was a brilliant and consumate political act... just as Bush's handlers thought his would be.

Why... who can tell our politicians what they may let their handlers spend their election fees on?

A visit to Iraq for both houses is a MUST at this time of year at THIS time of THIS year.

Bush, full of his usual political pushers, is tasked to tender his familiar facetious phrases on our holiday.

Hiliary... not content with her contempt to take our firearms from us in her latest attempt seeks to counter Bush as a strident politician would.

Yet don't get us wrong... Hilary can make the good things happen:

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2003/2003B21A55.html

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2003/2003B21B01.html

But yet the "lip" for Cheney and Rumsfeld, and the most greatest leader of the greatest military machine which the world has ever known, SNEAKS into Baghdad at night... and Hiliary blatantly strides in.

And 'budanski'? :

"She got it wrong, the American people including the troops and their families paid a heavy price (over 3,000 murdered) for the Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way."

You are now blaming September 11th on the "Clintons"? Hahahah!

Don't make us laugh. Oh... actually I forgot... you are another one of the idiots on this board. I'd recommend some books for you to read but I know it would be a waste of time... so I won't. :-)

cheers

front


Front, you'r a fag, and I dont mean a ciggarette.

[lefador1]

LOL, Republicans are a funny bunch. Keep it up, this thread is rather entertaining. LOL....

[Seiyuuki]

LOL, Republicans are a funny bunch. Keep it up, this thread is rather entertaining. LOL....

To keep the objectivity:

LOL, Democrats are a funny bunch. Keep it up, this thread is rather entertaining. LOL....

[NcDeuce]

Can someone in the U.S. military (or just anyone that might know about this) explain or confirm what I read somewhere where she made Marines act as waiters while she was in the white house and made very low comments in general about U.S. military personal.

Can someone confirm or deny this and if it is true, explain what happened.

Thanks………. :D

shalom :D

Clinton crew treated military guys like crap. I read a little on it in Dereliction of Duty by Buzz Patterson.

[Tane Angle]

If Bush came to sit with me for Thanksgiving dinner, I'd give thanks that the dinner could logically last only so long and that he'd be off somewhere else before too long. :D Same for Bill Clinton. Hillary...I don't know enough about her, and I'm a NYer (uh oh, I should catch up on that before her next election). Ok, ok, I'd be a gracious host, but I think most of those troops would have traded spending Thanksgiving with their President for spending it with their families.
Regarding fighting terrorism...I think budanski knows that I've yet to find a President who met my standards on anti-/counterterrorism policy. Doesn't look like I will be satisfied this election, either. budanski, I may have lost hope on Clark. Who now? Dean? :roll: Help!

Anyways, I'd say both President Bush and Senator Clinton had the same motives, and possibly to the same affect. Such is politics. Jeez, I really need to be more optimistic, and less disenchanted by politics. To counter-balance my political-shunning: rock the vote! :D

Hope everyone's Thanksgiving was good, if you celebrated it. If not, hope your day was good too, turkey or no turkey. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[mocking_loudly_died]

Vote for me Tane.

My platform will be:

1. Banning fat chicks in hipsters
2. Killing all NFL players and replacing them with cyborgs in some sort of death league
3.......?

Bah, I already have two more polices than Bush. :D

Just Kidding you crazy republicans, you know I love you. :hug:

[front]

"First your pathetic attempt at accusing me of being someone else now this. Admit it, you've got a thing for me and its not healthy. "

Yes... I did forget to counter that one. I never meant to insinuate that you were "walford" on that post. I meant that you had found a personal prophet to justify your ideals.... and you were so happy about it that you not only posted his words to justify your comments on that thread but SUDDENLY "walford" showed up to spread his racist right wing diatribe across our board! You mailed him to get involved... that's all I meant... and I was not going to debate that mouth on this board. That was all. You picked it up wrong my friend. :-)

As for "a thing"?

Budanski? You use this forum as a personal sounding board for your inept rants. I keep telling you idiots that you are going to be challenged everytime you show your faces. Don't get too upset if you get knackered in mid-stride.

Go to www.freerepublic.com budanski. That's the forum you need. :-)

cheers

front

[Tane Angle]

mocking_loudly_died, at least you know what you stand for. :D Can't say the same about a lot of candidates.

[Seiyuuki]

Don't make us laugh. Oh... actually I forgot... you are another one of the idiots on this board.


I'm rubber, you're glue. Anything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you

You should really take thing into consideration before making insult. I believe the whole point of your insult was to point out that budanski was the idiot, not the prove that you yourself is one also, so careful with your wordings in light of budanski's signature.

Unless you can come up with a constructive rebuttal such as these:



And 'budanski'? :

"She got it wrong, the American people including the troops and their families paid a heavy price (over 3,000 murdered) for the Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way."

You are now blaming September 11th on the "Clintons"? Hahahah!

Don't make us laugh. Oh... actually I forgot... you are another one of the idiots on this board. I'd recommend some books for you to read but I know it would be a waste of time... so I won't. :-)

cheers

front

What is this? The head of the Budanski Witch Hunt. First your pathetic attempt at accusing me of being someone else now this. Admit it, you've got a thing for me and its not healthy.

Lets reread to you with what I commented.

Clinton's "lack" of policy during eight miserable years of looking the other way.
How is this not true?

•The first World Trade Center bombing was on February 26, 1993, one month into the Clinton Administration. The terrorists – Egyptians and Palestinians -- blew a hole six stories deep beneath the North Tower intending to topple it onto the South Tower and kill 250,000 people. It was – in the words of the definitive account – "the most ambitious terrorist attack ever attempted, anywhere, ever." Clinton did nothing. He did not even visit the site. Worse, he allowed the attack to be categorized as a criminal act by individuals, even though its mastermind – as the administration soon discovered -- was an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ramzi Youssef.

•The second attack took place 10 months later in Mogadishu, Somalia. It was an attack on American military forces who were in country to bring food to the starving Somalis. In the battle, which has been memorialized in Black Hawk Down, eighteen American soldiers were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets in a gesture designed to formally humiliate the world’s greatest super power. Clinton’s response? He turned tail and ran.

•In 1995, Ramzi Youssef was captured in the Philippines with plans to use commercial airliners to blow up CIA headquarters among other targets. This al-Qaeda plot was termed "Operation Bojinka," which means "the big bang." After the discovery of "Operation Bojinka," Al Gore was appointed to head a task force to tighten airport security. Its key recommendations, which would have prevented 9/11, were rejected by the White House on the grounds that they might be construed as "racial profiling."

•In 1996 the Khobar Towers – a barracks housing U.S. soldiers was blown up in Saudia Arabia by Iranian and Palestinian terrorists acting on behalf of al-Qaeda. Nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed but the Saudis refused to cooperate in tracking down the killers. The Clinton Administration did nothing.

•In 1998, the year of Lewinsky, al-Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania– under any circumstances an act of war. Two-hundred-and-forty-five people were killed and 6,000 injured, mainly Africans. Clinton’s response? The infamous strike on a medicine factory in the Sudan and a spray of missiles into an emptied terrorist camp in Khost.

•In October 2000, al-Qaeda attacked the U.S.S Cole, an American warship, killing 17 servicemen. Another act of war. The Clinton response? Nothing.

•Every year that these terrorist attacks were taking place, Democrat congressional leaders supported bills to cut U.S. intelligence funding and/or hamstring CIA operations, and/or prevent the tightening of immigration controls – all of which would have strengthened American defenses against an al-Qaeda attack.

•Meanwhile, the principle ally of Saddam Hussein, the architect of suicide bombing, the creator of the first terrorist training camps, and the apostle of terror as a redemptive social cause -- Yasser Arafat -- was a "partner in peace" and the most frequent guest at the Clinton White House among foreign heads of state.

What was Clinton's response to these and were sufficient to give terrorists fears of an american retaliation? That, my commie friend, is a big fat NO.

Clinton pussy-footed around and refused 3 offers from other nations willing to hand bin Laden over. One example was here.

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm)
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Not only Monsoor but...
ACCORDING TO TIM CARNEY, THE LAST U.S. AMBASSADOR to Sudan, whose posting ended in 1997, “The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren’t taking them up on it. The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan’s willingness to engage us on some serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications—at least for what happened at the U.S. Embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization.” He tells Rose, “It was worse than a crime. It was a f**kup.”

More:

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

Clinton could not be reached for comment yesterday, but a former senior White House official acknowledged that the Sudan episode had been a "screw-up".

A second offer to get Bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Clinton's election campaign in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president's chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help to extract Bin Laden.

Details of the meeting are confirmed in an exchange of e-mails between the White House and Ijaz, which have been seen by The Sunday Times. According to Ijaz, the offer involved setting up an Islamic relief fund to aid Afghanistan in return for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the Gulf state. America could then extract Bin Laden from there.

Wow, quite damning aint it?

btw, what books you recommend? I heard Noam Chomsky has got a new book out, can I borrow?

Oh, and in case you come up with any other scheme to try and insult me...
http://www.noisedesignlab.com/buddy/BigCupof.jpg

(Minus the unnecessary image of course)

Or...


If Bush came to sit with me for Thanksgiving dinner, I'd give thanks that the dinner could logically last only so long and that he'd be off somewhere else before too long. :D Same for Bill Clinton. Hillary...I don't know enough about her, and I'm a NYer (uh oh, I should catch up on that before her next election). Ok, ok, I'd be a gracious host, but I think most of those troops would have traded spending Thanksgiving with their President for spending it with their families.
Regarding fighting terrorism...I think budanski knows that I've yet to find a President who met my standards on anti-/counterterrorism policy. Doesn't look like I will be satisfied this election, either. budanski, I may have lost hope on Clark. Who now? Dean? :roll: Help!

Anyways, I'd say both President Bush and Senator Clinton had the same motives, and possibly to the same affect. Such is politics. Jeez, I really need to be more optimistic, and less disenchanted by politics. To counter-balance my political-shunning: rock the vote! :D

Hope everyone's Thanksgiving was good, if you celebrated it. If not, hope your day was good too, turkey or no turkey. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Or something of a humourous nature...


Vote for me Tane.

My platform will be:

1. Banning fat chicks in hipsters
2. Killing all NFL players and replacing them with cyborgs in some sort of death league
3.......?

Bah, I already have two more polices than Bush. :D

Just Kidding you crazy republicans, you know I love you. :hug:

If all you have is resorting to insult...


Don't make us laugh. Oh... actually I forgot... you are another one of the idiots on this board. I'd recommend some books for you to read but I know it would be a waste of time... so I won't. :-).

Budanski? You use this forum as a personal sounding board for your inept rants. I keep telling you idiots that you are going to be challenged everytime you show your faces. Don't get too upset if you get knackered in mid-stride.

Then you're the idiot around here.

You and budanski are two differences of opinions that use this forum for your inept rants or replying to a thread with inept rants, to a third-party person observing, both of you could be idiots. To a fourth-party person observing, the third-party person, you and budanski could all be idiots!!!

[glofs]

It also seems that the President might have done what he did for fear of being overshadowed by Hillary. The planning for his trip started well after Hillary's office notified the White House of her intention to spend Thanksgiving with the troops.

http://www.agonist.org/archives/011451.html#011451

[fred_engles]

The links inside glofs' link are both required reading.

Just saying.

EDIT: Specifically, this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20031128/ts_nm/bush_iraq_dc).

[JF45]

The links inside glofs' link are both required reading.

Just saying.
It's the usual shaking hands-kissing babies routine that every politician does. He's not the first President to visit troops in a war zone. The quote glofs is using is from a blog site, and is the author's opinion of what he read. The links won't reveal any more about it than what you probably already know, except that the suggestion of upstaging Hillary came from her camp. Surprised?

You see what you want to see.

[NcDeuce]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/hillary_rudy.jpg

rofl

Great pic! Push her, Rudy!

Anyways, I can see it now...

Senator Clinton on the Senate Floor: "I have been to Iraq, I have seen the suffering and pain that we have put these innocent people through...etc."

:cantbeli:

I say :bash: Sen. Clinton.

[ogukuo72]

Left is left and right is right,
Conservative is conservative and Liberal is Liberal,
The tween shall never meet.

The schism between the left and right seem to be widening all the time. Is anyone left standing in the middle ground?

[budanski]

Budanski? You use this forum as a personal sounding board for your inept rants. I keep telling you idiots that you are going to be challenged everytime you show your faces. Don't get too upset if you get knackered in mid-stride.
What the f*ck are you? the voice of reason? I guess you sure showed me... :roll:



Go to www.freerepublic.com budanski. That's the forum you need. :-)

Joining another forum would just take time out of my listening time on www.ieamericaradio.com.