Bill Clinton Strikes Back

[CATLAX MAN]

"when we can agree that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and the NY Times have, shall we say, a "cozy" relationship with the Democrats."

Ok Wade, prove it. I made my case, now make yours.

All you have to do is listen to the news or read the print put out by these organizations to come to Wade's conclusions . . . . .not that there's anything wrong with that.

What I don't get it that everyone is supposed to accept your statement that Fox News is in the Republican's pocket as hard fact, but you are shocked when someone suggests that these other organizations tend to lean in the Democrat's direction. Nooooooo...that just can't be

Give us all a break here and get real. Liberal or conservative viewpoints come through the various news organizations' reports loud and clear. We all seem to recognize them. I just don't understand why you can't seem to. All news organizations have some kind of agenda, be it liberal or conservative. Our job, as readers, is to not accept that everything that is broadcast either over the air or in print as fact, but rather to put it in context and make our own judgements.

[sohotrightnow]

What, before 1998, was OBL responsible for? You can speculate all you want, but we can't just assume OBL committed the acts that you claim when you state that Clinton had 8 years to catch him. The CIA didn't have much contact with him and did not even begin keeping tabs on his activity until 1995, according to Peter Bergen, one of the few, if not the only Western journalist to interview him. Clinton failed to catch him or kill him. To suggest he did not try is misleading. You cannot dispute the fact that the very people who claim he was obsessed with him, now claim he did nothing to catch him. We know this much as well: George Bush said on TV that he was going to catch him and kill him and then when he saw the possibility of that dwindling, he said to my face and millions of other Americans that OBL did not matter and that he did not worry about him.

[Hackalicious]

What, before 1998, was OBL responsible for? You can speculate all you want, but we can't just assume OBL committed the acts that you claim when you state that Clinton had 8 years to catch him.

I'm sure that in 1998, the Republican-controlled congress would have set aside their impeachment proceedings and authorized a pre-emptive military invasion of Afghanistan to catch a shadowy figure suspected of being loosely tied to the bombings of the US embassies in east Africa that killed 12 Americans*.

I mean, just look how supportive they were of a limited bombing campaign in Bosnia to stop genocide. Republicans in congress were totally united behind their president during wartime.

(* - Side-note: About 245 Africans working in our embassies were killed, but only American families were compensated and charges were only filed against the culprits for American deaths. This was a lousy way to treat people who died in the line of duty at our embassies.)

[sohotrightnow]

My friend Sean Hannity said there was no "exit strategy" for Bosnia, but he is firmly behind the war in Iraq. At least he is "balanced" in his approach. Being "fair" is quite a different thing.

[Sonny]

I mean, just look how supportive they were of a limited bombing campaign in Bosnia to stop genocide. Republicans in congress were totally united behind their president during wartime.

Source? It's my understanding the Clarke & Company had free reign and they bombed the crap out of Bosnia.

Also note the substantial difference between Bosnia and Iraq: The US wasn't certainly never attacked over the ethnic cleansing/genocide.

(* - Side-note: About 245 Africans working in our embassies were killed, but only American families were compensated and charges were only filed against the culprits for American deaths. This was a lousy way to treat people who died in the line of duty at our embassies.)

What type of charges are you talking about? Let me know when you can figure out how to extend the American legal system to non-American citizens.

[StrykerFSU]

(* - Side-note: About 245 Africans working in our embassies were killed, but only American families were compensated and charges were only filed against the culprits for American deaths. This was a lousy way to treat people who died in the line of duty at our embassies.)

This is a perfect example of the flaws in Pres. Clinton's view on terrorism. The Clinton administration always viewed terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Even after repeated attacks on our military assets abroad, embassies, and the first deadly attack on the WTC the Clinton administration refused to acknowledge that those responsible were committing acts of war. I'm not saying that Clinton did nothing (Mr. Wallace didn't say that either), I'm saying that his strategy was flawed. Bush's strategy hasn't been perfect either but I think that he has correctly defined the conflict as a war and is pursuing it with the correct mentality.

You can find support for just about any argument on the internet these days, The US blew up the Towers or the levees for example, so I'm not very inclined to change my opinions based on research done by mediamatters.org or columns in The Nation.

Whatever one's ideas about the supposed ideaology of FoxNews, I think it's very hard for fair-minded people to raise issue with Mr. Wallace's questions. At the point of the tirade, Mr. Wallace had asked two question about the Global Initiative and he offered to drop the Osama discussion and return to the Global Initiative when Pres. Clinton became so angry. If he didn't want tough questioning he should have stuck to The Daily Show.

[Zeuslax]

StrykerFSU wrote:

This is a perfect example of the flaws in Pres. Clinton's view on terrorism. The Clinton administration always viewed terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

I have to admit that this really surprised me that you blame a presidents policy on terrorism with the example that you provided in the quote.

All the man was saying is that an American life is not worth more than an African life! Period.

[StrykerFSU]

I mistakenly forgot to provide emphasis on the text referring to filing of charges, hence my contention that Pres. Clinton viewed terrorism through the lens of law enforcement. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

[Zeuslax]

I mistakenly forgot to provide emphasis on the text referring to filing of charges, hence my contention that Pres. Clinton viewed terrorism through the lens of law enforcement. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

There you go........Even though I rarely agree with you on political matters, you typically frame your argument's well.

[Hackalicious]

(* - Side-note: About 245 Africans working in our embassies were killed, but only American families were compensated and charges were only filed against the culprits for American deaths. This was a lousy way to treat people who died in the line of duty at our embassies.)

What type of charges are you talking about? Let me know when you can figure out how to extend the American legal system to non-American citizens.

Sonny, are you kidding me? Let me know when you understand how your own country's legal system works.

American embassies are American soil, so there is no question of jurisdiction. Second, foreign nationals are charged and imprisoned in the United States all the time (as are American citizens abroad). Foreign nationals on foreign soil who commit crimes against Americans can also be extradited back to the US for trial.

What type of charges? Murder, conspiracy, attacking a federal facility. Some of the 1998 embassy bombers were tried and convicted in New York for their involvement in the African embassy bombings. The 1993 WTC bombers were foreign nationals and were tried here as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Ra ... _Al-Owhali
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ ... ombers.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ ... owhali.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalfan_Khamis_Mohamed

[Gregg Pathiakis]

(* - Side-note: About 245 Africans working in our embassies were killed, but only American families were compensated and charges were only filed against the culprits for American deaths. This was a lousy way to treat people who died in the line of duty at our embassies.)

What type of charges are you talking about? Let me know when you can figure out how to extend the American legal system to non-American citizens.

Sonny, are you kidding me? Let me know when you understand how your own country's legal system works.

American embassies are American soil, so there is no question of jurisdiction. Second, foreign nationals are charged and imprisoned in the United States all the time (as are American citizens abroad). Foreign nationals on foreign soil who commit crimes against Americans can also be extradited back to the US for trial.

What type of charges? Murder, conspiracy, attacking a federal facility. Some of the 1998 embassy bombers were tried and convicted in New York for their involvement in the African embassy bombings. The 1993 WTC bombers were foreign nationals and were tried here as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Ra ... _Al-Owhali
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ ... ombers.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ ... owhali.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalfan_Khamis_Mohamed

I think Sonny is saying we can't prosecute the terrorists for the killing of Africans... we can obviously prosecute for every American life lost, but not the African lives.

[Sonny]

(* - Side-note: About 245 Africans working in our embassies were killed, but only American families were compensated and charges were only filed against the culprits for American deaths. This was a lousy way to treat people who died in the line of duty at our embassies.)

What type of charges are you talking about? Let me know when you can figure out how to extend the American legal system to non-American citizens.

Sonny, are you kidding me? Let me know when you understand how your own country's legal system works.

American embassies are American soil, so there is no question of jurisdiction. Second, foreign nationals are charged and imprisoned in the United States all the time (as are American citizens abroad). Foreign nationals on foreign soil who commit crimes against Americans can also be extradited back to the US for trial.

What type of charges? Murder, conspiracy, attacking a federal facility. Some of the 1998 embassy bombers were tried and convicted in New York for their involvement in the African embassy bombings. The 1993 WTC bombers were foreign nationals and were tried here as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Ra ... _Al-Owhali
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ ... ombers.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ ... owhali.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalfan_Khamis_Mohamed

I think Sonny is saying we can't prosecute the terrorists for the killing of Africans... we can obviously prosecute for every American life lost, but not the African lives.

Correct.

[sohotrightnow]

Both sides to blame:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 71,00.html

[Hackalicious]

I think Sonny is saying we can't prosecute the terrorists for the killing of Africans... we can obviously prosecute for every American life lost, but not the African lives.

Of course you could, since the attacks technically occurred on U.S. soil.

If I go down the street and kill a foreign national, I will still be convicted for murder. Why is this any different?

Any acts committed inside the grounds of an embassy are subject to U.S. law. Whether the victims were Americans or Kenyans is irrelevant.

[Sonny]

I don't know about it Hack... but I don't know how we could (or would) use our US legal system to prosecute a non-American committing a crime against another non-American abroad.