Rush Limbaugh and Bin Laden see eye to eye

[The New Guy]

Jan 29, 2009 19:22:48 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

You're such a weasel. The legitimate information was out there. The Bush admin. chose to ignore it. This is all well documented.

so i guess clinton ignore the"legitimate" information prior to khobar towers, the uss cole, kenya and tanzania embassies, WTC '93, etc. right?

actually, he did ignore it and look what it brought on. his wussified response to those attacks (and withdrawal from somalia) led al quaeda to believe the US was a paper tiger. but i guess that's what you get when you have a CINC who never donned the uniform. obama, i suspect will be just as weak on defense. in fact, he has been proving that since tkaing office last week.

[saunterelle]

Al Quada and 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Bush's attack on Iraq.

[The New Guy]

that is your opinion.

however, clinton's inactions had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11.

[saunterelle]

We've been over that many times in the 9/11 thread.

If you still think there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 you're nuts.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11

[jgaffney]

Jan 30, 2009 2:37:17 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Al Quada and 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Bush's attack on Iraq.

Look, I understand that you have to maintain this alibi, rather than admit that all of the saber-rattling that was taking place from 1998 to 2000 actually took place. Your insistance will not make it so.

As of 1998, it became the policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq. By playing cat-and-mouse with the UN inspectors, Saddam made the whole world feel that he was hiding something. The US, under the Clinton Administration, was content to argue at the UN, enforce the no-fly zones and lob in a cruise missile occasionally.

The whole world changed on 9/11, or did you miss that? We suddenly learned that terrorists could strike us in ways that had never happened before. Saddam suddenly became much more of a threat, not because he might launch an attack against us, but because he might back an attack against us, possiby with his WMDs that everyone thought he had. In the president's speech, he made it clear that regimes that supported or harbored terrorists would become targets as well. That explains why Qadaffi came clean on his programs in Lybia, and is now a friend of the US.

I have posed this question to you numerous times in the past, but you still refuse to answer it:

Please give us your understanding of the term "dire consequences" as used in the UN Security Council resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm.

Also, if, in fact, Saddam did not have any WMDs, why did he not come clean during the six-month buildup of coalition forces prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003? Why did he risk the destruction of his country rather than admit that he was just bluffing?

[barneyfife]

Jan 30, 2009 2:37:17 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

Al Quada and 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Bush's attack on Iraq.

Well not according to your god and hero "Billy Blow The Balls Clinton" He had a little tid bit in a indictment.......

The Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:

Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.


Patrick Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney involved in the preparation of the indictment, testified before the 9/11 Commission. He said the intelligence behind that assertion came from Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al Qaeda terrorist who before the 9/11 attacks gave the U.S intelligence community its first intimate look at al Qaeda. According to Fitzgerald, al Fadl told his interrogators that bin Laden associate Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) "tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other--sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend--and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons."

Several months later, after al Qaeda bombed two American embassies in East Africa, numerous Clinton officials cited an Iraq-al Qaeda connection as the basis for retaliatory U.S. strikes against the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.







Oh and this...........he was just being friendly...



teeeheee

www.husseinandterror.com/

[subdjoe]

Thanks for digging that up, Barn. I was about to try to find that. I remembered that Billy found a connection between Iraq and aQ, but didn't have it on tap to post.

But, you realize that none of this will matter. It will go either unread or be shoved aside as irrelevant.

[Mink]

Clinton briefed Bush as well about al qaida's threats. Intelligence came in from other countries, yet Bush was the most vacationing president. Why did he wait until 2003 if this was such an urgent matter?

You guys are justifying Iraq and ignoring the fact that Bush did not resolve 9/11. We are in two wars and a recession because of poor judgement and big lies.

[The New Guy]

please show me some evidence that clinton told bush, "hey, on sept. 11th there is going to be a terrorist attack on the WTC and pentagon."

i can't wait to see that evidence.

btw, the uss cole was NOT the first attempted terrorist attack on a US warship:

Yemeni sources say the attack on the USS Cole was not the first attempt to blow up an American warship in Aden harbour. An attack on the American destroyer, USS Sullivans, in January 2000 had to be abandoned because the attackers' boat almost sank under the weight of explosives (AP 11 November, CNN 12 November). It appears that as a result of this the bombers called on an unnamed foreign expert for advice, and that the expert may have helped to shape the charge used against the Cole, maximising its effect.

www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole3.htm

clinton had the intel. why did he ignore it in this case as well as all others? why? why? why? the victims' families would love to know.

[jgaffney]

But, wait, while we are trying to convince Mink that the invasion of Iraq was not unjustified, we are losing track of the original premise of this thread, as started by that other bastion of liberal thought, Saunterelle. The original claim was that Rush Limbaugh and bin Laden see eye to eye. This outlandish claim was based on a snippet of an interview, taken totally out of context by the Rabid Left, where Limbaugh said, "I hope he fails." By this statement, Saunterelle tries to equate Limbaugh with bin Laden, who has promised to kill Americans - including liberals - wherever he finds them.

So, rather than address the meat of the Limbaugh interview, where Rush said that he hopes Obama's liberal policies fail, Saunterelle will deflect the question by trying to paint Limbaugh as an enemy of America, on the scale of al Qaeda.

Does anyone else notice the similarity of this tactic to the Left's response to Ann Coulter's book, "Godless"? In her book, Ms. Coulter painted the Democrat Party as a Godless bunch of liberals. Rather than respond to that claim, the Left tried to castigate Ms. Coulter by stressing her characterization of the 9/11 widows as "harpies." By dragging this comment up over and over, the Left succeeded in avoiding the question of the Godlessness of their policies.

Similarly in this instance, Limbaugh is pointing oiut the socialistic nature of the "recovery" policies being proposed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Rather than having a serious discussion about those policies, the Left, including Saunterelle and Mink, is busy dismissing Limbaugh by equating him with bin Laden.

Nice dodge, but it won't work.

[saunterelle]

Thanks for bringing us back on topic.

I posted the entire interview, not just a snippet. Rush implies, by saying that he wants Obama and his policies to fail, that he would be happy to see America fail under Obama. He is so stubbornly partisan that he has lost sight of what is important: America's success by any reasonable means necessary.

If you want to have a discussion about the "godless" (logical) Left, I would be happy to. Many liberals are spiritual, have faith in God, etc. but they don't take it to ridiculous (and scary) extremes like the Right does. Have you seen the documentary Jesus Camp yet?

[The Big Dog]

Feb 1, 2009 17:23:52 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

I posted the entire interview, not just a snippet. Rush implies, by saying that he wants Obama and his policies to fail, that he would be happy to see America fail under Obama.

You post the entire interview, so presumptively you've watched it, and yet you assume that is the implication. Got those partisan blinders polished up to a high gloss, don't you?

He is so stubbornly partisan that he has lost sight of what is important: America's success by any reasonable means necessary.

And you consider borrowing trillions of dollars overseas, far above and far beyond what any president before (up to and including the Hated Bush) is "reasonable"? That self same behavior by a Republican president sent you and others here in multi-year paroxysms of bile and spew... but if Barack proposes doubling or tripling or perhaps even more, it's somehow okay with you. I guess Barack forecasting "trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see" somehow slipped under your radar?

I'm not sure what is worse.... a willing hypocrite or a deluded "useful idiot". Those seem to be the only two columns available to describe the behavior and mindset on display by the Obamaniacs on this deal.