quick question..arguing with a freeper..

[One Taste]

And they're using the old "Clinton let Osama slip right through his hands" argument. Anyone have a link to something to disprove it? Thanks

[Military Brat]

1. Can you get your hands on Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them?

Al Franken does an excellent job of dissecting and disposing of the argument that Clinton is somehow at fault.

It's total BS. But I'm sure my fellow DU'ers will pitch in.

For starters, the Clinton administration tried to begin the Homeland Security Department. The Repub Congress kicked it out the door so fast it would make your head spin.

[NewJeffCT]

2. try snopes.com

And then fire back with Bush ignoring Hart-Rudman and all the other warnings about 9/11. Then, ask why the bin Ladens were the only non-military people allowed to fly in the US in the days after 9/11?

[proud patriot]

3. bush let ossama go after 911 .. the taliban offered to hand him

over , but requested proof that ossama was behind
911 . Why did bush let ossama go ?

[Hoosier Democrat]

4. Try this, it will give the Freeper hyperventilation...

"Reagan gave Saddam our military technology"

"Reagan helped arm Osama when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan with the Mujahadeen."

Just use Freeper strategy: If you don't like the line, change the subject!

[Cannikin]

6. And let us know how it turns out!

[el_gato]

24. here's proof

http://fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920224g.htm

THE CASE OF IRAQ AND THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
Henry B. Gonzalez, (TX-20)
(House of Representatives - February 24, 1992)

The most important event early in United States-Iraq relations was the Reagan administration's removal of Iraq from the list of nations supporting terrorism in 1982. By removing Iraq from this list, the administration granted Saddam Hussein instant access to United States agriculture assistance and opened the door for Iraqi participation in Eximbank programs as well as making sophisticated United States technology available to the Iraqi military.

[BOSSHOG]

5. Force them to prove their assertion

Why should you handle the burden of proof? WHY DO WE ALWAYS ASK HOW TO DISPROVE A DUMBASS CONSERVATIVE ASSERTION? Ask them what Saudi Arabia's part in the plan was? Look them in the eye, poke them in the chest, kick them in the ass. Then ask them why bush let OBL family members fly out of the country after 9/11. Then ask them how many funerals of americans killed by bush for personal and political gain they have attended. DO IT. NOW!

[One Taste]

8. "Force them to prove their assertion"

That's exactly what I've done...and they have nothing so far.:)

[BOSSHOG]

14. Rock on ptm 216

High School Debate - He who asserts must prove, and its been 30 years since I was in HS but I had a great teacher. Remember that when some RW moron tells you Gore said he invented the internet. He never said that. Remember that when some moron tells you bush is a man of integrity. Force them to prove it. Look, poke, kick.

[One Taste]

18. see post 16

[lebkuchen]

7. Clinton pushed for more money for antiterrorism than the GOP congress and

Senate authorized.

[Cloud]

9. Try this link!

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

SWEET! It is about Clinton pushing for anti-terrorism legislation and the repubs in congress were against it. Or Something.

It should help you out.

[One Taste]

11. Thanks!

[louis-t]

20. thanks, I've been looking for this link.

Not only were the reptilicans against the markers being put into explosives (remember, this was around the time of OK city bombing), but Trent Lott also said Clinton's anti-terrorism measures (tame by today's standards) were TOO INTRUSIVE AND WOULD THREATEN OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES! There is a video of Lott saying this someplace. He's walking down a hallway. Repubs were against anything Clinton did, whether it made sense or not. If Clinton had said, "we are going to attack Iraq and take over the country", they would have called him every name in the book. If he had said "we are going to give every illegal alien the chance to become a citizen", they would have cursed him. This is the Repubs downfall. They talk out of both sides of their faces.

[radwriter0555]

10. OBL denied all credit for the WTC.... so what's the point?

He KNEW about it, but when asked specifically, in the version PRIOR to the sanitized one the bush regime released to the US media, OBL clearly stated he had no involvement in 9.11.

So bring the repubs back around to what has bush DONE to avenge 9.11?

[judge_smales]

12. Hell, while youyr at it

ask 'em why the "War on terror" is being waged in country with no terrorist in it.

[camero]

13. This is crap

Bush has had more than 2 years to find Osama. Why hasn't he found him?

[democracyindanger]

15. From Franken's book:

In reference to the repeated claim by Hannity:

"(Hannity's) entire case comes from a guy named Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who claims to have transmitted the offer as a middleman between the US and Sudan. I got the story on Ijaz from former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and from Daniel Benjamin, past director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council...

Berger only had to meet once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil.

<snip>

Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden. The US does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the US talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The US pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing."

The only mistake the Clinton administration made was trusting that the Bushies would protect America.

[One Taste]

17. Too bad this guy

would never accept an exerpt from Lying Liars as credible.

[democracyindanger]

19. well

judging by the link he sent you that you posted below (some nutbag site that blames Reno for Waco, thinks Elian should've stayed with the crazy cousin, etc.), his level of what's credible seems pretty low. And at least Franken cites his sources--the Times story doesn't.

[One Taste]

16. Finally he found something

http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm

quote

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden
The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

/quote

edit: I'm really not familiar with this whole situation as I've only become interested in politics in the past year or so.

[Bridget Burke]

21. So, who do YOU believe?

Your friend or those other sources that you consider suspect? (Sorry, that HE would consider suspect!)

The site you provided to isn't exactly unbiased. (Not to mention the aesthetics--my eyes! my ears!)

Since you're new to politics, I'd encourage you to do some research. There are Archives at DU & a Link section. And there are some really fine books out there.

[One Taste]

23. Well I definitely would believe something posted here

over something a freeper said. Thanks for the help, and I will check out the archives and link section. Already reading Dude Where's My Country and Red White and Liberal.:)

[louis-t]

26. very easy to dispute every line of this 'article'

masterminds of the first WTC bombing were caught and tried and convicted. (4 of the five) The Repubs at the time screamed 'you have to try them in military court with secret evidence, blah, blah or national security will be threatened', and 'his followers will just try to break him out of prison if you hold a trial here'. None of which ever happened. Most of the Cole bombers were caught and tried with the help of Yemen. The Repub line is ALWAYS "Clinton did nothing". It's what the freepers, dunnoheads, and hannity-ites love to repeat. It's their bottom line. Have to end every sentence with it. Next time a freeper says 'Clinton did nothing" about 1st WTC bombing, remind them that the blind cleric and his hit men that were responsible are still in prison.

[Maeve]

22. And another de-bunking at snopes

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

[RandomKoolzip]

25. Clinton wasn't at fault.

But even if he HAD let Osama (who may not have even been the culprit...but let's not even get into that right now) get away, this situation is in Bush's hands now. The deadliest terrorist attack occured under HIS watch, depite many many specific warnings...So what the fuck is Bush REALLY doing about it?

[Cleita]

27. And Bush hasn't?

It seems like the answer is obvious, but then it is a freeper you are arguing with isn't it?