Let's all thank Bill Clinton for September 11.

[S-T]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.
The very words of Osama bin Laden.

Would there have been a 9/11 if Clinton had unleashed the rain of fire on Somali warlords that was so clearly needed?

[dPrasse]

I doubt it ...

Even less likely if Clinton had ACCEPTED Bin Ladens head when it was offered to the US ...

clinton and Carter caused more death and mayhem thru their do-nothing actions .... losers of the First Degree ...

[Nutrider99]

Would there have been a 9/11 if Clinton had unleashed the rain of fire on Somali warlords that was so clearly needed?
Absolutely not.

[Borgia]

Chris: :claps:

I don't blame one party or President any more than the other. All were sleeping at the wheel.

The whole "Clinton was offered Osama by Sudan" is a ginned up story. Mansoor Ijaz, a private individual in Sudan said it and wanted sanctions on Sudan lifted despite it being a haven of terrorism. He was an investment banker with large interests in Sudanese oil. Accoding to Mansoor, if Clinton removed sanctions from the Sudan they woudl offer Osama to him.

The US talked directly to the govt of Sudan and no such offer was offered by them. Mansoor was not representing Sudan so what recourse did the US have at the time?

[Borgia]

Well... let me be clear. Clinton is an evil scumbag who has done as much to destroy this nation as any man alive. My point was that it is silly to lay the blame for 9-11 on his shoulders. He did nothing -- that's all -- which is exactly what all of his predecessors did.

No one person deserves the blame, the American people do. We are the ones who elect these globalists, the ones who compromise our own principles in the name of political victory.

Oh, I agree that Clinton did not do enough. Just like Bush I, Bush II and Reagan.

Terrorism was never seen as the threat we see it today despite warning signs. Hindsight being 20/20.

[brilliantLiberal]

The US talked directly to the govt of Sudan and no such offer was offered by them. Mansoor was not representing Sudan so what recourse did the US have at the time?
Bill Clinton is on record admitting he had the opportunity to get bin Laden.

[Borgia]

Bill Clinton is on record admitting he had the opportunity to get bin Laden.

Feel free to back that assertion up if you can. My source is the 9/11 commission investigation.

[Borgia]

Bill Clinton is on record admitting he had the opportunity to get bin Laden.

Um, here is Clinton talking about it in an interview:

Clinton: To the best of my knowledge it is not true that we were ever offered him by the Sudanese even though they later claimed it. I think it's total bull. Mr. Absurabi, the head of the Sudanese government was a buddy of bin Laden's. They were business partners together. There was no way in the wide world this guy who was in business with bin Laden in Sudan was going to give him up to us.

That is, in Clinton's own words. And YOU were the one who wanted to trust Clinton's words as bible in this case.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/21/eveningnews/main625205.shtml

[brilliantLiberal]

Sorry, but this is silly. Carter did nothing.
I wouldn't say Carter did nothing. He allowed the Islamic terrorists to sieze power in Iran by undermining the Shah. He showed weakness when our hostages were held. He demoralized the military by giving amnesty to deserters, and traitors like John Kerry. He told us and the world that our best days were behind us.

Reagan did nothing.
Other than lobbing a missile through Qadaffi's bedroom window and killing a few terrorists in Grenada, Reagan wasn't too concerned with terrorists. But then, most of them were in Afghanistan fighting the USSR.

Bush I did nothing.
What Bush (41) failed to do was bring Hussein to justice for his crimes against humanity after the cease-fire was violated.

Clinton did nothing.
Clinton gutted the military by nearly 50%, again demoralized the military, sold cemetary space near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for illegal contributions, tucked his tail and ran in Mogadishu and refused to respond when America was attacked repeatedly.

And from all appearances, immediately following 9-11, Bush II wanted to do nothing as well.
How fast do you want a man to act when he doesn't have all the facts yet? After Pearl Harbor, we KNEW who attacked us. After 9/11, it took a few days to gather information. Years later the 9/11 Commission engaged in a frothy cover-up of the facts, but we're STILL finding out things we didn't know then.

Do you not recall his silence, and the comparisons to pearl harbor where we declared war the same day?
Do you recall that Japan declared war on us first, two hours after the attack? Do you call that war was declared the day AFTER the Pearl Harbor attack?

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live on in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."

It was only overwhelming public rage that forced Bush II to act,
Your statement is conjecture, and frankly, an outright lie.

and even today -- FIVE YEARS LATER -- we are still being treated to the farse of a war.
The war with Iraq ended three weeks after it started. The war on terror will take decades to win. Bush said this would be a long and costly war. Why is it the video game generation thinks everything can be accomplished in days, and if it isn't it's a "miserable failure?" Since you don't seem to know anything else about WWII, why don't you check out how long it took to pacify Germany and Japan, and get back to us.

A charade in which we entertain terrorist state leaders in the white house,
Like Arafat? No terrorist should be allowed on American soil, but when one is the head of state of a nuclear power with with world's largest population, what do you suppose we should do, pretend he doesn't exist? Besides, Islamic fascism is a threat to China as well. ANY religion seems to threaten China.

talk of terror state supporters as friends,
You mean the UAE? Bush said you are either with us or with the terrorists. They are a small nation whose government has a tenuous hold on an unstable population, but they have risked revolution and certain death by aligning with us.

criticise our ally Israel for not properly appeasing terrorists,
There we are wrong. The PLO needs to be destroyed. The terrorists in the Palistinian camps need to be routed out and exterminated.

How can we be at war when our own President spreads the enemies propoganda for them? Religio(n) of Peace? That is like calling the nazi's the Party of Compassion.
Bush is differentiating between a small group of 100,000 - 150,000 hardcore terrorists and over 1.5 billion Muslims. We are at war with fanatical extremists, not all of Islam. Bush is making that distinction to reassure the rest that they are not our enemies. In truth, all Muslims are our enemies because Islam is the religion of the damned. However, only a small percentage are killers, and it is they we must route out and kill. If we declared war on Islam, the streets of our cities would be on fire tonight. Do you ever think before you speak?

To blame Clinton is laughable. No one did anything, and we still aren't doing a whole lot today.
Ignore the fact if you want too, but had Clinton been serious when he declared war on terrorism in 1998, the 9/11 attack would never HAVE HAPPENED.

[brilliantLiberal]

That is, in Clinton's own words. And YOU were the one who wanted to trust Clinton's words as bible in this case.
Clinton is a serial perjurer. I wouldn't believe a damn thing he said officially. I was referring to the audio tape of Bill Clinton admitting to a small audience that he should have taken bin Laden when he was offered, but didn't because he said they didn't have a reason to hold him.

[brilliantLiberal]

Feel free to back that assertion up if you can. My source is the 9/11 commission investigation.
The 9/11 commission report is a comic book of a cover up.

[omegatrump]

I am one who until recently actually thought that Bill Clinton was the most damaging President America has ever had. He put forth great effort to destroy this Republic. His derelict handling of foreign affairs was off the chart for sure, but, he was only following proto call. We have had a long run of Presidents seeking to destroy America's sovereignty. The dismantling of America has been an ongoing project of the Globalist for years. We had a temporary breath of hope with Reagan but that's the size of it, just a breath of hope.

Jimmy KKKarter made huge progress in selling off America, the Panama Canal comes to mind, etc. Ronnie slowed the process as much as he could, then comes Bush I, another disaster, Clinton shifted globalism into high gear, and W with only a few alterations has kept his foot on the throttle to dismantle America in classic style. Mr Hu gets a twenty one gun salute, I think Clinton is probably patting himself on the back, and Bush I is gloating over his two favorite people in the world.

[Borgia]

I wouldn't say Carter did nothing. He allowed the Islamic terrorists to sieze power in Iran by undermining the Shah. He showed weakness when our hostages were held.

CArter had a "no negotiation" attitude with the terrorists. He was unwilling to give in to any of their demands. I would not call that weak. Meanwhile, Reagan was negotiating on the side and promising them arms shipments. Thank Reagan for arming our enemies.


Other than lobbing a missile through Qadaffi's bedroom window and killing a few terrorists in Grenada, Reagan wasn't too concerned with terrorists. But then, most of them were in Afghanistan fighting the USSR.
Well, let's not forget that Reagan also sold them 1000 missiles. Also, after the bombing in Beirut, Reagan showed how weak the US was by pulling up and running away giving the terrorists yet another victory. Good job, Reagan. And don't forget that under Reagan we supported Saddam and his murderous regime. The gassing of the Kurds happened under Reagan's tenure as President.


What Bush (41) failed to do was bring Hussein to justice for his crimes against humanity after the cease-fire was violated.

True.


Clinton gutted the military by nearly 50%, again demoralized the military, sold cemetary space near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for illegal contributions, tucked his tail and ran in Mogadishu and refused to respond when America was attacked repeatedly.

Clinton was not great either, I agree. But he did not gut the military by 50%. Defense budget when he took over was $298 billion and at its lowest point under Clinton it was $265 billion. Simple math shows that is not a 50% cut.


How fast do you want a man to act when he doesn't have all the facts yet? After Pearl Harbor, we KNEW who attacked us. After 9/11, it took a few days to gather information. Years later the 9/11 Commission engaged in a frothy cover-up of the facts, but we're STILL finding out things we didn't know then.
I fully agree with this.

[Borgia]

Clinton is a serial perjurer. I wouldn't believe a damn thing he said officially. I was referring to the audio tape of Bill Clinton admitting to a small audience that he should have taken bin Laden when he was offered, but didn't because he said they didn't have a reason to hold him.

First you say you blieve him, then you say you don't. Do you have a transcript of this adio tape? Frankly, I think I know what you are referring to and you or your source is misconstruing what Clinton said.

But I could be wrong, show me the transcript.

[Borgia]

The 9/11 commission report is a comic book of a cover up.

Could be, although why they would cover up for CLinton is beyond me. Are you saying the Republican controlled Congress coverd up for him?

Anyway, I interpret your response as your admission that you have no evidence except innuendo.

[brilliantLiberal]

First you say you blieve him, then you say you don't. Do you have a transcript of this adio tape? Frankly, I think I know what you are referring to and you or your source is misconstruing what Clinton said.

But I could be wrong, show me the transcript.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114669/posts


Transcript of Clinton's admission:


"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.


They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." [End of Excerpt]

To hear ex-President Clinton make the admission that he denied making to the 9/11 Commission, Click Here (http://www.freerepublic.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3).

It took me about 7 seconds to find this.

[Borgia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114669/posts


Transcript of Clinton's admission:


"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.


They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan." [End of Excerpt]

To hear ex-President Clinton make the admission that he denied making to the 9/11 Commission, Click Here (http://www.freerepublic.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3).

It took me about 7 seconds to find this.

Very good. Now, where in that transcript does it say Sudan was willing to release him to US custody? Sudan released him, and Osama went to Afghanistan.

[brilliantLiberal]

CArter had a "no negotiation" attitude with the terrorists. He was unwilling to give in to any of their demands. I would not call that weak.
Carter refused to recognize and obvious act of war from an anemy state. He sent in the Delta Force with out proper support, with orders to avoid detection and avoid casualties. He hung his head while hostages were paraded around and abused. Carter was nothing but weak. Looking back on recent finds in regards to his dealings with the Soviet Union in regards to his last election, that coupled with the give-away of the Panama Canal make him not only weak, but possibly criminal.

Meanwhile, Reagan was negotiating on the side and promising them arms shipments. Thank Reagan for arming our enemies.
"Meanwhile" implies at the same time, which makes your statement a lie. The Iran Contra scandal violated no laws, but was a big embarrassment.

Regan was a delegator. He trusted his aides to do most of the leg work, allowing him more time to concentrate on the big picture. Americans were being held hostage and tortured. Information was passed to Reagan that a group in opposition to the ones who held the Americans would help us out if we helped them, which had the added advantage of replacing our mutual enemy. Reagan made the right decisions with the information he had, which resulted in the wrong decisions over all. Additionally, many in the CIA and other agencies exploited the lack of oversight that resulted from the delegation of authority.


Well, let's not forget that Reagan also sold them 1000 missiles.
We sold the Stinger missiles to the Northern Alliance, who were also the front line in the liberation of Afghanistan.

Also, after the bombing in Beirut, Reagan showed how weak the US was by pulling up and running away giving the terrorists yet another victory.
Yep.

And don't forget that under Reagan we supported Saddam and his murderous regime. The gassing of the Kurds happened under Reagan's tenure as President.
True. The Soviet Union was seen as the greater threat, plus Iraq was at war with Iran. Still, the West did not sell arms to Iraq in any quantity until after early 1998, when Iran attacked a Kuwaiti oil tanker in international waters. Western contributions equalled less than 1%. Look it up. Hussein was supplied mainly by the USSR and China. Ever wonder why you saw all the AK-47's and no M-16'S?

Clinton was not great either, I agree. But he did not gut the military by 50%.
Under Reagan, nearly 600 ships. Under Clinton, barely 300. The stats are there.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/612082/posts


"The infrastructure had decayed and it is still decayed and it will take now probably six, eight, ten years to get it back to the place that it ought to be," Rumsfeld told NBC "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert...

Separately, the New York Post reported Sunday that a full 89 percent of Clinton budget cuts under the president's "Reinventing Government" initiative came at the expense of the armed forces.
In his recent book "In the Arena," former Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger contends that President Clinton had reduced U.S. military forces by approximately 50 percent during his eight years in office.


What, exactly, did Clinton cut?:


709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.

EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS!
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

9 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.

[Borgia]

The Iran Contra scandal violated no laws, but was a big embarrassment.

Both the sale of weapons to Iran and the funding of the Contras violated stated administration policy and legislation passed by the Congress, known as the "Boland Amendment."



We sold the Stinger missiles to the Northern Alliance, who were also the front line in the liberation of Afghanistan.

What are you talking about? The missiles sold were TOW missles and shipped to Iran. Your idea of some sort of Northern Alliance getting them is unsupported.



Under Reagan, nearly 600 ships. Under Clinton, barely 300. The stats are there.

WAit. THIS is your evidence that the military was cut 50%? 600 ships to 300? You don't think a lot of the old ships were being outdated or replaced? Also, you skipped over Bush I. Bush I cut defense too.

Your premise of looking at specific sectors of the military is silly cause you cherry-pick what you count. You ignore what may be receiving MORE funding. Much easier just to look at the defense budgets and see if there was a 50% cut.

I looked, and there was not a 50% cut. Go ahead with your anecdotal evidence to the contrary, we KNOW that Clinton cut military spending a little but nowhere near the 50% you allege.

[Wyatt_Junker]

What, exactly, did Clinton cut?:


709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.

EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS!
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.

9 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.
FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.


Jethro also cut our intel, putting a knife through our foreign spies program.

The big problem with that is that once its gone its very difficult to get back. Its like dribbling a basketball. If its flat on the ground, it takes a lot of effort to get the dribble going. If its already bouncing, all you have to do is give it minimal effort.

Not sure why the idiot felt he should kill our intel. A lot of libs were just as idiotic. They thought since Russia was out of the big picture, you could inject estrogen right into your forgein policy. Libs have never understood the world in which we live.

[brilliantLiberal]

What are you talking about? The missiles sold were TOW missles and shipped to Iran. Your idea of some sort of Northern Alliance getting them is unsupported.
You said:
Well, let's not forget that Reagan also sold them 1000 missiles.
We were discussing terrorists, so I presumed you meant the Jihadists. If you mean specifically TOW missiles to Iran, you should say so.

I do wish you people would make up your minds. Now was the US government secretly in bed with Hussein, or were they arming his enemies? He couldn't have been much of an ally if we were selling missiles to be used against him, now could he?

[DeclinetoState]

CArter had a "no negotiation" attitude with the terrorists.

Unfortunately, Carter also considered this (http://siliconvalleyredneck.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/just_rabbit_364x181a.jpg) a terrorist.

[dPrasse]

Not sure why the idiot felt he should kill our intel. A lot of libs were just as idiotic. They thought since Russia was out of the big picture, you could inject estrogen right into your forgein policy. Libs have never understood the world in which we live.

Amen !!

Clinton forbid our human intel from dealing with "questionable" characters ...
Most guys in the war on terror or BAD GUYS of questionable character ...(shoot , Klintoon is of questionable character ..)!!!!

What a moroon ....

[BarkleUSA]

When Clinton declared “The era of big government is over” what he meant to say was “The era of the US being able to defend itself is almost over”.

He touted reducing the size of government when in fact he had grown all the entitlement programs (which are not authorized under the Constitution) while emasculating our defense (which is).

Such is the danger of the jackass party.

And just to add to this discussion, brilliantLiberal has offered irrefutable historical facts while Borgia seems incapable of distinguishing between Clinton speaking off-guard in a rare moment of candor (not aware the mike was on) versus his public statements to the press (well crafted distortions and shameless denials as in the lies he told before the grand jury).

Yes Borgia, Clinton was responsible for 9-11, to say otherwise demonstrates your denial of reality.

[Beowulf]

So, Borgia, you claim Reagan did nothing. I seem to recall a north African country getting bombed after some of it's gunboats attacked a US warship in International waters. It was one bomb run but Libya wised up after that!
I also seem to recall him, after making many written threats to the Soviet Union, that the wall fell and the Cold War ended, freeing millions. I suppose you will give credit to a Democrat somewhere for that.

You say Bush Sr. did nothing. Well, we did kick Iraq out of Kuwait. I know, I was there and know far more on that then you! The reason we didn't get Saddam Hussein and finish the job was the United Nations not allowing us. If I fault Bush Sr. for anything it's for giving in to the whims of the U.N.

Clinton did in fact do nothing. His solution to the 1993 WTC bombing? Lob a cruise missile at a terrorist training camp and call it "action." Yeah, whatever! Clinton was as much a chickenshit as much as he was a speaker, and I've always said the he was a good speaker, even if he was a liar.

I don't think W waited due to public outcry after 9/11 to do something. He said what is so true, "the attacks were an act of war." He said that "if you harbor a terrorist, you will be treated as one." Never mind not finding WMD's in Iraq, Hussein opened his country to terrorists and that's reason enough for me.

[Naturalized-Texan]

There were 5 acts of war against the United States on BJ Clinton's watch and he did nothing. Osama bin Laden declared war against the United States 5 times in BJ Clinton's watch. Osama bin Laden was offered to BJ Clinton at least 3 times and he turned down the offers every time. (Source: Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror by Richard Miniter)

By doing nothing and refusing bin Laden when he was offered, BJ Clinton showed that he was a weak appeaser which encouraged the terrorists to strike on 9/11. Osama bin Laden believed that President Bush was as weak as BJ Clinton and would not retaliate for those attacks since BJ Clinton had done nothing. Bin Laden was wrong. President Bush is a powerful and effective leader who knew before he even left that Florida classroom that we were at war and just a few hours after the attacks he started the ball rolling towards the first operation of the War on Terror - the invasion of Afghanistan.

For more facts, read the series, 10 Days in September (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42754-2002Jan26&notFound=true).

Shortly after 9:30 p.m., President Bush brought together his most senior national security advisers in a bunker beneath the White House grounds. It was just 13 hours after the deadliest attack on the U.S. homeland in the country's history.

Bush and his advisers sat around a long table in the conference room of the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, or PEOC. Spare and cramped, the bunker was built to withstand a nuclear attack, with sleeping berths and enough food for a few people to survive for several days.

"This is the time for self-defense," he told his aides, according to National Security Council notes. Then, repeating the vow he had made earlier in the evening in a televised address from the Oval Office, he added: "We have made the decision to punish whoever harbors terrorists, not just the perpetrators."

Their job, the president said, was to figure out how to do it.

That afternoon, on a secure phone on Air Force One, Bush had already told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that he would order a military response and that Rumsfeld would be responsible for organizing it. "We'll clean up the mess," the president told Rumsfeld, "and then the ball will be in your court."

Intelligence was by now almost conclusive that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, based in Afghanistan, had carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the aides gathered in the bunker-the "war cabinet" that included Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and CIA Director George J. Tenet-were not ready to say what should be done about them. The war cabinet had questions, no one more than Rumsfeld.

Who are the targets? How much evidence do we need before going after al Qaeda? How soon do we act? While acting quickly was essential, Rumsfeld said, it might take up to 60 days to prepare for major military strikes. And, he asked, are there targets that are off-limits? Do we include American allies in military strikes?

Rumsfeld warned that an effective response would require a wider war, one that went far beyond the use of military force. The United States, he said, must employ every tool available-military, legal, financial, diplomatic, intelligence.

{Much more at the link above.}

[DesertFox]

Chris_texas, are you really as ignorant of history as you repeatedly show, or are you just pulling everybody's leg? I don't believe I've ever seen anyone, even Lefty trolls, put up as much shaggy, shoddy crap as you do.

[ThomasMore]

He bombed Quadaffi (sic) because he was shooting at our aircraft. He attacked Grenada to destroy a communist military weapons cache and preserve that government.

Reagan responded to the Beruit (sic) suicide bombing of our barracks by running away.

He also blew off more than his fair share of attacks, and he too vowed to bring there holligans (sic) to justice.

Clinton continued the gutting of the Military (sic) begun by BUSH. As for the rest, I am well aware of Clinton's failings as an American and human being.

I have not called the war a miserable failure, I said it was a farce. And going further I will say it is a sham. The war against Afghanistan and Iraq was a brilliant success by ANY objective measure. (??!?!??)

Bush's first "ally" in his war against terror was Pakistan, which at that time was arguably the foremost terrorist host and training ground in the world. He also decided to befriend the Saudi's (sic)-- the folks funding most of the worlds (sic) terror attacks -- going so far as to invite Saudi Princes to a BBQ at his ranch while we were still bulldozing up the bodies of the people they murdered. (??!?!??)

My head hurts just reading this tripe.

[Large_Al]

Chris are you saying that if you ever had ties to terrorist that we must kill you and all the Muslims in your country? So you feel we should attack Pakistan,UAE,SA,Syria,Iran Right now!! Because if we don't than it show we aren't serious in this (Farce) of a war on terror?

[dPrasse]

Reagan did NOT cut and run from Beiruit , you nit wit ....

The Dims in Congress forced our troops into a bad position by not allowing our troops to carry loaded weapons ... It was the Dims in Congress that cut and ran ....

Ever read the book , The specialist ?

A nice chptr in the book how a certain President (Reagan)authorized a "sanitary" strike in the middle of the night of a certain barracks of a certain group of terrorists ... seems they all died ....

[S-T]

All of this discussion over who failed to act when has really gone astray from the issue I raised by starting this thread.

By running away like a sniveling coward after our fighting heroes (who were there to FEED PEOPLE) were slaughtered like animals, Bill Clinton emboldened and encouraged Osama bin Laden.

What disgraced ex-President Clinton should have done is unleashed a rain of fire on the warlords, completely wiping them out and sending them to live with their father, Satan.

Don't get me wrong. We should NEVER have been in Somalia in the first place. The military is not and should never be an international Meals on Wheels. But once we were there, we had a moral responsibility to utterly annihilate the terrorists who murdered our troops.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Chris_texas:
Please define "Radical Islam." Are you referring to IslamoFascist terrorists like al Qaeda who were supported - armed, financed, trained, and harbored - by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq? If you are, we have pretty much eliminated those threats to the United States. What other regimes are arming, financing, training, and harboring IslamoFascist terrorists like al Qaeda?

In case you aren't aware, we now have Special Forces fighting, and training locals to fight, IslamoFascist terrorists in Yemen, The Philippines, the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Somolia, and Sudan), Uganda, and elsewhere, in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq. The current War on Terror is actually a Global War on Terror. Oh, I almost forgot, We also have Special Forces fighting, and training locals to fight, non-Islamist terrorists in Colombia, Mongolia, and elsewhere.

[Beowulf]

Chris, there are other ways to fight terrorism outside of using arms. It is called education. In Afghanistan, women were never allowed to go to school and children were educated to pick up a rifle and shoot at an Israeli or anyone who isn't a Muslim. Now, with the Taliban on the run, that has changed. It will take years to change the line of thinking that the Taliban has put into place and it will have to start with children. Those who are grown up are really too late to help as all they know is war.

[Borgia]

And just to add to this discussion, brilliantLiberal has offered irrefutable historical facts while Borgia seems incapable of distinguishing between Clinton speaking off-guard in a rare moment of candor (not aware the mike was on) versus his public statements to the press (well crafted distortions and shameless denials as in the lies he told before the grand jury).

What irrefutable facts has BL brought to the table? Are you talking about one quote that you all choose to misinterpret? I'll stick with the 9//1 investigation myself who agree with me, not you.


Yes Borgia, Clinton was responsible for 9-11, to say otherwise demonstrates your denial of reality.

Now you are off in conspiracy land. You think Clinton bought the airline tickets for the terrorists? Wow!

[Borgia]

So, Borgia, you claim Reagan did nothing. I seem to recall...

You say Bush Sr. did nothing....

We were talking about terrorism. Your examples were not Presidents acting against terrorism. You employed what is called a nonsequitor. In other words, you diverted from the subject.

[Borgia]

Reagan did NOT cut and run from Beiruit , you nit wit ....

The Dims in Congress forced our troops into a bad position by not allowing our troops to carry loaded weapons ... It was the Dims in Congress that cut and ran ....

A nice chptr in the book how a certain President (Reagan)authorized a "sanitary" strike in the middle of the night of a certain barracks of a certain group of terrorists ... seems they all died ....

You may not be aware of this but the US pulled our forces out of Beirut. I am fairly sure Presidents make the decisions about where troops and embassies are stationed but if you have actual evidence to the contrary, feel free to bring it.

[Native American]

I doubt it ...

Even less likely if Clinton had ACCEPTED Bin Ladens head when it was offered to the US ...

clinton and Carter caused more death and mayhem thru their do-nothing actions .... losers of the First Degree ...

In addition to those two Democrats bringing about the death of thousands of Americans due to their Party's general ineptitude when it comes to national defense, the Democrat Party itself has been the cause of all sorts of societal ills also. Things such as the destruction of the Black Family, due to the Democrat Party's "great society" BS legislation and public dole "welfare" schemes, as well as economic misery for millions and millions of Americans due to the Democrat Party's ongoing "tax n' spend" socialist agenda.

[Native American]

Jethro also cut our intel, putting a knife through our foreign spies program.

The big problem with that is that once its gone its very difficult to get back. Its like dribbling a basketball. If its flat on the ground, it takes a lot of effort to get the dribble going. If its already bouncing, all you have to do is give it minimal effort.

Not sure why the idiot felt he should kill our intel. A lot of libs were just as idiotic. They thought since Russia was out of the big picture, you could inject estrogen right into your forgein policy. Libs have never understood the world in which we live.

You're certainly correct about Jethro and his gutting of our national defense. But your analogy about dribbling a backetball is a bit off the mark. Given the "tax n' spend" socialist agenda of the Democrat Party, and given that Party's cluelessness concerning the world in which we live, it's more like trying to dribble a baseball.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Meanwhile, Reagan was negotiating on the side and promising them arms shipments. Thank Reagan for arming our enemies.

That is a bald-faced lie. Reagan did NOT negotiate with Iran to release the hostages being held in the American Embassy. Iran released those hostages out of fear of what Reagan would do if they didn't release them.

Well, let's not forget that Reagan also sold them 1000 missiles. Also, after the bombing in Beirut, Reagan showed how weak the US was by pulling up and running away giving the terrorists yet another victory. Good job, Reagan. And don't forget that under Reagan we supported Saddam and his murderous regime. The gassing of the Kurds happened under Reagan's tenure as President.
Reagan sold Iran 4,000 obsolete TOW missiles in exchange for Iran's help in releasing 5 newspaper reporters who were being held hostage in Beirut in 1985. That had nothing to do with the hostages Iran took on Carter's watch and it had nothing to do with Iran-Contra.

FYI, this was the only arms-for-hostages deal under Reagan:

Here is a quote from Weinberger's notes about the meeting to sell arms to Iran to release those newspaper people:

"Met with president, Shultz, Poindexter, Bill Casey, Ed Meese in Oval Office. President decided to go with Israeli-Iranian offer to release our 5 hostages in return for sale of 4,000 TOWs to Iran by Israel - George Shultz & I opposed - Bill Casey, Ed Meese & VP favored - as did Poindexter."

Since this meeting took place long after Reagan took office, what 5 hostages could they have been talking about? Those were the 5 newspaper people, including Terry Anderson, who were caught in Beirut in 1985 and were being held hostage. That sounds reasonable...and it was legal.

[brilliantLiberal]

What irrefutable facts has BL brought to the table? Are you talking about one quote that you all choose to misinterpret? I'll stick with the 9//1 investigation myself who agree with me, not you.
The verbiage on the tape is clear and unambiguous, and cannot be misinterprested by anyone for whom English is a known language. Clinton said the words were taken out of context, which is a mere cover-up for the fact that he wished he had not said them. Clinton is a serial perjurer and a liar. Only a fool would believe his claim that he was misquoted when there was physical evidence. I see you fell for it.

The 9/11 Commission report was a smoke screen for stupid people. I see you bought that as well.

The commission was, from the start, an attempt by the Democrats to cover for the Clinton Administration and put all the blame on the Bush Administration. One of the principle failures of our intelligence services was the fact that they were not allowed to communicate. The person most responsible for that "wall of separation" was Jamie Gorelick, who not only was not called as a witness, but was part of the cover up / investigation.

What the 9/11 report DID tell us was that there are still many in positions of authority who value political power more than the security of the US. These people need to be removed. They are an embarassment to the Democratic Party and a threat to the nation as a whole.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Borgia: Since you brought up Iran-Contra, here are some facts about that non-scandal:


Iran/Contra was a grave injustice perpetrated in the name of politics. In it, policy differences between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch somehow became crimes.

Let's look at the history of Iran/Contra (I mean the real history, not the liberal revisionist history you find in academia or the New York Times).

In Nicaragua, there was a murderous Communist dictator who took over the country with the help of military and financial aid from Jimmy Carter. Opposed to that dictatorship were the Nicaraguan freedom fighters (the Contras) who were trying to overthrow the government and replace it with a democratic government.

In the US, the Congressional Democrats were determined to keep the murderous Communist dictatorship, that Carter helped install, in power in Nicaragua. The Reagan Administration wanted to send military and financial aid to the Contras to help them overthrow the Communist government. In successive years Congress attached three different non-binding sense-of-Congress resolutions, commonly known as the Boland Amendments, to bills it passed. The Reagan Administration correctly decided that those resolutions were unconstitutional and, in essence, decided to ignore them. (I think that Reagan made a big mistake in not challenging the resolutions in the courts. If he had, I am positive that the courts would have ruled those resolutions unconstitutional.) So, all we have here are policy differences.

Anyhow, Oliver North and others in the Administration got an idea to supply the Contras with aid without using any tax money and Iran/Contra was born. By not using any tax money, they believed that they were not violating the Boland Amendments even though those amendments were not binding.

Then along came the Iran/Contra hearings, which uncovered no criminal activity. How could they? There were no laws against what North and company did. The Democrats demanded and got a special prosecutor - Walsh.

Walsh spent $57 million and all he had to show for it were four misdemeanor convictions and two minor felony convictions. All of the other cases resulted in either not guilty verdicts or convictions that were overturned by a higher court because the indictments were illegally obtained. The indictment of Caspar Weinberger 5 days before the 1992 election, that ensured Clinton's election, was thrown out two weeks after that election.

I strongly recommend that you read Elliot Abrams' book: Undue Process: A Story of How Political Differences Are Turned into Crimes (Free Press, 1992). Elliot Abrams' conviction is typical of the only four misdemeanor convictions and two minor felony convictions obtained by Walsh for the $57 million he spent. Abrams knew that he would be exonerated, as did the others, if he pleaded innocent to the felony charges and went through a trial, but he also knew that be would be bankrupted by the legal fees. So he offered to enter a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of withholding information from Congress only to save himself from bankruptcy. Walsh, desperate for any kind of conviction, accepted Abrams' plea. The court admonished the Walsh gang for wasting the court's time on such trivialities and then humiliated them by sentencing Abrams to only two years probation, 100 hours of community service and the minimum $50 fine. The other three minor misdemeanor convictions were also guilty pleas obtained in much the same manner.

In stark contrast, here is a list of the felony convictions related to the Whitewater and other Clinton investigations through October 1996: Charles Wade, 2 felony convictions; Robert Palmer, 1 felony conviction; Web Hubbell, 16 felony convictions; James McDougal, 18 felony convictions; Susan McDougal, 4 felony convictions; Jim Guy Tucker, 2 felony convictions; David Hale, 1 felony conviction; Neal Ainley, 1 felony conviction. A total of 45 felony convictions. (Source: The World Almanac, 1996, 1997) (Note: there have been some more felony convictions since 10/96)

[brilliantLiberal]

In stark contrast, here is a list of the felony convictions related to the Whitewater and other Clinton investigations through October 1996: Charles Wade, 2 felony convictions; Robert Palmer, 1 felony conviction; Web Hubbell, 16 felony convictions; James McDougal, 18 felony convictions; Susan McDougal, 4 felony convictions; Jim Guy Tucker, 2 felony convictions; David Hale, 1 felony conviction; Neal Ainley, 1 felony conviction. A total of 45 felony convictions. (Source: The World Almanac, 1996, 1997) (Note: there have been some more felony convictions since 10/96)
Additionally, Bill Clinton admitted to committing two felonies and agreed to accept a five year revocation of his law liscense to avoid being prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice; charges that could not have been brought without also charging Hillary and ending her political career. Ray had far more evidence of perjury from Hillary, but saw that there was no politcal will to enforce the crimes.

[Borgia]

The verbiage on the tape is clear and unambiguous, and cannot be misinterprested by anyone for whom English is a known language. Clinton said the words were taken out of context, which is a mere cover-up for the fact that he wished he had not said them. Clinton is a serial perjurer and a liar. Only a fool would believe his claim that he was misquoted when there was physical evidence. I see you fell for it.

The 9/11 Commission report was a smoke screen for stupid people. I see you bought that as well.

So your total evidence is that one sentence where he DID NOT say Osama was offerd to him. All right then.


The commission was, from the start, an attempt by the Democrats to cover for the Clinton Administration and put all the blame on the Bush Administration. One of the principle failures of our intelligence services was the fact that they were not allowed to communicate. The person most responsible for that "wall of separation" was Jamie Gorelick, who not only was not called as a witness, but was part of the cover up / investigation.

The 9/11 commission was controlled by Dems? Who would have known considering Dems did not control Congress.

The "wall" was there before Gorelick.


What the 9/11 report DID tell us was that there are still many in positions of authority who value political power more than the security of the US. These people need to be removed. They are an embarassment to the Democratic Party and a threat to the nation as a whole.

Let me get this straight. The Dems controlled the investigation despite NOT controlling Congress? Plus, you are better informed about matters of US security and anti-terrorism than Congress and the 9/11 investigators? All right then.

[Borgia]

Anyhow, Oliver North and others in the Administration got an idea to supply the Contras with aid without using any tax money and Iran/Contra was born. By not using any tax money, they believed that they were not violating the Boland Amendments even though those amendments were not binding.

Yes, the selfless Oliver North who's company (The Enterprise) made $16.1 million in profit from the sale yet only $3.8 million made it to the contras. LOL! What a saint!

If the goal was to make money for the contras, why not sell to someone who IS NOT our enemy? If Oliver North were a Democrat who sold weapons (for any reason) to Iran, you all would be calling him a traitor but because North has a (R) next to his name you excuse his actions.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yes, the selfless Oliver North who's company (The Enterprise) made $16.1 million in profit from the sale yet only $3.8 million made it to the contras. LOL! What a saint!
PROVE IT!

[Borgia]

PROVE IT!

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst203/documents/irancontra.html

"Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, 1987"

The Committees' investigation revealed that of the $16.1 million profit from the sales of arms to Iran only about $3.8 million went to support the Contras (the amount representing "the diversion").

[Rhino]

The Enterprise wasn't intended just for the Contras, and the report you linked says that. So the fact that not all profits went to the Contras is meaningless.

[Borgia]

The Enterprise wasn't intended just for the Contras, and the report you linked says that. So the fact that not all profits went to the Contras is meaningless.

Very true, but where else did the money go?

Contras
Arms
Iran
Hakim, Secord and associates
Thomas Clines
Other covert ops (accounted for 1/48th of revenues)
"Reserves"
Swiss Bank Accounts
Security Fence at Oliver North's house

That is a lot of money going to mysterious places and people.

[Rhino]

Very true, but where else did the money go?"The Enterprise, functioning largely at North's direction, had its own airplanes, pilots, airfield, operatives, ship, secure communications devices......"

That is a lot of money going to mysterious places and people.That's covert operations.

[Naturalized-Texan]

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst203/documents/irancontra.html

"Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, 1987"
You failed to prove that "The Enterprise" was North's own company, as you claimed and a total of $16.5 million was used to support the Contras or to purchase the arms sold to (and paid for by) the Contras, not just the $3.8 million you claimed.

It also appears that North received no personal gain from Iran-Contra.

Of course, nothing done in Iran-Contra was illegal because there was no law against anything that was done (The Boland Amendments were NOT laws. They were nothing more than non-binding sense-of-Congress resolutions.). The 4 misdemeanor guilty pleas were for refusing to turn over documents to the Congressional committes, documents that the Executive Branch had no constitutional obligation to turn over under the separation of powers doctrine contained in the Constitution (Clair George was convicted of 2 felony counts for lying under oath.). Those convictions had nothing to do with the actual actions taken in Iran-Contra.

[brilliantLiberal]

Let me get this straight. The Dems controlled the investigation despite NOT controlling Congress?
The 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan venture consisting of partisan Democrats and Republicans who together couldn't muster enough balls to sponsor a foursome in golf. The truth, in addition to being the first casualty of war, is the first casualty in politics.

Plus, you are better informed about matters of US security and anti-terrorism than Congress and the 9/11 investigators? All right then.
Do you put ice cubes in the Kool Aide you drink, or do you drink it warm? The 9/11 investigation was a cover-up from day one and attempt to point the finger of blame on Bush.

[Naturalized-Texan]

From the Executive Summary:
All told, the Enterprise received nearly $48 million from the sale of arms to the Contras and Iran, and in contributions directed to it by North. A total of $16.5 million was used to support the Contras or to purchase the arms sold to (and paid for by) the Contras; $15.2 million was spent on Iran; Hakim, Secord, and their associate, Thomas Clines, took $6.6 million in commissions and other profit distributions; almost $1 million went for other covert operations sponsored by North; $4.2 million was held in "reserves" for use in future operations; $1.2 million remained in Swiss bank accounts of the Enterprise; and several thousand dollars were used to pay for a security system at North's residence.

[Borgia]

"The Enterprise, functioning largely at North's direction, had its own airplanes, pilots, airfield, operatives, ship, secure communications devices......"
They had a lot of equipment...ok....


That's covert operations.

Yet the Enterprise only spent $1M on another covert op. That is out of a total budget of $48M.

A lot more went to "reserves" and Swiss Bank Accounts. Even more went to Hakim, Secord and associates. Isn't it nice that they are profitting so well during this govt sponsored covert op? Is that really the way the US does business? That US businessmen make profits under the table from the US govt? Well, I guess everyone has to get paid, and paid well! :)

[Borgia]

You failed to prove that "The Enterprise" was North's own company, as you claimed and a total of $16.5 million was used to support the Contras or to purchase the arms sold to (and paid for by) the Contras, not just the $3.8 million you claimed.

It also appears that North received no personal gain from Iran-Contra.

Wait, you seriously think that North worked pro-bono for a couple of years? Wow! How did he pay his electricity bills?

I was referring to PROFIT, just like the article said. All the rest is a wash. So where di the extra $13M of PROFIT go? That is AFTER paying for expenses? Could it be they went to Swiss bank accounts? Reserves accounts and so on?

But hey, he is a perjurer with an (R) next to his name so you all love him. :)

[Borgia]

Do you put ice cubes in the Kool Aide you drink, or do you drink it warm? The 9/11 investigation was a cover-up from day one and attempt to point the finger of blame on Bush.

If you say so but I think your post belies the antecedent in your monikor.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Of course the MAIN reason for the Boland Amendments and for Iran-Contra was the FACT that Carter helped with arms and financial aid to set up the murderous Sandinista dictatorship and the Democrats needed desperately to keep that murderous dictatorship in power. Those on the left opposed fighting Communism (and oppose fighting terrorism) because they see no enemies on the left.

The most important point of all is that Iran-Contra WORKED. The end result was the sound defeat of the Sabdinistas in free and open elections where the people of Nicaragua stood in long lines under hails of sniper fire from Communist snipers to vote the Communists out of office.

I'll never forget watching how Jimmy Carter was on the verge of tears as he announced that his beloved Communists had been voted out of office in a free and open election. Carter and his leftist buddies had gone to Nicaragua to celebrate a glorious Communist election victory. Instead, they ended up drowning their sorrows.

[Rhino]

A lot more went to "reserves" and Swiss Bank Accounts. Even more went to Hakim, Secord and associates. Isn't it nice that they are profitting so well during this govt sponsored covert op? Is that really the way the US does business? That US businessmen make profits under the table from the US govt? Well, I guess everyone has to get paid, and paid well! :)Are we discussing their profits now? I originally got into this train of discussion based on the "selfless Oliver North" remark, which seemed an obvious inference that he personally profited from the activity. I further commented when you seemed to feel that much of the money was misdirected away from the Contras, presumably in the belief that The Enterprise was set up for them solely. As far as money going to mysterious places and people, that is indeed a hallmark of covert operations. I'm not going to attempt to debate the 'fair wages' of Hakim and Secord, for several reasons. First, it isn't my place to determine their worth in this matter since I don't know their qualifications, what the job entailed or what 'value added' they may have brought to it. I don't debate CEO salaries for the same reasons. Second, I think it would be extremely presumptuous to simply assume that all monies paid to them were free and clear profit. We don't know what expenditures they had, and likely never will.

[Naturalized-Texan]

But hey, he is a perjurer with an (R) next to his name so you all love him. :)
What do you mean, perjurer? Oliver North's "conviction" was overturned because he was illegally indicted, so it is a falsehood to claim that he was a perjurer.

[Rhino]

Wait, you seriously think that North worked pro-bono for a couple of years? Wow! How did he pay his electricity bills?He was a colonel in the Marines.

I was referring to PROFIT, just like the article said. All the rest is a wash. So where di the extra $13M of PROFIT go? That is AFTER paying for expenses? Could it be they went to Swiss bank accounts? Reserves accounts and so on?That would be my guess. It would also be my guess that those accounts were recouped by the government.

But hey, he is a perjurer with an (R) next to his name so you all love him.Perjurer? How so? He was never convicted of perjury. To my knowledge, he was never even charged with it. The convictions he did get were later overturned. I could care less what his political affiliation is. If anyone is clouded by a personal/political preference here, I would say it is you. I can't completely discount the possibility that he may have made some money there somehow, but I have never seen anything even remotely indicating that actually happened. You on the other hand seem to have a bit of clouded judgement, apparently simply assuming that he did indeed profit from this.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I don't know where Borgia got his $13 million profit claim from. The Executive Summary stated that $48 million was collected and $44.7 million was accounted for, not including the amount used to pay for a security system at North's residence. There is no indication about what happened to the remaining $2 to $3 million. Later on in the report it was stated that an additional $4 million was deposited in the Swiss bank account.

[Borgia]

What do you mean, perjurer? Oliver North's "conviction" was overturned because he was illegally indicted, so it is a falsehood to claim that he was a perjurer.

He was convicted but then the conviction was overturned NOT because of exonerating evidence, but because he had earlier been promised immunity. We still know he did the crimes though.

I'll call a lie a lie no matter if they have immunity or not. I guess you do not have the same standard.

[Borgia]

He was a colonel in the Marines.

That would be my guess. It would also be my guess that those accounts were recouped by the government.

There were less expensive arms dealers but he steered business to The Enterprise. At first, he tried charging the Iranians 3x what the arms commonly went for and was rebuffed. Here is some info from the investigation:

When congressional investigators poked into the B. (for Belly) Button account, Hakim explained that he had set up this $200,000 trust for Oliver North's family out of respect for North, whose radiations of patriotic love "immediately penetrated to my system."

I don't know much about military pay scales but I DO know that colonels are paid far less than $200k. Actually they are paid about half that so this $200k would be a lot of money to North.

At trial, North had a hard time explaining how he had managed to save up the $15k found in his closet. Or why he made two separate cash payments for a $9,500 used car, the second after visiting Secord.

No, I am sure North was just receiving his military pay...


Perjurer? How so? He was never convicted of perjury. To my knowledge, he was never even charged with it.

I stand corrected. Here is what he was convicted of:

North Convictions

1. accepting an illegal gratuity
2. aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry,
3. destruction of documents


I had confused #2 with perjury. Regardless, the crimes are felonies.

[Borgia]

I don't know where Borgia got his $13 million profit claim from. The Executive Summary stated that $48 million was collected and $44.7 million was accounted for, not including the amount used to pay for a security system at North's residence. There is no indication about what happened to the remaining $2 to $3 million. Later on in the report it was stated that an additional $4 million was deposited in the Swiss bank account.

$48M revenue of which $44.7M was accounted for in expenses, profit and so on. $13M profit.

We'd know the exact details of the company if Ollie had not burned his accounting books (for which he was convicted). What a stand-up guy! LOL

Doesn't that strike any of you conservatives as just a teensy bit odd that if the Enterprise was such a stand-up company and North was not doing anything illegal that he would burn his books? I don't know about you guys, but someone who burns their accounts ledgers looks just a tad suspicious.

But again, because he has a (R) by his name, you put your hands over your eyes and say he was a patriot for burning those books. :) Nothing symbolizes patriotism more than a good book burning! I wonder if North saulted as his accounts books were destroyed? What a guy!

[Rhino]

I saved up more than $15 thou on active duty, and I was nowhere near a colonel salary. The trust fund sounds pretty stupid. Did North ever get it?

There are reasons to destroy records besides hiding illegality or impropriety. Since this was a covert program, destroying records is not only common, it's usually mandatory. I don't simply assume North did no wrong, in the context of personally profiting anyway, because I don't have the facts to say definitively either way. But by the same token, anyone else cannot simply say he did wrong when they suffer the same absence of facts. I don't definitively conclude he's without fault, but one can't definitively conclude guilt either. Absent proof, I defer to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. On number 1 above, I'd guess he was incredibly stupid. On numbers 2 and 3, my impression is that he followed what was a proper procedure at the time, which was later deemed illegal by those who did not agree with that procedure.

[Borgia]

I saved up more than $15 thou on active duty, and I was nowhere near a colonel salary. The trust fund sounds pretty stupid. Did North ever get it?
Over what period of time, and, did you store it in the closet? Somehow you strike me as someone who would use a bank to store the $15k. :)

Colonels now make a little less than $100k. I wonder what they earned back in the mid-80s? Wonder no longer as here are pay tables for the military:

http://www.defenselink.mil/dfas/militarypay/2006militarypaytables/militarypaypriorrates/oct1985.pdf

I chose 1985 and it seems base pay for a Colonel is around $36k. Estimate another 30% for BAH and Sub and we arrive at Oliver North earning $47k.

For a guy earning $47k a year, $15k is hard to come by and rather odd that you would store such a sum in your closet at home. Not so odd if you did not receive the money from your regular military paycheck and had a reason to hide it.

As to the trust fund, I don't know if he ever received it. Would the govt have the authority to seize the assets? I don't know.

[Nutrider99]

I'll call a lie a lie no matter if they have immunity or not. I guess you do not have the same standard.
So are bill and hillary clintoon perjurers, then? Slick willy admitted it and Robert Ray said there was more than enough evidence to prosecute hillary, but there was no will.

[Rhino]

It was probably over about six or seven years, and most was in mutual funds. I did at time have large amounts of cash, though I don't recall having it in the closet.

I don't need the pay scales. I was in the military throughout the eighties. Those pay tables don't tell you everything, either.

If the trust fund was improper, which I'm sure it was, I think the government would have the authority to seize it, or at least force it to be dissolved by whomever created it.

[sunsettommy]

He was convicted but then the conviction was overturned NOT because of exonerating evidence, but because he had earlier been promised immunity. We still know he did the crimes though.

What crimes?

I'll call a lie a lie no matter if they have immunity or not. I guess you do not have the same standard.

What Lie?




I have not been convinced by your arguments in the thread.

[Nutrider99]

At trial, North had a hard time explaining how he had managed to save up the $15k found in his closet. Or why he made two separate cash payments for a $9,500 used car, the second after visiting Secord.
Perhaps you should know something about covert ops.

Covert Ops are funded by cash. Covert ops operate with minimal exposure to oversight, because such exposure leads to dead operatives. You might recall how CNN once traded the lives of operatives for an exclusive. For this reason, they keep their existence secret. They use large amounts of cash. They have informers to pay, officials to bribe, police who need to be paid to look the other way.

The war on terror is a global war. Right now there are covert operatives in all parts of the world doing what they do best, operating in secret to route out and kill the bad guys. When they do their jobs right, you never hear of them. However, you sleep safe in your bed because these men are out there.

Oliver North was one such person. The president wanted results. He gave the authority to men to get results. They operated on the fringes of illegality to accomplish what they needed to do without directly violating any laws or involving the president or higher ups in the operations.

Were crimes committed? Certainly. It was nearly an act of treason to demand PUBLIC hearings of covert operations. It was done 100% for political purposes, and was overplayed by pathetic media whores who do not belong in politics. Had North and others cooperated with the media whore politicians and their fellow traitors in the media, US covert operations would have been revealed, thousands of operatives would have been endangered and the front line in America's defense against its enemies would have been decimated. North COULD NOT tell the media what happened. Congress HAD NO BUSINESS trying to make him do so for the sole intent of trying to put a democrat in the White House.

You might read up a little about Spec. Ops. and learn how ignorant you are sounding right now. I might suggest Rogue Warrior by Dick Marchinko, who founded Seal Team Six. There are other books as well, but that would be a good start.

By the way. Before you make a damn fool out of yourself, Valerie Plame was NOT a covert operative and her identity was well known to anyone in Washington. She told her husband on their first date that she worked for the CIA. Had she been an operative, that in itself would have been a crime. However, had she been an operative, she would have never told.

You will never, never in your lifetime become half the man Oliver North is.

[Nutrider99]

The Executive Summary stated that $48 million was collected and $44.7 million was accounted for, not including the amount used to pay for a security system at North's residence.
Here are two questions for those who think they know.

1. What was the name of the terrorist who put the contract on Oliver North's life?

2. Has be been found? If so, where?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Here are two questions for those who think they know.

1. What was the name of the terrorist who put the contract on Oliver North's life?
It wasn't Osama bin Laden as some wacky conspiracy theorists claim. I can't remember his name, but I'm pretty sure it was the terrorist who attacked the Achille Loro(sp?) and threw a wheelchair-bound American Jew overboard.

[Rhino]

It was Abu Nidal, but he wasn't the only one.

[Nutrider99]

It was Abu Nidal, but he wasn't the only one.
And question 2?

[Rhino]

He be dead, by the way. He died in Baghdad in 2002, though there is controversy as to how. The Palestinians said Saddam did it. Saddam said he committed suicide.

[Borgia]

So are bill and hillary clintoon perjurers, then? Slick willy admitted it and Robert Ray said there was more than enough evidence to prosecute hillary, but there was no will.

Yes, Bill is a perjurer.

Hillary has not been brought up on perjury charges that I know of let alone been found guilty.

[Borgia]

I don't need the pay scales. I was in the military throughout the eighties. Those pay tables don't tell you everything, either.

Well, I gave a rough approximation for the BAH and Sub moneys. I doubt he was getting Drill or Hazard pay. He was not a pilot, doctor, vet or lawyer so did not get their addnl pay so I think I got the majority of his pay.

[Borgia]

I have not been convinced by your arguments in the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North


During the hearings, he admitted that he had lied to Congress, for which he was later charged among other things.

He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_4), 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989), he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall), on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_5), 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989), to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.

Overturned not due to any exonerating evidence, but because he had been promised immunity. So we know he was found guiilty of three felonies.

[Rhino]

Well, I gave a rough approximation for the BAH and Sub moneys. I doubt he was getting Drill or Hazard pay. He was not a pilot, doctor, vet or lawyer so did not get their addnl pay so I think I got the majority of his pay.Military members also get benefits that others don't, so a particular pay amount is often worth more than that of a civilian counterpart. Free medical is probably the single largest item. I never truly realized how much those benefits were worth until I became a civilian and started having to pay for them myself.

[Native American]

Note that North wasn't found guilty of, or even indicted for, any violation of the Boland Amendment, however.

Note further that the Democrats didn't even have enough votes to pass the Boland legislation on its own merits.

[Borgia]

Military members also get benefits that others don't, so a particular pay amount is often worth more than that of a civilian counterpart. Free medical is probably the single largest item. I never truly realized how much those benefits were worth until I became a civilian and started having to pay for them myself.

Yes, free medical is a nice benefit. But that does not put money in the closet for him. :) Anyway, that benefit would add up to a couple of thousand dollars (back in '85). Certainly not enough to get that $15k in the closet.

[Rhino]

Yes, free medical is a nice benefit. But that does not put money in the closet for him.It increases liquidity in income, which amounts to the same thing.

Anyway, that benefit would add up to a couple of thousand dollars (back in '85). Certainly not enough to get that $15k in the closet.Worked for me. Then again, we don't know how long he may have been accumulating it. Quite frankly, I personally don't care very much. Absent something to indicate an illicit source for that cash, I see no reason for me to be presumptuous about it being improper.

[Rhino]

And by the way, I knew a Staff Sergeant who had $19,000 in uncashed paychecks in his dresser drawer back in 1980. It may not be common, but you can't simply assume it's sinister either.

[Borgia]

Don't forget that in addition to the $15k in the closet, the day after he had a meeting with Secord (the money guy in Iran/Contra) North put $9.5k in cash down on a used car.

Maybe he just found it on his way to the dealership. Or maybe he just had another closet that he stored the $9.5k in. All things are possible but I tend to live my life by Occam's Razor.

[Native American]

North did the right thing in the Iran/Contra "affair", and in fact is to be commended for what he did.

And he managed to achieve all that without even violating the Democrats' stupid sacred cow - the Boland Amendment!

[Rhino]

All things are possible but I tend to live my life by Occam's Razor.Then that supports my stance, since Ockham stated that assumptions were to be avoided or minimized wherever possible. Since most people come by their money honestly, that is the default assumption that must be used when no evidence otherwise exists.

[Borgia]

Then that supports my stance, since Ockham stated that assumptions were to be avoided or minimized wherever possible.

An interpretation, but Occam really said (in effect) the simplest solution is most preferable.


Since most people come by their money honestly, that is the default assumption that must be used when no evidence otherwise exists.

If that were the problem I would agree with you. I would reword your statement to include more data:

Since most people who come by their money legally DO NOT store the equivalent of 30% of their yearly salary in a closet and since most people DO NOT pay $9.5k cash downpayment for a car the day after they had a meeting with Secord (info on Secord: Secord personally received at least $2 million from his participation in the Enterprise during 1985 and 1986, that he set up secret accounts to conceal his untaxed income, and that he later lied and encouraged others to lie to keep it concealed.) I think the simplest solution is to assume that North received money from Secord.

[Borgia]

By the way, I think it was Rhino who said that shredding docs was standard practice for North type operations.

Read Fawn Hall's tesimony in Walsh's report. You will see the shredding was not standard and they (North and Hall) tried altering documents, hiding documents and so on.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_05.htm

[Rhino]

An interpretation, but Occam really said (in effect) the simplest solution is most preferable......

......Since most people who come by their money legally DO NOT store the equivalent of 30% of their yearly salary in a closet and since most people DO NOT pay $9.5k cash downpayment for a car the day after they had a meeting with Secord (info on Secord: Secord personally received at least $2 million from his participation in the Enterprise during 1985 and 1986, that he set up secret accounts to conceal his untaxed income, and that he later lied and encouraged others to lie to keep it concealed.) I think the simplest solution is to assume that North received money from Secord.I disagree. Since he undoubtedly had many meetings with Secord, the timing is likely simply coincidental. And since many people do indeed have cash laying around, I consider that the simplest solution. Again, you may well be right, but absent any evidence of that beyond coincidence, the simplest solution is that it was his own money. It's a perception thing. You assume giult by association. I require more evidence before making that assumption.

[Borgia]

More from the Walsh report:

On April 6, 1989, North took the stand in his own defense. For six days, North admitted to having assisted the contras during the Boland prohibition on U.S. aid, to having shredded and removed from the White House official documents, to having converted traveler's checks for his personal use, to having participated in the creation of false chronologies of the U.S. arms sales, to having lied to Congress and to having accepted a home security-system from Secord and then fabricating letters regarding payment for the system. But, North testified, ``I don't believe I ever did anything that was criminal.''

Note that he admitted to criminal activities yet his defense was that he did not do those activites with criminal intent or knew they were criminal.

[Rhino]

By the way, I think it was Rhino who said that shredding docs was standard practice for North type operations.

Read Fawn Hall's tesimony in Walsh's report. You will see the shredding was not standard and they (North and Hall) tried altering documents, hiding documents and so on.From that source:
Although shredding documents was part of the daily routine at the NSC, Hall had never shredded documents in such a large quantity.Sounds standard to me, though it may not have been for her personally.

[Borgia]

More about the $15k. At least he gives an explanation...

North testified that he had $15,000 in cash in a metal box bolted to a closet floor in his home, saved from pocket change and a decades-old insurance settlement. This, North said, was the source of funds for a car he bought in October 1985. North could not explain why he paid for the car in two cash payments -- the second after North had visited Secord. He said he could not recall the October 1985 payment

Pocket change and an insurance settlement from 20+ years ago. He's some saver that Oliver North!

[Borgia]

From that source:
Sounds standard to me, though it may not have been for her personally.

Keep reading. You'll ike when you get to the part where FAwn Hal is secretely removing files and attempts to alter them as per Oliver's directions. Keep reading, Rhino.

By the way, just coincidental that the shredding happened right after the investigation was announced, right?

[Borgia]

And more from WAlsh's investigation and hte trial:



North claimed no awareness of a $200,000 investment account that Secord's business partner Albert Hakim set up for North in Switzerland, although he did admit that he sent his wife Betsy to Philadelphia in March 1986 to meet with Willard I. Zucker, the Secord-Hakim Enterprise's financial manager. North said he believed the purpose of Betsy North's trip to Philadelphia was for her to identify herself to Zucker in case North didn't return from a dangerous trip to Iran. North said he assumed that in the event of his death, something would be done ``that was proper and honorable and nothing wrong in any way,'' denying that the investment account was a bribery attempt by Hakim.
Hakim pleaded guilty in November 1989 to attempting to supplement the salary of North, based partly on the establishment of the $200,000 investment account.

Amazing North's proclivity to not know what was going on. And why didn't he just send a picture to Zucker?

[Borgia]

And here we have North showing that he doesn't mind in engaging in a little lying to escape justice as he back dates letters:


North was unable to blame others for his acceptance of a home security-system from Secord, except to explain that he accepted the system in response to reported terrorist threats on his life. North admitted that after the Iran/contra affair became public, he exchanged false back-dated letters with Glenn Robinette, a former CIA officer who worked for Secord in installing the system, suggesting payment arrangements. ``[i]t was a fairly stupid thing to do,'' North said.

[Rhino]

Keep reading. You'll ike when you get to the part where FAwn Hal is secretely removing files and attempts to alter them as per Oliver's directions. Keep reading, Rhino.I was addressing the shredding, because my original assertion was that it is common, which it is.

By the way, just coincidental that the shredding happened right after the investigation was announced, right?I doubt it. Doesn't sound like it anyway.

[Borgia]

I disagree. Since he undoubtedly had many meetings with Secord, the timing is likely simply coincidental. And since many people do indeed have cash laying around, I consider that the simplest solution.

Many people have cash lying around? Sure, $100, or even $500. But $15,000? And that was in the mid-80's. That would be like $30,000 today. How many people do you now right now that have $30,000 lying around in their closet? REally Rhino, you either know a lot of mobsters or you are rubbing shoulders with some pretty rich people. :)

[Rhino]

You missed my post above. I knew a guy in 1981 with 19 grand. Or did you mean strictly cash? Yes, I've known those too, and they weren't rich. It's a simple equation. You are automatically assuming guilt, and then trying to match evidence to it. I require the evidence first. Quite frankly, I'm surprised. For someone so devoted to empirical analysis, I didn't expect you to form a conclusion first, and then try to match the evidence to it afterwards, instead of the other way around. Shame on you! :smirky:

[DesertFox]

Rhino put his finger on the spot when he noted that Borgia assumes guilt by association. I would say it stronger: Borgia wants North to be guilty and so sees sinister implications in everything North did at the time.

At the time of those hearings I was a political naif and thought North a power grabbing punk. Since then I've learned how the Democrats operate -- the smears, the lies, the distortions, the press covering for them, the never-get-over-the-past attitude, the barely-concealed rage, the refusal to allow facts to get in their way, the blame-America-first attitude and the idea that America is on the wrong side of history.

Given an enemy like that, Oliver North practiced saintliness in getting his job done.

[Phil Osophical]

Absolutely! I agree.

We can clearly blame the racist, playful and pompous Bill Clinton for September 11. Additionally, we can blame all the racist, hate-mongering liberals for September 11 as well as for the war in Iraq.

Had liberals not zealously pushed and viciously clamored for more civil rights; civil liberties; political correctness; and no racial profiling, there would have been no 9/11 and the war in Iraq would not have been necessary.

Not all Democrats are liberals, but all liberals are Democrats.


:soap:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Oliver North knew that he could never be convicted no matter what he said in his testimony because he had been granted immunity. So he toyed with Congress by intentionally telling lie after lie just to show his contempt for the unconstitutional and illegal hearings being conducted. I'm sure that he has a huge belly laugh every time he thinks about how he showed his contempt for that political witch hunt.

[Borgia]

FACTS on Oliver North

1. We know he was found guilty of obstructing justice
2. We know he shredded large volumes of documents as soon as he learned he was under nvestigation
3. We know he backdated letters to cover his tracks so that establishes North's desire to avoid the law and his willingness to lie in order to do so.
4. We know he accepted illegal gifts (fence)
5. We know he convinced his admin, Fawn Hall, to modify documents in the archive illegally
6. We know he convinced his admin, Fawn Hall, to secrete papers in her blouse and remove them from the office in secret so they would not be found
7. He claims the $15k came from a 20+ year old insurance policy and from "spare change".

I can go on and on and keep adding to the list but clearly you have determined him to be the next coming of Jesus Christ. :)

Do I deem him guilty by association? No, I base my conclusions on the above points and more. I took the time to read the Walsh report. IT is far more than who he associates with. :)

[Naturalized-Texan]

North did the right thing in the Iran/Contra "affair", and in fact is to be commended for what he did.

And he managed to achieve all that without even violating the Democrats' stupid sacred cow - the Boland Amendment!
Of course, there was nothing to violate because the Boland Amendments (there were 3 of them) were not laws, but merely non-binding sense-of-Congress resolutions. Iran-Contra was nothing more than a political witch hunt conducted by Democrats who wanted desperately to keep the murderous Communist dictator of Nicaragua in power.

[Borgia]

Oliver North knew that he could never be convicted no matter what he said in his testimony because he had been granted immunity. So he toyed with Congress by intentionally telling lie after lie just to show his contempt for the unconstitutional and illegal hearings being conducted. I'm sure that he has a huge belly laugh every time he thinks about how he showed his contempt for that political witch hunt.

That is "imaginative" to say the least. I like how you are proud of a man who, by your own scenario, perjured himself in front of Congress.

Here I thought you folks condemned perjury and it turns out you only condemn Dems who commit perjury. LOL Me? I condemn all those who commit perjury so at least I am ethically consistent.

[Rhino]

Who are you including in "you folks"? As stated earlier, and acknowledged by you, he was never charged with perjury. The only points I've personally addressed beyond that had to do with your apparent insistence that he benefited monetarily from from all this. I never claimed him a saint, nor did I ever claim him to be without fault in this matter. In fact, I stated the opposite.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I like to speculate on how if certain events went in the opposite direction, what could have been the result. For example, I posted an essay about what could have happened if Carter had been reelected in 1980. Since by 1980 Carter had already helped the Soviet Union gain military superiority over the U.S., if Carter had won reelection, it is almost a certainty that the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War and we would all be speaking Russian.

Let's speculate a little about the impeachment of BJ Clinton.

If there had been a mere 12 Democrat Senators with enough integrity to do the right thing, BJ Clinton would have been found guilty of one or more of the Impeachment charges (Note: with those 12 Democrats, there would have been no Republican defections) and would have been removed from office. Then AlGore would have become president.

With AlGore running as an incumbent president, it's highly likely that he would have been elected president in his own right in 2000, meaning that he would have been president on 9/11/2001 when the terrorist attacks occurred.

It's a sure bet that AlGore's reaction to the attacks would have been: Let's negotiate with the terrorists and then appease them. His appeasement would have just encouraged the terrorists as Neville Chamberlain's appeasement encouraged Hitler. The result of AlGore's appeasement would have been massive terrorist attacks on U.S. cities and on U.S. interests around the world resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent American civilians.

Unless AlGore would have been deposed by a coup d'etat (a distinct possibility), he would eventually end up surrendering to the terrorists and we would all be forced to learn where Mecca is so that we could bow down facing Mecca to pray to Allah.

..................

So, in retrospect, the Senate's refusal to find BJ Clinton guilty of at least one impeachment count gave us President Bush with the will and the leadership to fight the terrorists. It's a sure bet that with President Bush's strong leadership we will win the War on Terror.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Or maybe, if AlGore had been president on 9/11/2001, he would have found a permanant home hiding in the White House bunker, never again to see the light of day, coward that he is.

[sunsettommy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

He was indicted on sixteen felony counts and on May 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_4), 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989), he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents (by his secretary, Fawn Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall), on his instructions). He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_5), 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989), to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours community service.



Overturned not due to any exonerating evidence, but because he had been promised immunity. So we know he was found guiilty of three felonies.

But you said he lied.

He was never convicted for perjury.

The Congression inquiry was all political since he never was convicted on anything for what he was doing undercover.

He he he......

[sunsettommy]

From the link Borgia provided us,Red my emphasis.

From Wikipedia:


The Boland Amendment was a highly limited ambiguous compromise because the Democrats did not have enough votes for a comprehensive ban. It only covered appropriated funds spent by intelligence agencies (such as the CIA). Reagan's people used non-appropriated money spent by the National Security Council to circumvent the Amendment. No court ever made a determination whether Boland covered the NSC, and no one was ever indicted for violating it. However, for years liberals alleged that Reagan's people violated the highly ambiguous amendment. Congress later resumed aid to the Contras, totaling over $300 million; the Sandinistas were voted out in 1990.

The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal government from providing military support "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua." As such it was thought by many to be an unconstitutional interference with the President's ability to conduct foreign policy. It aimed to prevent CIA funding of rebels opposed to the Marxist provisional junta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta_of_National_Reconstruction), the Boland Amendment sought to block Reagan administration support for the Contra rebels. The amendment was narrowly interpreted by the Reagan administration only to apply to US intelligence agencies, allowing the National Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council), not so labeled, to channel funds to the Contra rebels.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

Maybe you try again fella.

[sunsettommy]

FACTS on Oliver North

1. We know he was found guilty of obstructing justice
2. We know he shredded large volumes of documents as soon as he learned he was under nvestigation
3. We know he backdated letters to cover his tracks so that establishes North's desire to avoid the law and his willingness to lie in order to do so.
4. We know he accepted illegal gifts (fence)
5. We know he convinced his admin, Fawn Hall, to modify documents in the archive illegally
6. We know he convinced his admin, Fawn Hall, to secrete papers in her blouse and remove them from the office in secret so they would not be found
7. He claims the $15k came from a 20+ year old insurance policy and from "spare change".

I can go on and on and keep adding to the list but clearly you have determined him to be the next coming of Jesus Christ. :)

Do I deem him guilty by association? No, I base my conclusions on the above points and more. I took the time to read the Walsh report. IT is far more than who he associates with. :)

LOL,

None of them violated the Boland Amendment.The one the Congressional Inquiry was supposed to defend when chasing after Oliver North.

You failed again and again to discern the difference.

[Borgia]

LOL,

None of them violated the Boland Amendment.The one the Congressional Inquiry was supposed to defend when chasing after Oliver North.

You failed again and again to discern the difference.

Regardless of the Boland Amendment, my list includes all items that are either illegal or pretty darn shady.

But you will hold Oliver North close to your heart despite his lies, obstructions of justice, shredding of papers, mysterious money, stealing of documents and backdating of docs in an effort to escape justice.

Hilarious that you conservatives have such disrespect for the law when it suits your purpose. Sad really.

[Rhino]

Where did I disrespect the law?

[Borgia]

Where did I disrespect the law?

Perhaps my response was a tad intemperate. Rhino, my perspective is you extend a large amount of skepticism of North's deeds. Now normally I can admire skepticism and I practice it myself when examining a singular claim.

For me, the fact that North backdated letters in order to avoid detection, and that he accepted an illegal gratuity, are evidence that North is not a man to be trusted 100%. So for me, those two events add some dark billowing smoke to the smoke from all the other items I listed. For me, there is enough smoke that I am willing to say there is fire as well.

Now, you may disagree with me and that is fine. I am interested in hearing what you think North's reasons were for

1. Backdating letters
2. Shredding all those docs as the investigation was announced
3. ASking Fawn Hall to put documents in her blouse and transport them out of the office in secret

That's just a few questions I have.

[Rhino]

1. Backdating letters
2. Shredding all those docs as the investigation was announced
3. ASking Fawn Hall to put documents in her blouse and transport them out of the office in secretCYA
CYA
CYA

I think he perpetrated some incredible stupidity, and some was indeed illegal, though I might debate the severity some attached to it. My main point of contention was your insistence that he profited from it personally. While there are certainly reasons to suspect he may have, there are also reasons to doubt it. Therefore I remain unconvinced, or skeptical. You just seem extremely predisposed to assume he is guilty of profiting from it, without any real proof. It just seemed not in keeping with someone who usually requires factual evidence to support a claim.

[nicki33]

It has been very interesting reading this thread. I know nothing of Iran/Contra or what Carter has done. I have only been interested in politics for the past 10 years, i guess. I have learned enought here that I know I want to read more about special ops and carters failings as Presedent.

Now, with respect to Clinton and 9/11, I think he had MUCH responsibility with the eventual attacks on 9/11. I have to say that Borgia seens to have only wanted to argue unrelated and tedious bits of info to change the subject. Only my own opinion from reading. Borgia, what did Clinton do after the first attack on the WTC? It seems to me that every dem wants to blame 9/11 on Bush! BUT, the attacks must have been planned longer than the 9 months Bush was in office! The terrorists were here in America long before he became Prez. How did they get in during Clintons watch? We can argue about why North had $15K in his closet but that is off topic isn't it? By the way, my great Aunt kept her money all around her house, she didn't trust banks!

Anyway, thanks to everyone for all the interesting posts!!!

[Borgia]

CYA
CYA
CYA

I think he perpetrated some incredible stupidity, and some was indeed illegal, though I might debate the severity some attached to it. My main point of contention was your insistence that he profited from it personally. While there are certainly reasons to suspect he may have, there are also reasons to doubt it. Therefore I remain unconvinced, or skeptical. You just seem extremely predisposed to assume he is guilty of profiting from it, without any real proof. It just seemed not in keeping with someone who usually requires factual evidence to support a claim.

And i don't disagree with anything you said here (even the part critical of me). But to me, there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to think he profited from The Enterprise. Just to reiterate my circumstantial points specific to that claim:

1. The day after he met with the money guy, Secord, Oliver North put down $9.5k on a car in cash.

2. He had $15k in cash in a closet that he claimed he had from a decades old insurance claim and from saving spare change. I do not find his excuse credible here. Spare change?

3. An account was set up for North to "educate his children". An off-shore account, that is. :) North's claim of ignorance on this point is hard to credit.

4. HE accepted a fence paid for by someone else. As an Colonel, I am sure he is aware of this being illegal. For me, this shows the man capable of illegal acts and willing to accept financial renumeration outside his military paycheck.

[Naturalized-Texan]

nicki33: After the first terrorist attack on the WTC, there were 4 other terrorist acts of war against the U.S. on BJ Clinton's watch and he did NOTHING. Osama bin Laden was offered to BJ Clinton at least 3 times and BJ turned down those offers every time. That's why bin Laden was convinced that the U.S. would continue to do nothing after the 9/11 attacks. As we have learned since then, he wasn't the only one who misunderestimated President Bush.

[Borgia]

Borgia, what did Clinton do after the first attack on the WTC?

Not enough. Clinton was derelict in treating terrorism as the true threat it was. What is your point?


It seems to me that every dem wants to blame 9/11 on Bush! BUT, the attacks must have been planned longer than the 9 months Bush was in office! The terrorists were here in America long before he became Prez. How did they get in during Clintons watch?

How? By going through our standard VISA process. Was our VISA process lax? I don't know. They probably had clean records before coming in so it would have been hard to catch them.


We can argue about why North had $15K in his closet but that is off topic isn't it? By the way, my great Aunt kept her money all around her house, she didn't trust banks!

Sure it is off topic. Welcome to the boards! :) And there are aways a few that don't trust banks (especially older people like Great Aunts how remember the Great Depression). But I doubt North falls into that category and that is not what he claimed. Had he kept ALL his money away from banks I would be more amenable to granting him lattitude as an anti-bank person. Also, North is of a generation that generally embraced banks. He is not so old as to be one of the anti-bank (from depression era) crowd. Note he never claimed as such either.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Borgia: You keep sending this thread off on tangents to prevent us from discussing the subject of this topic which is: "Let's all thank Bill Clinton for September 11". We should be discussing the fact that by failing to perform his Constitutional duties as Commander-in-Chief, that scumbag was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Oliver North and Iran-Contra have nothing to do with BJ Clinton's failures to perform his Constitutional duties to our country.

[Rhino]

Just to reiterate my circumstantial points specific to that claim:Oh, I know the reasons you suspect it, and those suspicions are not unfounded. I just don't see that as proof necessarily.

[nicki33]

Not enough. Clinton was derelict in treating terrorism as the true threat it was. What is your point?
Borgia wrote.

You asked "What is your point?" ?????

My point is, this thread is about Bill Clintons actions that assisted terrorists in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks! I think what Bill did after the first attack on the same buildings is very relavent!!! If he had done ANYTHING more in reaction to this, the second attack may have been averted!!!!!

[Borgia]

My point is, this thread is about Bill Clintons actions that assisted terrorists in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks! I think what Bill did after the first attack on the same buildings is very relavent!!! If he had done ANYTHING more in reaction to this, the second attack may have been averted!!!!!

Possibly. Hindsight is 20/20. I could just as easily note that during Reagan's tenure as President he experienced more American deaths due to terrorism than Clinton yet Reagan's response wa a big gooseegg. Should I start blaming Reagan instead of Clinton because if Reagan had done something after _______(fill in the blank here with the terrorist action of choice under REagan: Embassy bombing, barracks bombing, Pan Am 103) then Clinton would not have had the WTC bombings?

Again, I am agreeing we all should have taken terrorism more seriously. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. All did not forsee how big of a problem Islamic terrorism would become. You seem intent on focusing in on the Democrats while I say there is plenty of blame to go around.

[Borgia]

Oh, I know the reasons you suspect it, and those suspicions are not unfounded. I just don't see that as proof necessarily.

Fair enough. By the same token, I don't think there was ironclad proof of OJ's guilt but that doesn't stop me from thinking he was guilty. :)

[Rhino]

Fair enough. By the same token, I don't think there was ironclad proof of OJ's guilt but that doesn't stop me from thinking he was guilty. :)LOL! We've already gone far enough off topic without OJ!

[Nutrider99]

But I doubt North falls into that category and that is not what he claimed.... He is not so old as to be one of the anti-bank (from depression era) crowd. Note he never claimed as such either.
When you seek a certain level of security clearance in the military, you are given psychiatric evaluations, your parents are interviewed by the FBI, your teachers are asked about you, your jouvenile records are unsealed and studied (if any exist), and your bank and credit records are examined. If you are found to be any less than an upstanding citizen, you do not get the security clearance.

As I said before but Borgia didn't have the guts to comment on it, the the democreep controlled Congress was deliberately trying to compromise the security of Spec. Op's by public hearings in which they demanded to know details about operations that did not concern them. Congress did not have to appropriate money for the operation, therefore they had no oversight. The authorty rested with the Executive branch, which is to say the president. Under the Separation of Powers, Congress had no authority to question a co-equal branch of government regarding an issue that did not need congressional approval. Had the hearings been ANYTHING other than purely political, they would have been conducted in private by an appointed committee, sworn to secrecy. However, Congress had no concern for the truth. They wanted the headlines.

Of course, the ONLY reason that Iran-Contra is brought up at all is because democreeps have nobody in the recent history of their party that they can look up to, so they try to drag down the image of others. History will not be kind to bill clintoon, or his fellow traitors in the democreep party (and a few Republicans) who traded the security of America for illegal campaign contributions. History will show bill clintoon as a man who cared only about himself, whose speeches were all about him, who rushed to Ground Zero and talked about himself, who did absolutely nothing while terrorists attacked America again and again. clintoon was unfaithful to his wife, his political party, his office and his country. Today, because of him, China can target Kansas with MIRV warheads on ICBM's, using computers powered by radiation hardened microchips that would survive a first strike. Today because of him, the Twin Towers are a memory, and America suffered a TRILLION DOLLAR hit to it's economy. The only thing that prevented a tremendous recession were the personal actions of President George W. Bush.

If America survives, one day your grandchildren will look up at you and ask why people hated Bush so much. The answer is simple. Bush was a Republican and a Christian. He did what he said he would do. He saw a war, and didn't retreat to his office for BJ's from a chubby intern with no security clearance.

[Native American]

Of course, there was nothing to violate because the Boland Amendments (there were 3 of them) were not laws, but merely non-binding sense-of-Congress resolutions. Iran-Contra was nothing more than a political witch hunt conducted by Democrats who wanted desperately to keep the murderous Communist dictator of Nicaragua in power.


Bingo.

[Native American]

That is "imaginative" to say the least. I like how you are proud of a man who, by your own scenario, perjured himself in front of Congress.

Gosh, Borgia gives us another reminder of how proud so many Democrats are of Bill Clinton, even though he perjured himself in front of