Garfield1966
Veteran
Why would this have a different effect than the fabrication of a war based on lies?
Are you serious? :blink:Why would this have a different effect than the fabrication of a war based on lies?
Are you serious? :blink:
Trust me, it will. Like a ton of bricks.
Of course you wouldn't. Why would think any different?This country re-elected a pair of men who lied about a country to get us in war that resulted in over 4,000 soldiers deaths and you expect this country to get it's dander up over a terminal terrorist being released?
I guess anything is possible but I don't think I would bet the farm on it.
If you ever want to actually educate yourselves regarding terrorism in general and Osama bin Laden in particular, take the time to read "The Man Who Warned America" The life and death of John O'Neil, The FBI's embattled counterism warrior.
The book, written by award winning investigative reporter and Crinial Justice Editor of the NY Times, Murray Weiss details the numerous blinders leading up to 9/11. John O'Neil had warned the government for 5 years prior to 9/11 and ultimatel succumbed inside the twin towers on his first day as the new security director of the World Trade Center.
Now the NY Times will NEVER be considered a Conservative think tank and to me the fact that the author painted a picture of the Clinton Administration as bungling, inept and unconcerned about the growing threat speaks volumes about Bill Clinton. The author was none to kind toMr Bush either.
Having just completed the last page I'm left with the conclusion that Bill Clinton and George W Bush were not up to the tasks at hand. In fact they looked like total Jackasses IMO.
Read the book it's a good read unless political infighting and shear self serving stupidity. The other nice thing is you can pick your favorite villan as there are many to shoose from. My SBH read it and developed severe dislike for Louis Freeh, while I on the other hand just despise Barbara Bodine, former Ambassador to Yemen at the time of the bombing of the USS Cole.
Medical evidence that helped Megrahi, 57, to be released was paid for by the Libyan government, which encouraged three doctors to say he had only three months to live.
The life expectancy of Megrahi was crucial because, under Scottish rules, prisoners can be freed on compassionate grounds only if they are considered to have this amount of time, or less, to live.
Downing Street has hit back at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for attacking the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
President Obama and the US Secretary of State fuelled a fierce American backlash against Britain, claiming Abdelbaset Al Megrahi should have been forced to serve out his jail sentence in Scotland – but a senior Whitehall aide said their reaction was ‘disingenuous’.
British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return.
The officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.
‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.
‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.
'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.’
Everybody knew about the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, including our former President, who along with the former Prime Minister, are the ones who re-started relations with Libya in order to gain favor to their oil.Time for Obama to go :down:
No.10 turns on Obama and Clinton for criticising decision to release Lockerbie bomber
[/b]
SourceA prisoner transfer agreement was signed by Tony Blair and officials from Tripoli, amid great controversy, in November last year.
Everybody knew about the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, including our former President, who along with the former Prime Minister, are the ones who re-started relations with Libya in order to gain favor to their oil.
Source
Note the date of the article: January 28, 2009. Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009. I guess you are saying that he was involved in this while on the campaign trail.![]()
Move on to your next false claim.
Another of your false, bandwidth wasting claims debunked.Obama could have stopped it, happened on his watch...end of story.
Another of your false, bandwidth wasting claims debunked.
End of story.
I will not let false statements go unchecked.
There is far too much of that in this debate.
You will be called to prove them.
You cannot shout me down here. The truth is the truth, and is very easy to prove.