HL News News Videos HL's Comics Entertainment Blog HLTV HL Store Email Us
Hilary is for the war, so I guess that means anyone for the war is with Bin Laden. Sounds good to me.
Apparently Republican stupidty is not just an internet thing. Kieth Olbermann Reports.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | Sep » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
|
Cost Of The Iraq War. $4-6 Billion For a Lie. |
Where's Osama?On Sept. 11th, 2001 George Bush said he would catch bin Laden dead or alive. He never did, we used to run a counter showing how many days it had been, but Obama finally took care of it for him. Just another Bush lie. |
The Hollywood Liberal started in 2004 at the height of the Bush Administration madness in America. We were inspired by the late great Bartcop.com. The very first thing I did when the site started was to get arrested at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. My arrest at the start of a march from The World Trade Center was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. On New Years Eve 2014 the case was finally settled, with a judge awarding a class action suit that I was part of over $26 Million. I posted daily on the blog up until the end of The Bush error, and the site is now run as a history of the whole fiasco. Feel free to browse the old postings, pictures, & comics (an HL favorite) It reveals the twisted history of the times. Thanks H.L.
August 16th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Hillary is not for the war! Paradeing like your on again off again for the war is not being for the war. Voting for the war when things are jelling, and being against it when the going gets tough is not for the war. Hillary Clinton has verbally assaulted national missile defense. Do you remember when Bush spoke to the nation and the goverment in the chamber after 9/11?? Do you remember the picture shot of her when the chamber was going wild in applause for Bush? That bored ass half clap and oh sh*t look on her face was the tell tale! Partner I mean the tell tale. Antiwar to the core. Feeding off the polls like a vampire! Any bad news for Bush and Hillary’s immediate posistion is what ever the oppisite of what Bush’s posistion is. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:37 am
I think as far as flip flopping go she is WORSE than Kerry. Her act at trying to appear more moderate right now is laughable!
If she gets the nomination the Dems are doomed again.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:38 am
What would GW do without Bin Laden? So far BL has been very good for our “fearless leader.”
August 17th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Ask Bill……..he passed on Bin Laden and is directly responsible for 9/11. Thank the Clintons for doing nothing for national security for eight years!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Right Buzz, I know when Bill was sitting there in that classroom that day staring into space while the buildings burned I said to myself this is all his fault. He is the CURRENT President after all.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
If I leave you a car that is breaking down and it then breaks after I give it to you is it your fault??
Here is a quote from Clinton’s own foreign relations top aide.
Oh wait I am sure he is a liar too right??
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.
Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and “detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,†Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.
These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.
But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel “Sandy†Berger failed to act.
â€I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,†Ijaz writes.
â€The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.”
Now HL whos fault was 9/11??
August 17th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Imz, anytime world events flare up all republicans benefit. Your trying to make it sound that if there were no national security problems Bush could not have and would not have prevailed. A more accurate characterization would be that the most important thing that the president does is national security. What if I said democrats cant win unless the economy is bad! Do you see where I am comming from? Dont politicize the economy! I in turn will not politicize national security, which is far more important. How can slackers get their unemployment checks and go to the bank and the food stamp office if THEY ARE ALL NUKED FROM THE MAP? H.L. likes to call what I do stiring up fear. FEAR! FEAR! Hell I just want to be around to argue the matter! Its called stiring up knowledge. Its called knowing your surroundings.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
You talking about Osama Bin Laden?? The guy whose family has been doing business with The Bush family for the past 2 decades. The guy who was funded and trained by the CIA that Bush’s father used to head?
I saw the story you quoted in Newsmax….
According to Sourcewatch:
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Ijaz and others accused the Clinton administration of having bungled an opportunity to catch bin Laden. [20] (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/568) The accusations have been rejected by Clinton administration officials including Sandy Berger and Susan Rice.
The following year, others, such as the conservative website NewsMax and Fox News‘s Sean Hannity, went further than Ijaz and claimed that Sudan had offered to extradite bin Laden direct to the United States. [21] (http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919) [22] (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008)[23] (http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005)
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), stated that “former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.” [24] (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf)
This is from a site that claims that Al Franken is a liar.
“Clinton himself is on record confirming this offer from the Sudanese existed. The administration even asked the FBI to consider whether bin Laden could be brought to the U.S. (the FBI said no, because he hadn’t been indicted and —-well, why am I telling you this? Just listen to Clinton himself– At a February 2002 business luncheon in New York, Clinton said this:
“Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan … And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, ’96, 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.”
Fact: Bush and Rice were warned specifically that Osama wanted to crash planes in buildings on August 6, 2001 and did nothing.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Ok so are you still saying Clintons inactivity had nothing to do with 9/11 or not?
So do you think that Clinton and Berger would not lie about it to cover there own asses??
I am not sure what Franken has to do with it.
Clinton said this
At the time, ‘96, 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.â€
If Clinton did not pick him up because he had committed no crime, what were Bush and Rice supposed to do about it?? He had not committed a crime then either.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
They already knew he was partially responsible for U.S. finds link between bin Laden and Cole bombing Yet they did nothing with the warnings, they just stayed on vacation and ignored it.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Then didn’t he also have something to do with WTC 1 the first go around?? During Clintons watch I believe.
In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. Rahman, whose Islamic Group organization is believed to have had links to Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:59 am
If Clinton did not pick him up because he had committed no crime, what were Bush and Rice supposed to do about it?? He had not committed a crime then either.
Perhaps they could have listened to the outgoing Clinton administration officials when they said that bin Laden was going to be the biggest threat to national security during their tenure, instead of blowing them off and throwing away all of the intelligence the Clinton administation had gathered to pass along to them.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Not politicize national security…puh-lease! The Repubs have worked a very effective, sick and sad PR campaign to convince Americans that if they vote Democratic, the “bad guys” win. “You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” and all that BS.
Buzz…are you arguing that it’s MORE Clinton’s fault than Bush’s? Couldn’t you trace the failure to act all the way back to Bush The First? Hell, couldn’t you trace it back to the Cold War when the US gave a bunch of weapons to the mujahideen?
August 18th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Tom,
Perhaps when Sudan HAD him in 96 they could have talked to him about his links to the guy responsible in the 95 incident. All I am saying is it was enough to at least give him the once over in 96.
lmz,
I am not saying it is all anyones fault. There was an obvious let down on several occasions I am sure. You think that was all planned in 2000 or 2001? Do you think Clintons CUTS to the cia and national security might have made it a bit easier for those to accomplish such an act?
I don’t know the answers to all the questions. I do know that pointing the finger at one person when there were more people involved is the wrong thing to do.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
They dont have to convince ME what happens if the democrats win. The bad guys dont just win they win big. When ever the fight stops, chalk that one up as a big LOSS for America. I gurantee you there will be a democrat at the helm if America ever goes down. I gurantee it!!
August 18th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Again, there was a Republican at the helm last time we got hit.
August 18th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
I said GOES DOWN!! Not hit. If the United States ever gets destroyed there will be a democrat at the helm. If part of the nation splits away in disgust and civil war breaks out it will because of democratic economic, national security and gun regulation policies. There will be a democrat at the helm if that happens. If Iran closes off the persian gulf, and takes over Israel there will be a democrat at the helm if that happens. If a president ever has to sign a surrender document for the USA to some one else it will be a democrat on his knees giving his best John Henry. Non of this will happen with a republican president!
The truth is hard. And real. And here!
August 18th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Proof please!
If we ever have a civil war, it will be because of a constitutional crisis in which the president refused to follow the laws as set down by congress and interpreted by the courts. In other words…it will be president supporters versus supporters of the other branches. WE’ve so far somehow miraculously avoided this (came close after Brown v. Board and under Nixon) but it’s bound to happen at some point if we continue to elect executives who think the law doesn’t apply to them. That’s my conjecture, clearly I’m seeing the future a bit differently than you!
August 19th, 2006 at 7:03 am
CLEARLY!!!!!!……….Hey IMZ! I think we agree. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!