uH-oH! How long before somebody tries to kill the message because of the source?
Maybe not convict, but we had evidence enough to try bin Laden, who knows what we would have got from that back in 96.We had no evidence that would have provided justification for Clinton to incarcerate Osama bin Laden in May of 1996. period. It would have violated international law.
Maybe not convict, but we had evidence enough to try bin Laden, who knows what we would have got from that back in 96.
Clinton and Dems passed it up, bottom line.
Getting a bj might help in not being distracted AFTER it's done, but beforehand I'm sure it was all Clinton was thinking about.Has a BJ stopped any man from doing a better Job at work? What does a BJ have to do with doing your job.....I bet ya there's several million men that get BJ's and still do their job quite well...might even say they do their job at work better if they've gotten the "relief"...
This is ridiculous!
The BJ did not distract Clinton...
The republicans wasting millions and millions of tax payers money chasing down clinton MIGHT have distracted him.....not the BJ.
show me. Again I'm aware of the claim that there was not probably not enough evidence to convict, but it doesn't stop over getting a trial and seeing what else might pop up while Osama is awaiting that. Who knows? Maybe some other people would have come forward once they knew he was in custody.Well, that is NOT what the 911 commissioned report says....guess all those republicans on the commission just lied about it in their report, huh? you and masterchief know so much more that anyone else on the 911 commission, for sure!!!!!
care
Maybe not convict, but we had evidence enough to try bin Laden, who knows what we would have got from that back in 96.
Clinton and Dems passed it up, bottom line.
Maybe not convict, but we had evidence enough to try bin Laden, who knows what we would have got from that back in 96.
Clinton and Dems passed it up, bottom line.
He had been classified as an unindicted co-conspirator of the first WTC bombing. We could hold him, according to our constitution, for three full days 72 hours, while we decided on whether to charge him or not. During that three days we could have easily charged him with a crime with the evidence that we had (considering some of it was the convicted's statement that it was he that had planned it...)show me one thing we knew about OBL prior to May of '96 that would have allowed us to legally abduct a foreign national in a foreign land.
I'll wait.
We had no evidence that would have provided justification for Clinton to incarcerate Osama bin Laden in May of 1996. period. It would have violated international law.
He had been classified as an unindicted co-conspirator of the first WTC bombing. We could hold him, according to our constitution, for three full days 72 hours, while we decided on whether to charge him or not. During that three days we could have easily charged him with a crime with the evidence that we had (considering some of it was the convicted's statement that it was he that had planned it...)
We could have held him, any other statement is just apologizer rhetoric.