Democratic debate

[bsnyder]

That simply isn't true. Do a little research from someone other than newsmax or the Washington Times - meaning someone, you know, credible.

How about one of the Left's most high profile bloggers - Josh Marshall?

In October 2001, he wrote on his blog, talkingpointsmemo.com:

More and more is being made of the story of how Sudan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States in 1996. There's been much foolish Monday-morning quarterbacking questioning various errors the Clinton administration allegedly made in counter-terrorism policy. And as a Clinton loyalist I'd be more than happy to point out how this Sudan story is just another example of that. But I can't. Because it's not. This really was a missed opportunity of immense proportions.

A week prior to this post, he wrote this (which was what I was originally looking for, but the search function on his site isn't that great):

Oh well. For a few months now -- that is to say, long before 9/11 -- I've been working on a story about Osama bin Laden. Particularly how the government of Sudan had opened a back channel to the United States in 1996 offering to take bin Laden -- then resident in Sudan -- into custody and turn him over either to the Saudis or to the United States.

In essence, we passed on the offer. It wasn't quite that simple. The Saudis didn't want him back. And at the time the United States had no criminal indictment against him. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, we passed on the offer. We told the Sudanese we didn't want him going to Somalia and regretfully acquiesced in his departure for Afghanistan on May 18th 1996.

I've been interviewing various players in this little drama for some time now -- something I've alluded to elliptically in a few posts over the last couple months. And though I was able to nail down the Saudi part of the equation, sufficient confirmation of the US part of puzzle eluded me.

So why am I telling you all this? Shouldn't I be more hush-hush about it?

Well, when the Washington Post broke the story in Wednesday's edition of the paper that sort of made secrecy a tad less important, didn't it?

Oh well.

He posts the link to a WP story that broke that morning, entitled "U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed
Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No"

We didn't want Bin Laden here, we wanted the Saudis to deal with him. When they refused, we let him go to Afghanistan.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Reality check: I find it amazing that so many people say "Sudan offered us bin Laden...why didn't we take them up on their offer?" Truth of the matter is, back in 1996 our relationship with Sudan was icy, at very best. 1996 Sudan was a state sponsor of terrorism. I'd liken the 1996 interaction between Sudan and the US to say, a modern day Mullah Mohammed Omar calling President Bush and saying that he'd like to get together and work out trying to get rid of bin Laden...you think Bush would bite?

 

["Got Disney"]

Remember, Clinton spoke directly with the Whitehouse about this. She said so last night. This is why the question was asked if she made a mistake and she never answered the question.

Between Clinton and Obama, Obama appears to be humble and human. He admits that he doesn't know it all and yet his opponent keeps referencing all of the research she does. To me, Clinton takes credit for the years that her husband was in office as her time in office. I don't remember her being sworn in to the office of president.

she said that she felt that at the time she did what she felt was right...why should she say she felt she was wrong if she does not feel that way....

It is not as easy as a yes or no question...it is not black or white there is a lot of gray surrounding it.....what is important is she feels that right know it is wrong to stay in and troops need to be out....

and it is a null point to argue with me on this point because it is the Rep that you need to take this up with...they want to stay in....

So Hillary has done nothing for all her years...she just says she did and that is why all of her candidates are calling her a lyer No none have called her that and the only thing that came up for dispute was people were questioning her years...

And don't think for a minute that a spouse is not fully involved in a discussion that a Pres makes. When they are lying in bed together they discuss with there spouses on what they feel and think ....

I feel blessed that we have 2 good Dems to vote for and will be happy with either one of them....unfortunately the Rep cant say that...

 

[bsnyder]

Reality check: I find it amazing that so many people say "Sudan offered us bin Laden...why didn't we take them up on their offer?" Truth of the matter is, back in 1996 our relationship with Sudan was icy, at very best. 1996 Sudan was a state sponsor of terrorism. I'd liken the interaction between Sudan and the US to say, Mullah Mohammed Omar calling President Bush and saying that he'd like to get together and work out trying to get rid of bin Laden...you think Bush would bite?

Reality check. You've got at least two people on here who are claiming the offer never happened. It did. I've offered credible sources of the factual record.

Now you want to claim it was "complicated" by an icy relationship. Agreed. And personally, I'm don't exactly fault the Clinton Administration in this instance. It's 20/20 hindsight.

Ironic, considering how often the Left uses that type of vision (20/20) to slam the Bush Administration.

 

[salmoneous]

Bet - respectfully suggest you take this discussion to a new thread. While doing so, you may want to contemplate why your best "proof" is opinion of a left blogger who you probably disagree with about 99% of the time.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Reality check. You've got at least two people on here who are claiming the offer never happened. It did. I've offered the factual record.

Now you want to claim it was "complicated" by an icy relationship. Agreed. And personally, I'm don't exactly fault the Clinton Administration in this instance. It's 20/20 hindsight.

Ironic, considering how often the Left uses that type of vision (20/20) to slam the Bush Administration.

I have done zero research as to whether or not it actually happened, so I'm only speaking for myself here. My problem is with those who say "Why didn't Clinton deal with Sudan?", as if the Sudanese government and the Clinton Administration could have discussed it over their weekly "Melrose Place" story club meetings. It's a disingenuous argument...

 

[undertheradar]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";22925615]she said that she felt that at the time she did what she felt was right...why should she say she felt she was wrong if she does not feel that way....

It is not as easy as a yes or no question...it is not black or white there is a lot of gray surrounding it.....what is important is she feels that right know it is wrong to stay in and troops need to be out....

and it is a null point to argue with me on this point because it is the Rep that you need to take this up with...they want to stay in....

So Hillary has done nothing for all her years...she just says she did and that is why all of her candidates are calling her a lyer No none have called her that and the only thing that came up for dispute was people were questioning her years...

And don't think for a minute that a spouse is not fully involved in a discussion that a Pres makes. When they are lying in bed together they discuss with there spouses on what they feel and think ....

I feel blessed that we have 2 good Dems to vote for and will be happy with either one of them....unfortunately the Rep cant say that...[/QUOTE]

So when applying for a job, can your spouse take credit for your experience? That is what her claims of years of experience in the Whitehouse amount to. She was not elected to and sworn in to the presidency, her spouse was.

 

["Got Disney"]

So when applying for a job, can your spouse take credit for your experience? That is what her claims of years of experience in the Whitehouse amount to. She was not elected to and sworn in to the presidency, her spouse was.

So for all her years she did nothing worth anything except for credit you say she is getting from her DH...

Well okay than.....you hold that thought....one thing I do not want to do is argue politics...it's like arguing religion...you get no where.

 

[ChrisFL]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";22926270]So for all her years she did nothing worth anything except for credit you say she is getting from her DH...[/QUOTE]


I think she's really playing up her husband's experience as her own, because if you only compare records on the political office, her and Obama have been senator the same amount of years. She can't win like that as easily, so she has to to put up this "35 years of experience" argument.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I think she's really playing up her husband's experience as her own, because if you only compare records on the political office, her and Obama have been senator the same amount of years. She can't win like that as easily, so she has to to put up this "35 years of experience" argument.

At the risk of boring everyone here to death, here's how Clinton answered the "35 years of experience" question from last night's debate. It's really very good:

BLITZER: All right.

Senator -- Senator Clinton, you've been a senator only a few more years than Senator Obama's been a senator. What experience as a first lady qualifies you to be president of the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I would go back 35 years, Wolf, because when I first got out of law school, I didn't want to go to work for a law firm. I wanted to go to work for the Children's Defense Fund and to work on behalf of -- (applause) -- abused and neglected kids and kids with disabilities and kids who didn't have education or health care.

And I really spent a great deal of my early adulthood, you know, bringing people together to help solve the problems of those who were without a voice and were certainly powerless. I was honored to be appointed by President Carter to the Legal Services Corporation, which I chaired, and we grew that corporation from 100 million to 300 million. It is the primary vehicle by which people are given access to our courts when they have civil problems that need to be taken care of.

You know, I've run projects that provided aid for prisoners in prisons. I helped to reform the education system in Arkansas and expand rural health care. And I've had a lot of varied experiences both in the private sector as well as the public and the not-for- profit sector.

And certainly during those eight years that I was privileged to be in the White House, I had a great deal of responsibility that was given to me to not only work on domestic issues like health care, and when we weren't successful on universal health care, I just turned around and said, "Well, we're going to get the Children's Health Insurance Program." And I'm so proud we do, because now 6 million children around the country every month get health care.

And I took on the drug companies to make sure that they would test drugs to see if they were safe and effective for our kids, and began to change the adoption and foster care system. Here in California, because of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we have three times more children being adopted out of foster care.

(Applause.)

And certainly the work that I was able to do around the world, going to more than 82 countries, negotiating with governments like Macedonia to open their border again, to let Kosovar refugees in, speaking on behalf of women's rights as human rights in Beijing -- (cheers, applause) -- to send a message across the world that this is critical to who we are as Americans, and to go to the Senate and to begin to work across the party lines with people who honestly never thought they would work with me -- but believe public service is a trust, and I get up every day, try to make change in people's lives. And today we have 20,000 National Guard and Reserve members in California who have access to health care because I teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to get that done --

BLITZER: All right.

CLINTON: -- really positive change in people's lives, in real ways that I am very proud of.

 

[Hound 109]

Still think this thing has always been HC's to lose. She's up big in the polls in 4 of the 6 states that have more than 100 delegates for Super Tuesday. She's still up nationally, so even if they split the rest she'll be the big winner. Then from what I can tell, she's up pretty big in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania down the road. You can't lose most of the bigger states, split the smaller states and win. In the end I don't even see this thing being close.

If HC wins California, NY, NJ and Mass. on Tues. put a fork in Obama.

This is 100% correct.

I mentioned this in another thread that i killed, but:

- Hillary & McCain have 70% + support with Seniors AND Latinos.
- Hillary will get 60-70% of Edward's support.
- Huckabee is taking the Social Conservative Vote that would have gone to Romney.
- The Bradley factor.

On Wednesday morning, McCain & Clinton will way ahead in delegates, & this will be over by the first week in March.

Then, over the next 7 months, Hillary will move to the center....& McCain will get older (& will look it). And the Dems are fired up.

Hillary replaces Bush in 1/09.

 

[bsnyder]

Bet - respectfully suggest you take this discussion to a new thread. While doing so, you may want to contemplate why your best "proof" is opinion of a left blogger who you probably disagree with about 99% of the time.

Can't do it right now - I'm off to my neice's basketball game. And it would probably be a bore to re-hash this ancient history.

I read the views of a variety of people, from all points on the political spectrum. I've been reading Josh Marshall since he worked at the American Prospect, and I've been reading his blog since he started it in 2000. I disagree with him on ideology, but I still respect him as a journalist.

I'm not sure what, exactly, I'm suppose to contemplate.

 

["Got Disney"]

Hillary is here in SanDiego at a ralley why am I not there it's not but 5 minutes from here...geesh
I should have paid more attention to that than playing here on the DIS

 

[Honu]

At the risk of boring everyone here to death, here's how Clinton answered the "35 years of experience" question from last night's debate. It's really very good:

BLITZER: All right.

Senator -- Senator Clinton, you've been a senator only a few more years than Senator Obama's been a senator. What experience as a first lady qualifies you to be president of the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I would go back 35 years, Wolf, because when I first got out of law school, I didn't want to go to work for a law firm. I wanted to go to work for the Children's Defense Fund and to work on behalf of -- (applause) -- abused and neglected kids and kids with disabilities and kids who didn't have education or health care.

And I really spent a great deal of my early adulthood, you know, bringing people together to help solve the problems of those who were without a voice and were certainly powerless. I was honored to be appointed by President Carter to the Legal Services Corporation, which I chaired, and we grew that corporation from 100 million to 300 million. It is the primary vehicle by which people are given access to our courts when they have civil problems that need to be taken care of.

You know, I've run projects that provided aid for prisoners in prisons. I helped to reform the education system in Arkansas and expand rural health care. And I've had a lot of varied experiences both in the private sector as well as the public and the not-for- profit sector.

And certainly during those eight years that I was privileged to be in the White House, I had a great deal of responsibility that was given to me to not only work on domestic issues like health care, and when we weren't successful on universal health care, I just turned around and said, "Well, we're going to get the Children's Health Insurance Program." And I'm so proud we do, because now 6 million children around the country every month get health care.

And I took on the drug companies to make sure that they would test drugs to see if they were safe and effective for our kids, and began to change the adoption and foster care system. Here in California, because of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we have three times more children being adopted out of foster care.

(Applause.)

And certainly the work that I was able to do around the world, going to more than 82 countries, negotiating with governments like Macedonia to open their border again, to let Kosovar refugees in, speaking on behalf of women's rights as human rights in Beijing -- (cheers, applause) -- to send a message across the world that this is critical to who we are as Americans, and to go to the Senate and to begin to work across the party lines with people who honestly never thought they would work with me -- but believe public service is a trust, and I get up every day, try to make change in people's lives. And today we have 20,000 National Guard and Reserve members in California who have access to health care because I teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to get that done --

BLITZER: All right.

CLINTON: -- really positive change in people's lives, in real ways that I am very proud of.

She didn't want to work for a law firm, but that's pretty much what is on her real resume.

After graduating from law school she worked for about a year doing some post graduate work for a Yale Children's Center before moving to Arkansas with Bill.

From 1977 to 1993 she worked for the Rose Law Firm. During that time she probably did pro bono projects, but she's trying to make it look like she was out there fighting full time for the disenfranchised, when the truth is she was on the board at WalMart.

She left the Rose Law Firm in 1993 to be the first lady. Why not be honest?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

I think Hilary is smart to emphasize her experience, however you want to define it as such. Like her or not as a politician (I don't), it's hard to deny that she is a person who is goal oriented and not afraid to take leadership positions in whatever she is pursuing.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

I think she's really playing up her husband's experience as her own, because if you only compare records on the political office, her and Obama have been senator the same amount of years. She can't win like that as easily, so she has to to put up this "35 years of experience" argument.

Clinton is in her second term. She spent 6 full years not running for another office then got relelected to her second term. Obama hasn't finished his first, and has been busy campaiging for half of it. He entered in 2005. He announced in 2007 he was running for President. He was 'exploring' for most of 2006.

 

[ChrisFL]

Clinton is in her second term. She spent 6 full years not running for another office then got relelected to her second term. Obama hasn't finished his first, and has been busy campaiging for half of it. He entered in 2005. He announced in 2007 he was running for President. He was 'exploring' for most of 2006.

Sorry about the dates, I wasn't sure exactly how long they both were in office

 

[KikiFan]

Clinton is in her second term. She spent 6 full years not running for another office then got relelected to her second term. Obama hasn't finished his first, and has been busy campaiging for half of it. He entered in 2005. He announced in 2007 he was running for President. He was 'exploring' for most of 2006.

I kinda like Obama but I just keep getting hung up on the fact that he's got so little experience. And didn't he say at one point that he wouldn't run for president during his first term?

 

[salmoneous]

Personally, I don't worry about the experience thing. The job of POTUS is so unique that *nobody* has any expereince. (Well, guys named George Bush have experience, but that doesn't mean I want them to be president). You can have 4 years in the Senate or 40 years in the Senate - I'm not sure it matters. The day you become president, it's a whole new ballgame.

 

[jme829]

Personally, I don't worry about the experience thing. The job of POTUS is so unique that *nobody* has any expereince. (Well, guys named George Bush have experience, but that doesn't mean I want them to be president). You can have 4 years in the Senate or 40 years in the Senate - I'm not sure it matters. The day you become president, it's a whole new ballgame.