You say the American public supports him and his approval rating are high...where are you getting these numbers from?
Bush's job approval ratings since he took office from every national poll. I think I saw only two numbers where his favorability dropped below 50%...I skimmed pretty quickly so it may be more.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Also look at his favorability ratings as well...
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
Check those facts out...I doubt every single one of those polls has been doctored. But I am willing to bet you will use the following as your excuse as to how those numbers are incorrect...so prove me wrong.
Most of the media when giving polls about his approval give them on the internet. Its extremely easy for these numbers to be inaccurate and even easier for the media to change those numbers.
Now since you seem so adamant that Clinton did all he could to capture Osama Bin Laden please allow me to poke a hole in your defiance. Actually I think it will be more like blowing a hole...but hey its really all symantics. You posted...
Clinton was investigating al queda, and its not like Sudan just offered osama up and he refused it. Seems you forgot that in 1995, the year before those talks were even held, al queda tried killing Clinton during a visit to the Philippines. We were in talks with Sudan, the talks were a failure.
Here is an article from the LA Times...probably the second most liberal newspaper in the US secon to the NYT. It is a fascinating read actually. Here are some quotes.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
Good stuff! That last quote was pretty stinging.
Tell me Clinton just refused, or clumsily failed to bring justice the that man who was responsible in trying to kill him. Tell me that Clinton didn't try killing him again after the Cole was attacked.
I don't have to tell you, Mansoor Ijaz just has for me...and in his own words he was a Clinton supporter.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton
To answer 18sec's post...a rather factual at that I might add..
the sudan operartive was not affiliate with the sudanese government. He was an idependent source (and unreliable one at that) who gave sketchy information. When the sudanese government was asked about it, they said no offer existed. Therefor, one would draw a conclusion that maybe this guy's trying to take the money and run?
I have found this tidbit of information taken from
here
According to Sen. Clinton's husband, however, at the time he turned down Sudan's offer, the White House was not only aware that bin Laden posed a growing threat, administration officials were even predicting that the 9/11 mastermind would attack the U.S. directly. In Mr. Clinton's own words, as early as 1996, "we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
Also there is this link...
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/sudanC.htm
that has some pretty damning evidence as well.
Here is a good quote...
ACCORDING TO TIM CARNEY, THE LAST U.S. AMBASSADOR to Sudan, whose posting ended in 1997, “The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren’t taking them up on it. The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan’s willingness to engage us on some serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications—at least for what happened at the U.S. Embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization.” He tells Rose, “It was worse than a crime. It was a ****up.”
Well I have posted some first hand facts from the person that did the initiating of dialogue between the Clinton administration and the Sudanese government on the whole Osama Bin Laden deal. You posted...
A few things you a.) didn't know about or b.) forgot about.
But where is your proof of this? Could this be your own speculation?
Let me refresh your memory...
You seem a bit confused.
FACT - n: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened
Could you please verify this information for me
so instead of being ignorant why don't you do it. Ohhhh its cause your afraid your wrong
Where to next...oh yes the Clinton BJ thing...you liberals have still missed the boat on this one.
so why was is such a big deal? He never would have had to lie about it if he wasn't investigated for it....and you didn't care, most of america really didn't care....but its when he LIED that makes it a big deal. DAMN...he was the first president to blatantly lie about something....and a BLOW JOB OF ALL THINGS...OH MY!!!!
OK since this really seems to be a hard topic allow me to spell it out in a simpleton sort of way...
1) Who cares if he got a BJ...all he had to do was say "Monica gives good head, you should get some too. Let me see if I can arrange it for you!" and Ken Starr would not be the Democrats modern day McCarthy
2) He lied! Blatantly, flat out, he lied. After he got cought he lied. He even tried to argue the defenition of the word "is"! And this was all for a stupid BJ.
3) He was the first President to go on national TV, infront of the American public and while waving his finger say, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" Jesus Bill did you really think anyone bought that?
Do you understand now? Do I need to get my 5 year old cousin to come explain it?
Can we finally get off this now?
the bush administation limited the investigation into al queda
Really? It did? Where are your facts? I cannot find anything to corroborate your story short of what was found on discussion boards like this one.
What facts of yours did i quote? I don't remember doing this, so please point them out.
Check out your post dated 09-04-2003 04:29 PM and look at your first quote. I got that from a soldier returning home here to CT on our local news. Kinda a direct report from the front not tainted by some reporter. Sorry I cannot produce a quote, had I known it was going to be this important I would have taped it and converted it to a media file.
The weapons were destroyed.
So where is this proof? I am going to take the same stance you have taken on the WMD. Till you produce the proof they have not been destroyed. And before you go spouting off a list of Al Samouds and Scudds that were destroyed I am specifically asking where the WMD that Iraq had in 1998/1999 when the weapons inspectors were there last went.
Well you wanted facts so I gave you facts and since you want me to answer your question...
I see you again conveniently forgot to answer the question. Did i ever blame the BUSH adminstration for the terrorists being able to carry out 9/11? No, i simply asked the question of what was a more important investigation. Now...answer the question and cut the BS.
Obviously the more important thing to investigate was terrorists...but Clinton was President so why was the FBI not doing that. He could have signed an executive order to investigat terrorists...did he? NO!