We Were NEVER Attacked By An Afghani! Ron Paul Corrects Hillary Clinton

[Che]

YouTube - We Were NEVER Attacked By An Afghani! Ron Paul Corrects Hillary Clinton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk3PpJy--0Y)

[JK/SEA]

Yeah, notice how she spins it, as though Afganistan's 'leaders' have control of what goes on in that poor excuse for a country.

It would be like bombing a city because a few guys killed a cop.

[dannno]

Viral. Now.














NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Meatwasp]

Did anyone hear what she said after that? My tape stopped

[dannno]

Ok, Hillary brought up something very interesting right at the end there and I wish I could have questioned her on it cause I would have nailed her to the wall.

She said that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US after the 9/11 attacks.

I would have asked her if she knew the reason why they did not hand him over. The reason they did not hand him over as stated by the Taliban to US officials during a press conference (and nobody even knows if they could have handed him over) is because the US could not PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT BIN LADEN WAS BEHIND THE 9/11 ATTACKS!!

You can watch the press conference for yourself, it's in the first 10 minutes of the film "Loose Change: Final Cut"

[Meatwasp]

Thanks Dannno

[klamath]

Hey Hillery, would the Iranians have been justified to attack and occupy America when we held and refused to turn the Shah over to them for crimes against the Iranian people?

[Reason]

Ok, Hillary brought up something very interesting right at the end there and I wish I could have questioned her on it cause I would have nailed her to the wall.

She said that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US after the 9/11 attacks.

I would have asked her if she knew the reason why they did not hand him over. The reason they did not hand him over as stated by the Taliban to US officials during a press conference (and nobody even knows if they could have handed him over) is because the US could not PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT BIN LADEN WAS BEHIND THE 9/11 ATTACKS!!

You can watch the press conference for yourself, it's in the first 10 minutes of the film "Loose Change: Final Cut"

hmmm

[Jeremy Tyler]

Great video

[dannno]

Bump

[BuddyRey]

Wow!

[dannno]

Bump

[inibo]

Ok, Hillary brought up something very interesting right at the end there and I wish I could have questioned her on it cause I would have nailed her to the wall.

She said that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US after the 9/11 attacks.

I would have asked her if she knew the reason why they did not hand him over. The reason they did not hand him over as stated by the Taliban to US officials during a press conference (and nobody even knows if they could have handed him over) is because the US could not PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT BIN LADEN WAS BEHIND THE 9/11 ATTACKS!!

You can watch the press conference for yourself, it's in the first 10 minutes of the film "Loose Change: Final Cut"


Found this today. I've edited it a bit to stress the pertinent points. A link to the full article is in the quote.
Taliban maintains refusal to turn over bin Laden

By Michael A. Lev Chicago Tribune staff reporter

October 3, 2001

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Defying new military warnings from the United States and Britain on Tuesday, Afghanistan's Taliban government again refused to turn over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and disregarded the American threat to its regime.

"Only Allah changes the regime," the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, said at a news conference in Quetta, Pakistan.

Zaeef reiterated the Taliban insistence that it would not turn over bin Laden without receiving evidence of his participation in the Sept. 11 attacks on America, and he called again for talks with the United States, which President Bush already has rejected.

"We are ready for negotiations," Zaeef said. "It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only the way of negotiations will solve our problems. We should discuss this issue and decide."

Snip...

[Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Riaz Mohammad] Khan said the United States did not offer clear-cut evidence of bin Laden's involvement...

"We have yet to receive any detailed evidence about the persons responsible for the horrendous act of terrorism, or other links with bin Laden or al-Qaida"

http://www.dailypress.com/news/national/sns-worldtrade-taliban-chi,0,2325274.story

This was less than a month after September 11th. Funny, no one seems to remember it.

[Reason]

Found this today. I've edited it a bit to stress the pertinent points. A link to the full article is in the quote.

This was less than a month after September 11th. Funny, no one seems to remember it.

powerful indeed

[AmericaFyeah92]

the funny thing is that Afghans are attacking us NOW (remember that foiled father-son plot?) because of this war. As usual, we create our own enemies and then use them as evidence of how dangerous the world is.

[BlackTerrel]

Ron Paul is so incredible really. So understated yet so... awesome.

[Working Poor]

Bump

[newbitech]

this

CNN Crossfire on Sept. 10, 2002 - CIA supported and funded Taliban under Clinton (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2378961047720966953#)

and

this


U.S. plans to remove the Taliban prior to September 11, 2001

Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) (CIA) Special Activities Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Activities_Division) paramilitary teams were active in Afghanistan in the 1990s in clandestine operations to locate and kill or capture Osama Bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden). These teams planned several operations, but did not receive the order to execute from President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton).[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-books.google.com-37) These efforts did however build many of the relationships that would prove essential in the 2001 U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-books.google.com-37)
In August 2001, U.S. State Department official Christina Rocca met with the Taliban, at their last negotiation over U.S. energy giant Unocal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal)'s planned oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan. She is reported to have said, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-38)
NBC News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News) reported in May 2002 that a formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted on September 9, 2001, had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House), the CIA and the Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon) put into action after the September 11 attacks. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaeda, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, including outlines to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-39)
According to a 2004 report by the bipartisan commission of inquiry into 9/11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_commission), one day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration) agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. And, if both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-40)
However, an article published in March 2001 by Jane's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%27s), a media outlet serving the military and intelligence communities, suggests that the United States had already been planning and taking just such action against the Taliban six months before September 11, 2001. According to Jane's, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), and Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, with Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan) and Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan) being used as bases.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-41)
The BBC News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News) reported that, according to a Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would proceed by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan) – where American advisers were already in place – and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-42)[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-43)
An article in The Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian) on September 26, 2001, also adds evidence that there were already signs in the first half of 2001 that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. A U.S. Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Department_of_Defense) official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January 2001 and U.S. General Tommy Franks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Franks) visited the country in May 2001, conveying a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country". However, this assertion overlooks the fact that these relationships had been ongoing since the break up of the USSR, and that under Clinton similar statments had been made by military officals.
U.S. Army Rangers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers) were training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan), and there were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska) and Montana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana). Reliable western military sources say a U.S. contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north, with U.S. military advisors already in place in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#cite _note-44)

[newbitech]

and this

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25142

WAR ON TERROR
Was Clinton pro-Taliban?
Congressman charges Afghan extremists
were coddled, oversight efforts 'belittled'
Posted: October 31, 2001
1:00 am Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com



Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., (http://www.house.gov/rohrabacher/) says he was belittled, stonewalled and ridiculed for three years for asserting the congressional oversight role in the formulation of foreign policy toward Afghanistan during the last term of the Clinton administration.

"When I tell people that President Clinton supported the Taliban, they go berserk," he said. "But that is the truth."

[pacelli]

Boy that question pissed off Hillary big time. Gates looked like a little schoolboy trying to explain why his answers are the same as the person in front of him.

[newbitech]

Boy that question pissed off Hillary big time. Gates looked like a little schoolboy trying to explain why his answers are the same as the person in front of him.


the Clinton's never cared about the Taliban. UNOCAL wanted the Clinton state department to officially recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan so that UNOCAL could build its oil pipeline. The Clinton State Dept faced mounting pressure from Woman's Rights groups in the US because of the horrible treatment of women. This was AFTER the Clinton administration forced Sudan to evict OBL. OBL took up residence in the mountains between Afghan and Paki. The Taliban were pretty much insignificant at this time, but because of the oil pipeline, the pressure to hold OBL to account for the first attempt to bring down the towers died down.

OBL was desperate to get the attention of the world, and as usual the State Department was desperate to get their hands on lobbying money from UNOCAL who hired the like of henry kissenger and robert oakley to convince the administration to recognize the taliban. UNOCAL started pumping millions into building up the legitimacy of the taliban in afghan and paki.

Clinton didn't want to give the Taliban recognition because his wife was a hard core lobbyist for womens rights herself. Never mind that the Taliban were harboring OBL.

Its a pretty big back story there, but essentially, The Dog Clinton is pissed because her cheating husband had a chance to get to OBL way back, but he was too busy porking the intern. Everytime she is reminded about the quagmire in afghan, she is reminded that while she was fighting for womens rights as the first lady, her husband was pandering to special interest not the least of which the one between his legs.

Now the only political power she has to cling to is her afghan legacy and in her mind, the only way her life will mean anything at all is if she gets to live to see the day when OBL is finally brought to his knees, even if that means doing whatever it takes up to and including invading Paki.

Yeah she's pissed, and she is still trying to get over what happened 15 years ago.

[DirtMcGirt]

I have no clue how RP has the strength over the years to do what he does.

Thanks for posting the clip; it would be sweet to have Hillary's and RP's exchange then some clips of the MSM brushing under the rug the fact they were Saudis and how William jefferson clinton indirectly armed them...



Main Entry: pre·emp·tive
Pronunciation: \-ˈem(p)-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1855

1 a : of or relating to preemption b : having power to preempt
2 of a bid in bridge : higher than necessary and intended to shut out bids by the opponents
3 : giving a stockholder first option to purchase new stock in an amount proportionate to his existing holdings
4 : marked by the seizing of the initiative : initiated by oneself <a preemptive attack>


Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : variance, odds 3

— war·less \-ləs\ adjective

[newbitech]

YouTube - Karzai's War - Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqqSrqOM4lE&NR=1&feature=fvwp)

[PreDeadMan]

Ok, Hillary brought up something very interesting right at the end there and I wish I could have questioned her on it cause I would have nailed her to the wall.

She said that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden to the US after the 9/11 attacks.

I would have asked her if she knew the reason why they did not hand him over. The reason they did not hand him over as stated by the Taliban to US officials during a press conference (and nobody even knows if they could have handed him over) is because the US could not PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT BIN LADEN WAS BEHIND THE 9/11 ATTACKS!!

You can watch the press conference for yourself, it's in the first 10 minutes of the film "Loose Change: Final Cut"



Kudos I agree 100 % no evidence against Osama bin laden

[tuco.sargent]

bump and favorited on youtube

[Pauls' Revere]

Hey Hillery, would the Iranians have been justified to attack and occupy America when we held and refused to turn the Shah over to them for crimes against the Iranian people?

Beautiful...

[UnReconstructed]

So... Hillary drinks Deer Park water... interesting...