PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul To Clinton : We Were NEVER Attacked By An Afghani!




qwerty
12-03-2009, 04:21 AM
YouTube - Ron Paul To Clinton : We Were NEVER Attacked By An Afghani! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE_MLYvOX_o)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/aamg8/ron_paul_to_clinton_we_were_never_attacked_by_an/

Mitt Romneys sideburns
12-03-2009, 04:29 AM
Gates sounded somewhat reasonable.

Clinton didnt make a bit of sense. I dont think there was one coherent statement in her answer.

newbitech
12-03-2009, 05:22 AM
Oh Hillary, do you know Democrat Senator McDermont?

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

Who's lying now bitch?

And how about this little ditty, your lapdog husband had a chance to take out Bin Laden BEFORE 9/11 but didn't give the order. Why not?

Hillary Clinton, lying sack of shit trying to say that Dr. Paul's question is irrelevant. OF COURSE SHE SUPPORTS the Bush Doctrine! The Taliban refused the oil pipeline and the US Administration was planning on burying them under a carpet of bombs BEFORE 9/11. WE THREATENED THEM! Dumb bitch. Dr. Paul really ought to carry around a tablet with these well know and established facts before he lets another one of these ass kissers call him a liar again.



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)

ClayTrainor
12-03-2009, 07:27 AM
Hillary is one evil woman.

BenIsForRon
12-03-2009, 10:28 AM
Well, you gotta remember, when Al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11, that gave us carte blanche to attack any middle eastern country. We have no idea where they could be!

catdd
12-03-2009, 10:48 AM
It's a racket. One excuse to borrow/print more money is just as good as another. If it weren't Afghanistan it would be somewhere else.

Kylie
12-03-2009, 10:56 AM
Yep.

Eurasia, or Oceania. :D

georgiaboy
12-03-2009, 11:33 AM
Ron Paul's crown in heaven will be too big for him to wear.

Bruno
12-03-2009, 11:56 AM
Possibly the best part is that he wagged his pen at her when he said it. :)

ClayTrainor
12-03-2009, 11:59 AM
I'm a bit confused by "We Were NEVER Attacked By An Afghani!". Under the official story, Isn't Bin Laden an Afghani? Weren't a couple of the hijackers from Afghanistan?

what do you guys think of this comment, from youtube?


Although,I generally agree with Ron Paul,on this--it pains me to say, I think Clinton is right. The enemy who attacked us were shielded by the Taliban who let their training camps exist on Afgan soil. That's an act of war. My complaints is (1) how we went to war---we should have had a declaration of war and(2) the war strategy should've been limited to punishing the Talaban--in other words, no nation building. On this Rand Paul agrees with me and not his dad.But I still love Ron.

Can someone please clarify my confusion. No afghani's participated in 911?

klamath
12-03-2009, 12:05 PM
I got fed up yesterday with one of the Partisan newletters I have been recieving unasked for. They tried to slam Obama for going after al Qaeda not the taliban. I unsubscribed.

andrewh817
12-03-2009, 12:11 PM
It's funny to see the elitists stumble over their words, being careful that what they're saying has been approved.

ghengis86
12-03-2009, 12:12 PM
I'm a bit confused by "We Were NEVER Attacked By An Afghani!". Under the official story, Isn't Bin Laden an Afghani? Weren't a couple of the hijackers from Afghanistan?

what do you guys think of this comment, from youtube?



Can someone please clarify my confusion. No afghani's participated in 911?

Bin Ladin and the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's

Also, Afghanistan asked for an extradition request (which includes facts implying guilt) and the U.S. ignored it and then bombed them.

BrianHandeland
12-03-2009, 12:21 PM
I think when he says we were never attacked by an afghani he means we were not attacked by an fghanistan troop. Like if an american went to another country and blew up a building for some crazy cult he was in they wouldnt be tryin to wage war on america because an american did it. We shouldnt being getting inot a war with a country unless they are the ones who attack us. Not a minority of people in the country. And if it is infact true that afghanistan would protect al quida then we declare war on afghanistan , destroy them, and dont bother helping fix their country when were done.

catdd
12-03-2009, 12:53 PM
I think when he says we were never attacked by an afghani he means we were not attacked by an fghanistan troop. Like if an american went to another country and blew up a building for some crazy cult he was in they wouldnt be tryin to wage war on america because an american did it. We shouldnt being getting inot a war with a country unless they are the ones who attack us. Not a minority of people in the country. And if it is infact true that afghanistan would protect al quida then we declare war on afghanistan , destroy them, and dont bother helping fix their country when were done.

This is true, but none of the hijackers were Afghanis, they were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt. Bin Laden himself was a Saudi.

ProBlue33
12-03-2009, 02:49 PM
If members of the Taliban attacked America, Hilliary would be correct, but they never did. It was citizens of Saudi Arabia that supposedly attacked us. Ron Paul is correct once again, and Clinton is parroting the standard propaganda, that most Americans believe, even some on this board I see.

jack555
12-03-2009, 05:34 PM
I think Hillaries point was that the government on Afghanistan was supporting/aiding the people attacking us. I don't know enought about it to say if this is true or not.


One thing I would like to point out is how ridiculous it is for the conversation to have ended there. If they are only allowed 3 minutes or so they can never have a real conversation/debate. It is absolutely ridiculous. Ron Paul needed to respond but could not.

dannno
12-03-2009, 05:47 PM
This is true, but none of the hijackers were Afghanis, they were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt. Bin Laden himself was a Saudi.

This.

LibForestPaul
12-03-2009, 05:58 PM
Did anyone notice the facial expressions, on the whole room...especially gates (please don't ask me these questions)

nbruno322
12-03-2009, 07:21 PM
Did anyone notice the facial expressions, on the whole room...especially gates (please don't ask me these questions)


Gates sure did squirm. His former boss and ex-CIA agent Ray McGovern has called Gates an "unprincipled chameleon".

I hope Paul gets a chance to question the foreign policy establishment more often.

amy31416
12-03-2009, 07:26 PM
I think Hillaries point was that the government on Afghanistan was supporting/aiding the people attacking us. I don't know enought about it to say if this is true or not.


One thing I would like to point out is how ridiculous it is for the conversation to have ended there. If they are only allowed 3 minutes or so they can never have a real conversation/debate. It is absolutely ridiculous. Ron Paul needed to respond but could not.

The Saudi government was far more complicit in funding/supporting the attacks than Afghanistan.

Is it even relevant anymore to point out that we essentially let Osama bin Laden go at Tora Bora and he was never a real target?

klamath
12-03-2009, 07:58 PM
The Afganistan war was won a long time ago but after eight years of another corrupt government the locals are backing anybody but the national government.

nobody's_hero
12-03-2009, 08:44 PM
If members of the Taliban attacked America, Hilliary would be correct, but they never did. It was citizens of Saudi Arabia that supposedly attacked us. Ron Paul is correct once again, and Clinton is parroting the standard propaganda, that most Americans believe, even some on this board I see.

She wasn't just parroting propaganda, she was re-writing history (although sometimes those can be the same). Little did she know that Ron Paul would serve as an instant fact-check to bust her bubble.

jonahtrainer
12-03-2009, 08:52 PM
She wasn't just parroting propaganda, she was re-writing history (although sometimes those can be the same). Little did she know that Ron Paul would serve as an instant fact-check to bust her bubble.

You could see them squirm like the worms they are.

newbitech
12-03-2009, 09:50 PM
I think Hillaries point was that the government on Afghanistan was supporting/aiding the people attacking us. I don't know enought about it to say if this is true or not.


One thing I would like to point out is how ridiculous it is for the conversation to have ended there. If they are only allowed 3 minutes or so they can never have a real conversation/debate. It is absolutely ridiculous. Ron Paul needed to respond but could not.

The Taliban were not recognized as the Afghan government. It was Hillary Clinton who was instrumental in blocking the UNOCAL Lobby from convincing the Clinton State Department from recognizing the Taliban. UNOCAL needed the recognition in order to enter into contract with the Taliban. Never happened. And this was AFTER the Clinton Regime forced Sudan to exile OBL. . The Taliban was a religious tribe with very little influence until UNOCAL began financing them in order to prop up a puppet regime to be recognized by the Clinton State Department.

She did not have a point because for the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden as a political prisoner, the Taliban would first have to be recognized by the US State Department, which at HILLARY'S own behest her husband did not do for 8 years while he was in office. In fact the US nor the UN has EVER recognized the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan. Further even the ISLAMIC coalition the Organization of Islamic Conference left the seat vacant after the Taliban conquered Kabul in 1996. At the time of the US invasion of Afghan, only the Paki government recognized the Taliban in any official capacity.

So no, fact is Afghanistan or its "government" NEVER attacked the US. If anyone attacked the US by way of Afghan proxy it was Pakistan, since Pakistan obviously funds the Taliban being the only nation to formally recognize its existence.

Hillary has absolutely no basis for her claim, and what is worse, she is lying through her teeth because she knows first hand the power struggle that went on in the Clinton administration between the UNOCAL lobby and the Madeline Albright led woman's rights lobby. Noticably what is absent in that debate as well as the current debate is WHY DID the Clinton admin not take out OBL when they have the chance? Likely reason, they needed to get permission from Pakistan to enter Pakistan claimed territory, and Pakistan refused unless the US would help hold back the rampaging US funded Mujaheddin who were interested in turning there weapons on their ancient rivals on the Paki/Afghan border. Thusly, the Taliban was created to solve a US/Paki common problem.

Unfortunately, the US sorely and grossly overlooked the impact of one OBL and his Saudi influence. His alliance with the Taliban and perceived invincibility in the devout muslim world encouraged the Taliban to break the chains of their masters in Paki and to claim Afghan as their own. the Taliban routed the Mujaheddin at Kabul and began the take over of the country. With the dog off the leash, former Mujaheddin went back to their homelands, and those who stayed converted to the radical form of the Islamic faith introduced by "the students".

Hillary lies, and she knows that the American people won't do their research. Hell, the American people won't even bother to remember what when on in the world a mere 12 years ago because back then, it was let the good times roll baby. Well, some of us paid attention to current events and remember. And hopefully, the ones who weren't old enough to rememeber will use their shiny new resource called the internet and LOOK IT UP. I suspect they are.

tnvoter
12-03-2009, 11:14 PM
ron paul's crown in heaven will be too big for him to wear.

^^^^^^

.

Liberty Star
12-03-2009, 11:19 PM
That hillary is so smart and can sift through BS so well:

Quote:

CNN.com - Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote

- Apr 21, 2004Apr 21, 2004 ... Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution ... Clinton, the former first lady, voted in favor of the Iraq war ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/


Hillary Clinton: Iraq War Vote a Mistake

For the first time since she voted to authorize the Iraq war three years ago, 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is now saying that vote was a ...
archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/.../195654.shtml


But she is definitely right this time on her Afghani vote.

YouTube - Hillary Clinton Iraq War Vote Speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0)

catdd
12-04-2009, 08:37 AM
The Taliban were not recognized as the Afghan government. It was Hillary Clinton who was instrumental in blocking the UNOCAL Lobby from convincing the Clinton State Department from recognizing the Taliban. UNOCAL needed the recognition in order to enter into contract with the Taliban. Never happened. And this was AFTER the Clinton Regime forced Sudan to exile OBL. . The Taliban was a religious tribe with very little influence until UNOCAL began financing them in order to prop up a puppet regime to be recognized by the Clinton State Department.

She did not have a point because for the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden as a political prisoner, the Taliban would first have to be recognized by the US State Department, which at HILLARY'S own behest her husband did not do for 8 years while he was in office. In fact the US nor the UN has EVER recognized the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan. Further even the ISLAMIC coalition the Organization of Islamic Conference left the seat vacant after the Taliban conquered Kabul in 1996. At the time of the US invasion of Afghan, only the Paki government recognized the Taliban in any official capacity.


So no, fact is Afghanistan or its "government" NEVER attacked the US. If anyone attacked the US by way of Afghan proxy it was Pakistan, since Pakistan obviously funds the Taliban being the only nation to formally recognize its existence.

Hillary has absolutely no basis for her claim, and what is worse, she is lying through her teeth because she knows first hand the power struggle that went on in the Clinton administration between the UNOCAL lobby and the Madeline Albright led woman's rights lobby. Noticably what is absent in that debate as well as the current debate is WHY DID the Clinton admin not take out OBL when they have the chance? Likely reason, they needed to get permission from Pakistan to enter Pakistan claimed territory, and Pakistan refused unless the US would help hold back the rampaging US funded Mujaheddin who were interested in turning there weapons on their ancient rivals on the Paki/Afghan border. Thusly, the Taliban was created to solve a US/Paki common problem.

Unfortunately, the US sorely and grossly overlooked the impact of one OBL and his Saudi influence. His alliance with the Taliban and perceived invincibility in the devout muslim world encouraged the Taliban to break the chains of their masters in Paki and to claim Afghan as their own. the Taliban routed the Mujaheddin at Kabul and began the take over of the country. With the dog off the leash, former Mujaheddin went back to their homelands, and those who stayed converted to the radical form of the Islamic faith introduced by "the students".

Hillary lies, and she knows that the American people won't do their research. Hell, the American people won't even bother to remember what when on in the world a mere 12 years ago because back then, it was let the good times roll baby. Well, some of us paid attention to current events and remember. And hopefully, the ones who weren't old enough to rememeber will use their shiny new resource called the internet and LOOK IT UP. I suspect they are.


Yes, but the libbies still think of the Clinton era as utopia not realizing that most of the blowback we've experienced was inspired during that time.

raiha
12-04-2009, 03:06 PM
Yes i enjoyed the pen-wiggling too! :D
What a wonderful human being this man is...Just goes to show, the human race DOES have potential.

He harrassed those megalomaniac liars really well...the stress lines increased! :cool: