Bin Laden & Stained Blue Dress

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]hedo wrote:

Here’s a rundown. The Clinton administration:

  1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen. Nothing.

  2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

  3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

  4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

  5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden in 1996. Well documented by State and the Sudanese.

  6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

  7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan and prevented them from doing so.

  8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bush did and took down the Taliban and dismemebred Al-Queda’a safe harbor.

  9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

  10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. This convinced Bin-Laden he had nothing to fear. He didn’t from CLinton.

  11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

  1. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist. The Clinton administration fought against the idea of arming the predator for 3 yrs.

Clinton was a pussy. The Democrats have been on the wrong side of every initiative to defeat terrorism. Defending Clinton on terrorism is comical. It’s also a very good reason why the US voter will never trust them in fighting terrorism or on issues of National Defense.

If Clinton had of acted boldly on any number of occasions he could have killed Bin-Laden. His law enforcement approach was a joke, and one you still call for. It led directly to the deaths of the wTC victims. Law enforcement is a tool, one of many tools. It was also a tool that Clinton also didn’t support.If if was that easy why don’t we just arrest all the terrorists?

[/quote]

Should be required reading for all the Clintonites.

Wonder what would happen if he’s Hillary advisor-in-chief, post 2008?

22

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

Do you think 9/11 ‘just happened’ or that it took quite some time to set the whole thing up? Where was Blowjob Billy? Were the Al Qaeda scum emboldened by our lack of a serious response? Where was Blowjob Billy?

BB had 8 years to beef up security, he knew these scum were out there, yet he did everything possible to handcuff law enforcement and cut the military budget. He should be put on trial for dereliction of duty, AT THE LEAST.

[/quote]

From your original post.

[quote]
The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.[/quote]

Why do you hold Clinton to a higher standard than Bush? Why do you blame Clinton for an attack that happened the first month he was in office but claim Bush can’t be held responsible for the 9/11 attacks when he was already in office for 8 months?

Is this your way of acknowledging that Clinton was an intelligent person while Bush, if not for his name, would be riding the short bus to school?

You’re a moran Headhunter.

People like you shouldn’t be allowed to pollute the human gene pool any more.

23

[quote]JeffR wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage?

Ouch.

orion, at LEAST try to acknowledge when you’ve been smoked.

Last time I checked, the WTC was on American soil.

JeffR

[/quote]

Hey effR0, did you notice how I smoked your boy?

24

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
hedo wrote:

Here’s a rundown. The Clinton administration:

  1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen. Nothing.

  2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

  3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

  4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

  5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden in 1996. Well documented by State and the Sudanese.

  6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

  7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan and prevented them from doing so.

  8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bush did and took down the Taliban and dismemebred Al-Queda’a safe harbor.

  9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

  10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. This convinced Bin-Laden he had nothing to fear. He didn’t from CLinton.

  11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

  1. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist. The Clinton administration fought against the idea of arming the predator for 3 yrs.

Clinton was a pussy. The Democrats have been on the wrong side of every initiative to defeat terrorism. Defending Clinton on terrorism is comical. It’s also a very good reason why the US voter will never trust them in fighting terrorism or on issues of National Defense.

If Clinton had of acted boldly on any number of occasions he could have killed Bin-Laden. His law enforcement approach was a joke, and one you still call for. It led directly to the deaths of the wTC victims. Law enforcement is a tool, one of many tools. It was also a tool that Clinton also didn’t support.If if was that easy why don’t we just arrest all the terrorists?

Should be required reading for all the Clintonites.

Wonder what would happen if he’s Hillary advisor-in-chief, post 2008?

[/quote]

Why? It’s inaccurate and misleading, as hedo knows.

25

[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
hedo wrote:

Here’s a rundown. The Clinton administration:

  1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen. Nothing.

  2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

  3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

  4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

  5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden in 1996. Well documented by State and the Sudanese.

  6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

  7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan and prevented them from doing so.

  8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bush did and took down the Taliban and dismemebred Al-Queda’a safe harbor.

  9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

  10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. This convinced Bin-Laden he had nothing to fear. He didn’t from CLinton.

  11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

  1. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist. The Clinton administration fought against the idea of arming the predator for 3 yrs.

Clinton was a pussy. The Democrats have been on the wrong side of every initiative to defeat terrorism. Defending Clinton on terrorism is comical. It’s also a very good reason why the US voter will never trust them in fighting terrorism or on issues of National Defense.

If Clinton had of acted boldly on any number of occasions he could have killed Bin-Laden. His law enforcement approach was a joke, and one you still call for. It led directly to the deaths of the wTC victims. Law enforcement is a tool, one of many tools. It was also a tool that Clinton also didn’t support.If if was that easy why don’t we just arrest all the terrorists?

Should be required reading for all the Clintonites.

Wonder what would happen if he’s Hillary advisor-in-chief, post 2008?

Why? It’s inaccurate and misleading, as hedo knows.[/quote]

Typical empty balthering from the party of misery. People don’t elect angry candidates or parties.

If CLinton had done anything they would be bragging about it. As it is they are just running against Bush…again.

26

[quote]hedo wrote:

Here’s a rundown. The Clinton administration:

  1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen. Nothing.
    [/quote]
    Follow up how? Until 1996 we didn’t see bin Laden as “an inspirer and organizer of new terror”. Yemeni extremists executed this attack that killed no americans.

[quote]2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.
[/quote]
The FBI did a great job on their WTC investigations, and the CIA contributed by networking intel with nsa on suspects. Prior to 1997 osama bin laden was an “extremist finacier” to the CIA. They were NOT trying to capture bin Laden in 1993. And Clinton did not “shut the CIA” out of anything. So obviously NOTHING was hamstrung. You made this up.
This is not to say they’re weren’t problems in the FBI and CIA, but this tidbit is JUST MADE UP.

Dumb.Stupid. He was tipped of by a Qatar government official. Clinton didn’t let KSM “slip” through his fingers. Jeebus.

Stupid. The Saudis arrested and executed the perpetrators. There is still no evidence that bin Laden ordered this attack, the attackers themselves claimed they were only “influenced” by bin Laden. You would have attacked the Saudis? Where are you getting this tripe?

This never happened. The sudanese offered to expel him to the Saudis which we encouraged.
There is no evidence (zero,none,zip) he was offered to the US. And again in '95 he was still considered a terrorist financier. You are lying when you say Clinton “did not accept”…Just lying. Or submit your evidence to the intel community.

Still making s–t up. He was never offered to us. We were negotiating for the Saudis to take him.

There were no “efforts”. The CIA had asked for approval for Tribals to be able to kill bin laden in the event his capture wasn’t possible. Clinton did approve this. In fact his policy was that he preferred him dead. Clinton did not give the same guidance to the CIA in regards to the northern alliance inserting more “ambiguous” language. In any event none of these plans came to fruition. Attacks were never staged by the tribals or northern alliance. So your ignoring the aspect that the northern alliance had no plans to kill bin laden(in conjunction with U.S.assets), or the other Clintonian plans to assassinate bin Laden. Badly misleading.

Clinton never got to decide on such “uses”. Plans to use special forces were shot down at lower levels. Though, even for boots on the ground operations, Clinton had given approval if we had recieved good intelligence. Or in his own words “I would have done it”. You are again blatantly lying or badly misinformed. I’d say both.

Finally, a mistake! 1 out of 9 good job hedo. Definitely something the admin regretted.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Clinton approved the plan presented him.

Uhh…notified Pakistan of a missle over their airspace. This is kind of diplomatically necessary. As you know, they border with a nuclear power, their enemy, India.

Again, as you know Clinton didn’t hesitate—intelligence did—perhaps because of the chinese embassy mistake? These decisions didn’t make it to the president, either Tenet or military would shoot them down.

There wasn’t an armed predator drone under clinton. And when the predator spotted him on its test runs, there would have been no assets. The armed predator was pushed onto the Bush admin after the sucess of drone’s footage. The predator remained grounded under Bush till 9/11, despite their ability to fly since April.

Clinton did something.
Republicans were against his iniatives.
Bush did nothing.
What’s worse?
And obviously law enforcement and intelligence, with military force as tool is the ONLY way to defeat terrorism. See Iraq for benefits of military only.

27

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

Here’s a rundown. The Clinton administration:

  1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen. Nothing.

Follow up how? Until 1996 we didn’t see bin Laden as “an inspirer and organizer of new terror”. Yemeni extremists executed this attack that killed no americans.
2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

The FBI did a great job on their WTC investigations, and the CIA contributed by networking intel with nsa on suspects. Prior to 1997 osama bin laden was an “extremist finacier” to the CIA. They were NOT trying to capture bin Laden in 1993. And Clinton did not “shut the CIA” out of anything. So obviously NOTHING was hamstrung. You made this up.
This is not to say they’re weren’t problems in the FBI and CIA, but this tidbit is JUST MADE UP.

  1. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

Dumb.Stupid. He was tipped of by a Qatar government official. Clinton didn’t let KSM “slip” through his fingers. Jeebus.

  1. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Stupid. The Saudis arrested and executed the perpetrators. There is still no evidence that bin Laden ordered this attack, the attackers themselves claimed they were only “influenced” by bin Laden. You would have attacked the Saudis? Where are you getting this tripe?

  1. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden in 1996. Well documented by State and the Sudanese.

This never happened. The sudanese offered to expel him to the Saudis which we encouraged.
There is no evidence (zero,none,zip) he was offered to the US. And again in '95 he was still considered a terrorist financier. You are lying when you say Clinton “did not accept”…Just lying. Or submit your evidence to the intel community.

  1. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

Still making s–t up. He was never offered to us. We were negotiating for the Saudis to take him.

  1. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan and prevented them from doing so.

There were no “efforts”. The CIA had asked for approval for Tribals to be able to kill bin laden in the event his capture wasn’t possible. Clinton did approve this. In fact his policy was that he preferred him dead. Clinton did not give the same guidance to the CIA in regards to the northern alliance inserting more “ambiguous” language. In any event none of these plans came to fruition. Attacks were never staged by the tribals or northern alliance. So your ignoring the aspect that the northern alliance had no plans to kill bin laden(in conjunction with U.S.assets), or the other Clintonian plans to assassinate bin Laden. Badly misleading.

  1. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bush did and took down the Taliban and dismemebred Al-Queda’a safe harbor.

Clinton never got to decide on such “uses”. Plans to use special forces were shot down at lower levels. Though, even for boots on the ground operations, Clinton had given approval if we had recieved good intelligence. Or in his own words “I would have done it”. You are again blatantly lying or badly misinformed. I’d say both.

  1. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

Finally, a mistake! 1 out of 9 good job hedo. Definitely something the admin regretted.

  1. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. This convinced Bin-Laden he had nothing to fear. He didn’t from CLinton.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Clinton approved the plan presented him.

  1. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

Uhh…notified Pakistan of a missle over their airspace. This is kind of diplomatically necessary. As you know, they border with a nuclear power, their enemy, India.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

Again, as you know Clinton didn’t hesitate—intelligence did—perhaps because of the chinese embassy mistake? These decisions didn’t make it to the president, either Tenet or military would shoot them down.

  1. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist. The Clinton administration fought against the idea of arming the predator for 3 yrs.

There wasn’t an armed predator drone under clinton. And when the predator spotted him on its test runs, there would have been no assets. The armed predator was pushed onto the Bush admin after the sucess of drone’s footage. The predator remained grounded under Bush till 9/11, despite their ability to fly since April.

Clinton was a pussy. The Democrats have been on the wrong side of every initiative to defeat terrorism. Defending Clinton on terrorism is comical. It’s also a very good reason why the US voter will never trust them in fighting terrorism or on issues of National Defense.
If Clinton had of acted boldly on any number of occasions he could have killed Bin-Laden. His law enforcement approach was a joke, and one you still call for. It led directly to the deaths of the wTC victims. Law enforcement is a tool, one of many tools. It was also a tool that Clinton also didn’t support.If if was that easy why don’t we just arrest all the terrorists?

Clinton did something.
Republicans were against his iniatives.
Bush did nothing.
What’s worse?
And obviously law enforcement and intelligence, with military force as tool is the ONLY way to defeat terrorism. See Iraq for benefits of military only.

[/quote]

You have no proven yourself to be nothing more then a pathetic liar. You simply make things up to make a point. Virtually every retort you made is made up. Nearly every instance I referenced came from the 9/11 commission that you calim is the gold standard. Have you no shame. No wonder the Democrats are a fringe party.

Your spin about Albright was already discredited and cited by numerous sources. She never denied it, idiot, she tried to rationalize it. What a fucking tool. Just about everyting else you mentioned is your own opinion or pulled off of Daily Kos. What’s the point about trying to kill them if your going to warn them first. Strong! Smart!

Your not even a worthy opponent to debate with but I will continue to mock you and point out your disinformation and lies.

28

[quote]hedo wrote:

Why? It’s inaccurate and misleading, as hedo knows.

Typical empty balthering from the party of misery. People don’t elect angry candidates or parties.

If CLinton had done anything they would be bragging about it. As it is they are just running against Bush…again.

[/quote]
Why wouldn’t you run against a person not willing to protect his country, not willing to protect our troops, not able to manage the military, and uncapable of strategic thought. Why do you hate america is all I want to know.

29

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage?
3000 deaths or so at WTC, pentagon, pa, seems pretty major, especially when your policy was a de-emphasis on terror.

I’d say 11,000 terrorist attacks last years is “major damage” with 56 more US civilians dead.

This on top of 175 in '03, 675 in '04.

Bush’s response has been to try and stop the 9/ll commission,fight a half-assed war in afghanistan, not finish it, underfund and under-man it, and give pakistan final say over what we can do. Then invaded a totally unrelated country, with no planning, under-man it, and then not take it seriously.

Meanwhile he still hasn’t tried and executed any of the 9/11 related prisoners.

In short he has no balls. And he coddles terrorists. And your party coddles him. NO OVERSIGHT by your congress.

But as awful as he’s been, as you’ve guys been, I mean literally one of the worst track records ever with inept idiots running the military so badly, people who don’t even understand what strategy is (Bush, Rummy, Franks…) and domestic disasters… even with all that you guys will probably still win.

Because you have an agnostic man, who loved his gay step-father as his own who goes out and divides the country over queers and christianity, then preys on their fears (lets bin laden win) to win by 50% + 1. You guys have Karl Rove.

But still 'tards like JeffR and headhunter will proudly proclaim "we raised terrorism 1100%!!! or "we lost 20,000 US troops to horrible injuries all in an effort to create more terrorists!!!“or “We totally f–ked up in Afghanistan, and tried to capture bin laden with just 8 CIA guys who asked for a batallion of rangers and instead got 40 man delta-force team” What did you democrats do??”

We’d have to fight another 30 years to lose 20K troops at this pace.

It’s way too easy for the CLinto-philes to blame Bush. But your guy had him dead to rights more times than can be counted, and he did nothing. NOTHING.

Once again - 8 years of Clinton v. 8 months of Bush. Clinton has blood on his hands - you are just too partisan to see it.

It only took 3 and half years to get 20k. (I wasn’t talking about deaths)

When did Clinton have a shot and not take it? Answer: never.

How’s about Bush? Men ON THE GROUND on his trail, asking for a battalion and NOT GETTING IT!!!

Big difference.

You’ve yet to explain how Bush deprioritizing, defunding terror in his first 8 months and not responding to intel’s frantic attempts at getting his attention, and republicans attempts at defanging Clinton’s anti-terror measures puts the “blood” on clinton’s hands.

Your guy didn’t do shit(and still doesn’t)

Our guy could have done more (and your guys tried to stop what he did.)

Again big difference.

Hang one of those responsible for 9/11 and then get back to me cowards.

Here’s a rundown. The Clinton administration:

  1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen. Nothing.

  2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

  3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

  4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

  5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden in 1996. Well documented by State and the Sudanese.

  6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

  7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan and prevented them from doing so.

  8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bush did and took down the Taliban and dismemebred Al-Queda’a safe harbor.

  9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

  10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. This convinced Bin-Laden he had nothing to fear. He didn’t from CLinton.

  11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

  1. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist. The Clinton administration fought against the idea of arming the predator for 3 yrs.

Clinton was a pussy. The Democrats have been on the wrong side of every initiative to defeat terrorism. Defending Clinton on terrorism is comical. It’s also a very good reason why the US voter will never trust them in fighting terrorism or on issues of National Defense.

If Clinton had of acted boldly on any number of occasions he could have killed Bin-Laden. His law enforcement approach was a joke, and one you still call for. It led directly to the deaths of the wTC victims. Law enforcement is a tool, one of many tools. It was also a tool that Clinton also didn’t support.If if was that easy why don’t we just arrest all the terrorists?

[/quote]

Dominant post.

No one with a functioning brainstem would defend clinton’s sorry ass on this issue.

I wanted to offer some insight into the limitations of domestic law enforcement as the primary shield against terrorists. It’s just too difficult to intercept all terrorist plots. The rats only have to be right once. Law enforcement has to be correct 100%. The rats know the law and how to manipulate it. They know how to fly under the radar.

I wanted to tell you just how SICK and ANGRY my friends and I are when we hear the democrats (and sympathetic Republicans) crowing over weakening of counter-terrorism techniques.

We were furious to hear harry reid proudly announcing that he’d “killed the Patriot Act.”

I can guarantee that the rats took notice.

I hope and believe that that appeasement and show of weakness will come home to haunt his party in November. I hope that the Republicans sympathetic to this nonsense are also punished.

The plots have to be stopped at the source or we are in serious trouble.

JeffR

30

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

Why? It’s inaccurate and misleading, as hedo knows.

Typical empty balthering from the party of misery. People don’t elect angry candidates or parties.

If CLinton had done anything they would be bragging about it. As it is they are just running against Bush…again.

Why wouldn’t you run against a person not willing to protect his country, not willing to protect our troops, not able to manage the military, and uncapable of strategic thought. Why do you hate america is all I want to know.

[/quote]

Wow. Brilliant. Insightful. Stong Smart.

This is kind of fun. Do you have a point to make. Your attacks are boring and tiresome and at this point anemic.

Have you nothing of substance to retort with 100. Perhaps a new idea. You know something like that. Bush derangement syndrom has already lost you two national elections and a midterms.

Try again.

31

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

Do you think 9/11 ‘just happened’ or that it took quite some time to set the whole thing up? Where was Blowjob Billy? Were the Al Qaeda scum emboldened by our lack of a serious response? Where was Blowjob Billy?

BB had 8 years to beef up security, he knew these scum were out there, yet he did everything possible to handcuff law enforcement and cut the military budget. He should be put on trial for dereliction of duty, AT THE LEAST.

From your original post.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

Why do you hold Clinton to a higher standard than Bush? Why do you blame Clinton for an attack that happened the first month he was in office but claim Bush can’t be held responsible for the 9/11 attacks when he was already in office for 8 months?

Is this your way of acknowledging that Clinton was an intelligent person while Bush, if not for his name, would be riding the short bus to school?

You’re a moran Headhunter.

People like you shouldn’t be allowed to pollute the human gene pool any more.[/quote]

The second quote is from Annie Coulter, bugwit. She wrote it to show Clinton’s lack of a response.

I swore to ignore your posts but here I am reading your vomit again. Wtf??

And would you finally learn to spell, if you’re going to post on an American site? If I have to read your asinine posts, at least fucking learn to spell, you walking advertisement for retroactive birth control.

32

We were attacked on our soil with Anthrax after 9/11 but I guess that was not important?

33

I’m so tired of this. Both parties are not doing a good job at anything. Democrats will never be tough on terrorism because they believe in a world where force should never be used. The republicans on the other hand may start out with the right intentions but will somehow fuck it up because they just don’t follow threw enough.

Both parties are pussies. Thats the problem. There is not a t-man among the whole lot of them.

TC for President!

34

[quote]five-twelve wrote:
I’m so tired of this. Both parties are not doing a good job at anything. Democrats will never be tough on terrorism because they believe in a world where force should never be used. The republicans on the other hand may start out with the right intentions but will somehow fuck it up because they just don’t follow threw enough.

Both parties are pussies. Thats the problem. There is not a t-man among the whole lot of them.

TC for President![/quote]

BINGO!

Our government is not setup to protect us from terrorism.

You are more likely to die in a car accident then to die in a terroist attack.

35

Because invading Iraq counts as fighting “terrorism”?

I’m not saying CLinton handled terrorism correctly.

But Bush certainly did not. He asked us to make no sacrifices even when we we ready to. And now that were screwed over, he only asks us that we sacrifice our dignity and pride as Americans, by questioning the geneva conventions, and the basic rights of the constitution in a war that has nothing to do with what we were ready to sacrifice for.