»Clinton failed in protecting the US«
|
|||
 sept 11th was being planned since 1996 and even earlier seems long enough to pick up on it to me... posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqClinton failed in protecting the US |
|
|||
|
Goes much beyond that. The plotting perhaps has been historically going on and will go on. But it is likely that they would not have been able to carry out those plans against a competent leader like Clinton. Not just a feeling or opinion, but Clinton's 8 year track record proves that. Thinking beyond party politics... If a leader, from any party, wins a true respect and international alliance, the terrorists would get much less outside support to go on further. posted by blueSky |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: If a leader, from any party, wins a true respect Bush is a double-war president and he cannot even get a broad coalition in his own country. A split personality. Quote: are we repeating ourselves in-my-opinion.org… posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 we've already had this discussion but lets continue...but first... bluesky seriously! Quote: But it is likely that they would not have been able to carry out those plans against a competent leader like Clinton what? it's called the WTC got attack the first time in 93', people died...did clinton protect us from that? the FACT of the matter is they were trying to take the tower down in 93' and failed. That does not mean clinton did a better job of protection because the terrorist plan failed...true true, but how do you defend something like that? you quite possibly can't, but you can do something after the fact in hopes that it doesn't happen again, and where clinton failed in doing that very thing bush has not posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: but you can do something after the fact in hopes that it doesn't happen again, and where clinton failed in doing that very thing bush has not Where did Clinton fail? Where exactly? Clinton bombed Iraq in 1993 as a revenge. I want also to add, that 1993 was pre-internet era, thus whatever you are told cannot compare to the vast amount of data nowadays. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
as i was looking up pages for the first WTC bombing i read this quote from a witness "It felt like an airplane hit the building," said Bruce Pomper, a 34-year-old broker.  kinda spooky eh?
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: kinda spooky eh? No, only if he was a time traveller. How in the world could he possibly know how it is when a plane hits a building? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Quote: kinda spooky eh? No, only if he was a time traveller. How in the world could he possibly know how it is when a plane hits a building? true but just the fact that that was used as an example is weird posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
with this statement Quote: Where did Clinton fail? Where exactly? Clinton bombed Iraq in 1993 as a revenge. we would be talking about how the almighty clinton attacked the wrong place...i don't hear anyone bringing this up, only when bush did it hmm so clinton thinks the first bombers were with iraq, interesting...so during his whole 8 years as president the information was still the same...no reconstructing of the intelligence community, like bush has, no homeland security, like bush has, no attacking the correct place(afghanistan)like bush has and there ends up being another attack 8 months after bush's entering office...if clinton had done any of these things the chances of attacking might have been less...yet clinton is our almighty savior? 
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn...love the new avatar..." i are pant"...genius  
when we look at the reality...every president of the US has failed to protect its citizins from terror...from timothy mcveigh...the uss cole boming...the US embassy bombings in...kenya?...nairobi?...i cant remember where it was... and many other examples throughout the past more so in britain with the IRA and loyalist groups...hundreds of attacks over many years i don't think the argument stands that we negotiated with x...so we can negotiate with y...different groups have differing goals but islamic fundamentalism wants nothing more than the destruction of the western way of life...there can be no compromise for them...and as such there can be none for us...it must be tackled with the "fight fire with fire" mentality...there is no other feasable option...the thought of taming down the stance on terror may well help garner much needed support from mainstream muslims...but it will do nothing to stop the ingrained hatred of a civilisation that doesnt live by the strict code of fundamentalist islam...and so will not stop those who simply believe that western culture is immoral and in need of cleansing how do we tackle this problem...many of you say that what bush is doing is only compounding these problems... the fact is that nothing clinton did helped to prevent this sentiment in extremist islam either it may be that our values of free speech have even led to the spread of islamic fundamentalism...the exploit our freedoms to spread the work that condemns those same freedoms... look at abu hamza ♣ for instance...he "inspired" the shoe bomber richard reid... he condones that the sept 11th attacks...he asked young muslims to "rise up and slaughter the infidels in their own homes" and he did all this from finsbury park mosque in England because our values of free speech allowed him to do so...so are we partly responsible for the spread of islamic extremism? posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: IF the internet were as abundant ... we would be talking about how the almighty clinton attacked the wrong place Yes, I mention this at IMO → Ronald Reagan is dead Internet can be sooo unfair. First was democracy, the newspaper democracy, then radio democracy, then TV democracy and now internet democracy. What's next? Mind checking democracy? Quote: no reconstructing of the intelligence community Clinton wanted to, Dick Cheney opposed. Quote: no attacking the correct place Bush could also not attack Afghanistan. Only after 9/11. Clinton couldn't bomb the Usama tent because a Saudi prince was there. Usama had the "luck of a bad man". Quote: if clinton had done any of these things the chances of attacking might have been less You see *SNAP* wrong conclusions. You have to state: If Clinton had done things Bush didn't do while reading childrens' books. Heloooo! Bush failed not Clinton. Don't accuse previous presidents for Bush's Pearl Harbour. Quote: So despite of the facts (Clinton protected US for 8 years, Bush couldn't do it for 8 months) something in the mind goes *SNAP* and the misconclusion is made, that "poor uncle Bush" couldn't but fail, because "Previous presidents didn't do enough". ... as if I could read your mind. MOREOVER you are argueing with a fantasy future. Who says that Bush's actions make the US safer? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the anomaly: how come there has been no attacks since sept 11th...despite the fact that osama bin laden has released many videos since claiming that more large scale attacks are coming Kerry answered this in the second debate. AUDIENCE: Senator Kerry, we have been fortunate that there have been no further terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Why do you think this is?
And if elected, what will you do to assure our safety? KERRY: ... I've asked in my security briefings why that is, and I can't go into all the answers, et cetera, but let me say this to you. This president and his administration have told you and all of us ... it's not a question of if, it's a question of when... Between the World Trade Center bombing in, what was it, 1993 or so, and the next time was five years, seven years. These people wait. They'll plan. They plot. ... In order to have the best intelligence in the world to know who the terrorists are and where they are and what they're plotting, you've got to have the best cooperation you've ever had in the world. ... And I'm going to put in place a better homeland security effort. Look, 95 percent of our containers coming into this country are not inspected today. When you get on an airplane, your bag is X- rayed, but the cargo hold isn't X-rayed. Do you feel safer? This president in the last debate said, "Well, that would be a big tax gap if we did that." Ladies and gentlemen, it's HIS tax plan. He chose a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans over getting that equipment out into the homeland as fast as possible. We have bridges and tunnels that aren't being secured, chemical plants, nuclear plants that aren't secured, hospitals that are overcrowded with their emergency rooms. If we had a disaster today, could they handle it? This president chose a tax cut over homeland security. Wrong choice. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 Register Log in |
The time now is 10 January 2009, 00:43 php B.B. |