»Clinton failed in protecting the US«
|
|||
 i agree that many of the efforts appear to be mistargeted but then this is only the stuff the news decides to report another point is this can you imagine how little would have been said if the sept 11th hijackers had been stopped.it would have been a case of a few men get caught boarding planes with carpet cutters...although they threatened with the use of bombs there was no evidence that they even had bombs...it was simply a tactic to make passengers obey them... the inteligence services would have gotten no praise for stopping such potentially huge attacks cause they wouldnt have known they would be so devastating... and whats really ironic is that if they found out the truth and reported it...the lefties would have accused them of lieing and scaremongering anyway posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqClinton failed in protecting the US |
|
|||
 Quote: and whats really ironic is that if they found out the truth and reported it Oh, so now it's the lefties who cannot protect the country? May I remind you that Bush was playing golf, while Dick Clarke was getting more and more frustrated? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: Billd Clinton protected the US for 8 years 1) who is Billd Clinton? 2) he didn't actually stand on guard on every border, did he? that nothing terrible happened before doesn't necessarily mean it's because he was the President. might be other reasons. but it's going offtopic, doesn't it?  Quote: but then this is only the stuff the news decides to report yep, I agree. the news concentrate on what they think could be interesting to people, and since 9/11 words like airport, airplane plus "security" catch everybody's eye. I don't think they are that stupid (or I very much hope they are not) to concentrate their efforts on airways only. The experience of other countries (including Russia) can show what other ways could be. And the idea with a limousin is vvvvery good. I wonder if the terrorist could try it here - a big black expensive car with let's say diplomatic numbers. Would work very well. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the whole of the sept 11th attacks were planned under clintons reign...fail to see how that is "protecting" anybody he was an appeaser...in other words...a coward...and a lieing coward at that but everybody loved cause he could play the sax posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
is it not beginning to be the case in america that if the republican administration informs the public of a potential threat that they are now being accused of over exaggerating the situation. so can you imagine the reaction from the democrats if out of the blue...the republicans told america that a terrorist group that no-one had much heard of then had jsut been stopped as they were about to fly planes into the world trade centre and the pentagon im sure the democrats would be saying that the republicans were over exaggerating and scaremongering and generally lieing for some political leverage to have a more aggresive foreign policy posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Quote: the whole of the sept 11th attacks were planned under clintons reign...fail to see how that is "protecting" anybody
End of story. You certainly cannot hold it against Clinton, that he didn't capture Bin Laden. Bush didn't capture him with an intense international military expenditure. posted by knn |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||
|
Quote: 2) he didn't actually stand on guard on every border, did he? that nothing terrible happened before doesn't necessarily mean it's because he was the President. might be other reasons. Dick Clarke ♣ told the very difference between Clinton and Bush: While Clinton treated the war against Al Quaeda as priority 1, Bush didn't even want to listen. Instead, he wanted to attack Iraq on the first day in office. The examples of expert voices against Bush's handling of the threat are countless. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
still doesnt change the fact that it was clinton who missed the build up of the threat. and why cant we hold it against clinton that he didn't stop bin laden...if he had then sept 11th would never have been planned or executed you say he bombed countries...one of those countries was iraq...you say these bombings were to protect america yet on the other hand you say that iraq was not involved in terrorism and wasnt the main threat you also seem to forget entirely the fact that bush's government took on the taliban and al queda in their main stronghold of afghanistan... are the democrats trying to make issues out of non issues...ie: bush's whereabouts during vietnam...whereas the republicans brought up issues of trust and integrity of clinton when he was in office on a lighter note...you say bush WANTED to bomb iraq on his first day in office...im pretty sure HE ACTUALLY DID BOMB IRAQ ON HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE before sept 11th hardly anybody had heard of al queda...they were responsible for bombings of embassays in far away lands that most americans couldnt care less about...the only thing they done on american soil was a rather rubbish attempt at bombing the WTC... as for listening to intelligence services about al queda...is this the same intelligence services that the lefties slate as useless over there "flawed" intelligence and blah blah blah lets all hate bush cause its cool clinton considered al queda as the no1 priority...how are we supposed to believe this when it appears he did very little to stop them...am occasional bombing is hardly effective is it...where as bush takes the fight to the terrorists in the countries that harbour them yet you say he does nothing...what nonsense posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
iraq had nothing to do with terrorism?...no...the reports published said that iraq had nothing to do with sept 11th again the points come up iraq paid terrorists families "compensation" which to all intents and purposes is rewarding suicide bombers he paid for the training of al queda members in explosives and weapons use...people including mohammed atta... oh...and if bush if failing to protect america...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... posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: he paid for the training of al queda members in explosives and weapons use...people including mohammed atta... That was Pakistan. All the things you mention that you tell that Bush is doing are done AFTER Bush has failed. They don't count. Quote: clinton considered al queda as the no1 priority...how are we supposed to believe this when it appears he did very little to stop them You are kind of reverting the burden of proof here. Clinton protected the US for 8 years. Bush failed after 8 months. How can you say Clinton didn't do enough? And you take Bush's wars AFTER he failed as a proof that he is doing enough.  Quote: are the democrats trying to make issues out of non issues...ie: bush's whereabouts during vietnam...whereas the republicans brought up issues of trust and integrity of clinton when he was in office 1) It's not about wherabouts, it's about illegally using Bush's father's connections to spare military service. That _is_ clearly an issue. A blowjob is a no-issue. 2) And that's not about Clinton, that's about a comparison between Kerry and Bush. 3) Noone's gonna impeach Bush about that. 4) "issues of trust and integrity"? Excuse me? Bush spent 15$ million for the 9/11 commission (after he was _forced_ by 9/11 widows to start such a commission). The Republicans spent _voluntarily_ 70$ million for the "Monica Lewinsky commission". It was never about trust and integrity. It was to destroy Clinton. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: 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 Probably just another proof how exaggerated Bush's claims are about the danger from al Quaeda. May I remind you of the exaggerated "mushroom cloud speech" regarding Iraq. Bush is maybe trying to keep the people in fear. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
theres no winning with you lefties is there... and you just don't get it do you...SEPT 11TH WAS PLANNED WHILE CLINTON WAS IN CHARGE...CLINTON if clinton had done what bush is doing now...there would have been no attacks on sept 11th...why cause thousands of al quada members have been killed by bush's war on terror...assets ans bank accounts that were used to fund the sept 11th attacks have been frozen and seized... but as usual with you lot...its damned if you do and damned if you don't...for no other reason than to promote a lefty agenda...the same agenda that has fucked up everything in my country...the same lefty agenda that allows rapists out to win 7 million bucks on the lottery...the same lefty agenda that locks up tony martin for defending his own property against burglers...the same lefty agenda that publishes false pictures of british soldiers abusing prisoners that costs the lives of those same brave soldiers...the same lefty agenda that would take the word of people who were found in afghanistan with guns in there hands and were fighting with the taliban...the same lefty agenda that gives asylum to plane hijackers and refuge to the same taliban regime that we are still technically at war with this is obviously the kind of molly coddling...nanny state interfering shite that you seem to be content with putting up with...but im not i say bomb these twisted fucking maniacs off the face of the planet...and if people are stupid enough to gove them refuge then they can burn as well and the rest that don't get killed can live in their hell hole countries ot rot in jail... posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
bush implements a very tough policy on homeland security for america... this is criticised for "exagerrating the threat" posed by al queda yet before al queda carried out sept 11th attacks bush wasnt doing enough how is it possible to exagerate the threat of people who will fly planes into buildings and blow up trains and nightclubs and whatever else they can destroy so by your reckoning...bush should ease up the security in america...what if there was an attack after that...would you then say that he should never have dropped his guard or even what if despite the security measures which are a response to an "exageratted threat"...an attack still happens...will you then say that the measures taken were not enough yes...you will...because your a lefty and you will look for anything to take a dig at the republicans...even if it is as desperate as 1960's war records...as opposed to getting a blow job in the oval office this is fun...knn...you rock  posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: and you just don't get it do you...SEPT 11TH WAS PLANNED WHILE CLINTON WAS IN CHARGE...CLINTON So what? They planned it under George Bush (the father) already. And I surely wouldn't blame him for 9/11. Quote: so by your reckoning...bush should ease up the security in america We are talking about pre-911. You always bring up this post-911 thing. That is a completely different story, whether Bush behaves OK now. I am talking about his responsibility for 9/11. Quote: even if it is as desperate as 1960's war records...as opposed to getting a blow job in the oval office Clinton's impeachment was on the basis of perjury and obstruction of justice. Not about oral sex. Noone died in that scandal, wheras Bush's actions have killed thousands. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
heh, I need to mention that Ashcroft decided to cut funding to counter terrorism in the justice department on Sept. 10, 2001. I'm sure it was a top priority t.t posted by mr man |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 1 December 2008, 19:32 php B.B. |