Ted Nugent out of control

keeponrockin

onelongsong wrote:

i don't mean to change the subject but it bothers me when i think of how many people clinton allowed to die. not just the ones that died in the bombings but the ones that died because he let terrorists operate and grow stronger without interuption or retribution. i feel the 9/11 deaths are on his hands. bush was only president for 8 months before the attack. if clinton really did pass this intelligence on; it only proves he knew; but did nothing.

According to that logic, Bush Sr. was responsible for the first bombing, as Clinton hadn't been in office for more than a couple months (I don't know when the president is sworn in).

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

then why do cold hard facts bother you so much? clinton did nothing. accept history. what you see as a deflection device is mearly a statement of recorded history. if; in fact; he did do something; please enlighten me.

But I thought the world changed after 9/11? Anyway, what does clinton's actions or lack of have to do with Nugent again?

Back to the subject at hand, I'm not going to judge a person who dodged the draft and went on to live a normal life or be a peace advocate... I do have a problem with Clinton dodging the draft since part of his job was commander in chief...

But I have a huge problem with draft dodgers who go onto wage optional, open-ended "wars" (Bush & Cheney) or people who champion the military and wars and claim they would have killed lots of people if they would have gone (Nugent), but when they were too cowardly to go when they were called. Those people I have no respect for.

Its Evolution Baby

onelongsong wrote:

the difference here is that everyone on this board is convinced that bush knew about the attacks.

I don't think Bush new in advance of the attacks. I also don't think it was anyone's fault for the attacks except the terrorists. The right blame Clinton for the attacks. I blame Al Queda who we should be fighting right now not Iraq.
Some other things that I'm sure you can blame Clinton for:

*Reagon supplied the Taliban and Saddam with weapons when they were fighting our enemies. Then they turn on us and are well armed.

*Bush Sr. had a chance to end Saddam's reign in the first Gulf War, but he was advised by DICK CHENEY that Iraq would become a quagmire if they removed Saddam at the time. What changed since then?

onelongsong

gue_barium wrote:

That little rant was about as factual as My Pet Goat.

then you don't know history?

gue_barium

onelongsong wrote:

then you don't know history?

Not your history, no.

onelongsong

keeponrockin wrote:

According to that logic, Bush Sr. was responsible for the first bombing, as Clinton hadn't been in office for more than a couple months (I don't know when the president is sworn in).

ok; i'll listen carefully. tell me how bush sr kept clinton from taking any action against the first WTC attack.

Jeanie

gue_barium wrote:

That little rant was about as factual as My Pet Goat.

This from the guy that thinks cancer is a virus? :rolleyes:

JamMastaE

there is nothing wrong dodging a draft into a fraudulent war!!! Vietnam was just as fake as Iraq!!!

i wouldn't go die over lies and be cannon fodder for the elite!!!!!!!

anyone who thinks that's "American" really has no clue.

Its Evolution Baby

onelongsong wrote:

ok; i'll listen carefully. tell me how bush sr kept clinton from taking any action against the first WTC attack.

Please go read up on the 1993 attacks like I have just done so I don't have to spell it out for you. Basically no one new the power of Osama or Al Queda until the mid 90's at which point Clinton started the first US Monitering of Terrorist activities a program that Bushie did not resume when he entered the White House.

Clinton didn't go after Al Queda in 1993 because they were 4 years old at the time and no one could have known what they were capable of. If you listen to Clinton not going after Al Queda then was a regret of his but it wasn't as if the Republicans were calling him out on it then. They were to busy worrying about who he was shacking up with.

It's sad to say but if more people then 6 had died in that attack then Clinton might have stepped up his efforts.

BTW while Bush started good on his war on terror, can you explain why we aren't heavily fighting Al Queda now? Why are we fighting Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11?

onelongsong

gue_barium wrote:

Not your history, no.

maybe i'm wrong. please tell me what actions clinton took to prevent future attacks after the first WTC attack.

onelongsong

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Please go read up on the 1993 attacks like I have just done so I don't have to spell it out for you. Basically no one new the power of Osama or Al Queda until the mid 90's at which point Clinton started the first US Monitering of Terrorist activities a program that Bushie did not resume when he entered the White House.

Clinton didn't go after Al Queda in 1993 because they were 4 years old at the time and no one could have known what they were capable of. If you listen to Clinton not going after Al Queda then was a regret of his but it wasn't as if the Republicans were calling him out on it then. They were to busy worrying about who he was shacking up with.

It's sad to say but if more people then 6 had died in that attack then Clinton might have stepped up his efforts.

BTW while Bush started good on his war on terror, can you explain why we aren't heavily fighting Al Queda now? Why are we fighting Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11?

so he let them grow strong; like i said. the OK city bombing was only 3 people and we prosecuted them. how was bin ladin any different? bin ladin was allowed to enter and leave the us at will after the '93 attack.
when saddam paid the families of the hijackers for the attack and proclaimed he would pay anyone that attacks the us; he became a part of the 9/11 attack. maybe after the fact but still part and partial. we also had refusal to allow inspections. not a us law but a nato law. saddam also comitted genocide by killing entire villages of people with WMD.
if we should've left saddam alone then we should've let hitler keep europe.

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

maybe i'm wrong. please tell me what actions clinton took to prevent future attacks after the first WTC attack.

Mohammed Salameh:Rented truck - tried and convicted, sentenced to life in prison
Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, & Eyad Ismail: Arrested as plotters of the attack, tried and convicted, sentenced to life in prison

In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing and were given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each.


Granted they didn't know the full scope or capabilities of Al Qaeda, but no one did at that time.... Besides, if they did, do you think that the republican congress would have let him invade the taliban controlled part of Afghanistan based on a believed, yet unproven link? I didn't think so either...

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

when saddam paid the families of the hijackers for the attack and proclaimed he would pay anyone that attacks the us; he became a part of the 9/11 attack. .

You've made that claim before, and it's entirely untrue. Saddam paid families of suicide bombers in Gaza, but DID NOT pay families of the 9/11 hijackers... Nice try though...

ledvedderman

I guess I'm missing the point here? Clinton dodges the draft? Bad. Bush avoids combat by pulling strings? Good?

Yet, Clinton is the pussy? His job wasn't to go over and fight. Yet W, serving in the Texas National Guard, pulls strings so he doesn't have to do his job?

Uncle Leo

ledvedderman wrote:

I guess I'm missing the point here? Clinton dodges the draft? Bad. Bush avoids combat by pulling strings? Good?

Yet, Clinton is the pussy? His job wasn't to go over and fight. Yet W, serving in the Texas National Guard, pulls strings so he doesn't have to do his job?

Anti war draft dodgers are pussies.

At least draft dodgers who are pro-war have the guts to let others go and fight.

I guess that's it.

ledvedderman

Uncle Leo wrote:

Anti war draft dodgers are pussies.

At least draft dodgers who are pro-war have the guts to let others go and fight.

I guess that's it.

Yeah, I'm starting to see it. It makes PERFECT sense.

onelongsong

blackredyellow wrote:

Granted they didn't know the full scope or capabilities of Al Qaeda, but no one did at that time.... Besides, if they did, do you think that the republican congress would have let him invade the taliban controlled part of Afghanistan based on a believed, yet unproven link? I didn't think so either...

but bush should have shot down 4 planes before they hit on 9/11 because he majically knew what their plans were?
you can't have it both ways.

baraka

Uncle Leo wrote:

Anti war draft dodgers are pussies.

At least draft dodgers who are pro-war have the guts to let others go and fight.

I guess that's it.

Ha ha, I think your humor sums it up nicely. I really comes down to consistency in beliefs. It makes sense that a draft dodger would disagree with war. It doesn't make sense for someone who is 'for' a particular war to expect others to fight it for them while they remain in the comfort of their own homes, by dodging it or pulling strings. It is no different than these 'family value' politicians that lead lives opposed to family values.

onelongsong

ledvedderman wrote:

I guess I'm missing the point here? Clinton dodges the draft? Bad. Bush avoids combat by pulling strings? Good?

Yet, Clinton is the pussy? His job wasn't to go over and fight. Yet W, serving in the Texas National Guard, pulls strings so he doesn't have to do his job?

masons are privledged. we control everything. we pull strings because we can. we've been around for thousands of years so get over it. dodging the draft and pulling strings is two different things.

blackredyellow

onelongsong wrote:

but bush should have shot down 4 planes before they hit on 9/11 because he majically knew what their plans were?
you can't have it both ways.

I never said that Bush should have shot down any planes so I don't know what you are talking about it... I don't want to have anything both ways.

Besides Bush and Clinton ignoring (or maybe just being unaware of) the scope and capabilities of Al Qeada, I'm not blaming anyone... It's you that is placing blame.

Besides maybe paying more attention to the region as far as intelligence capabilities (more arabic speakers and intelligence on the ground there), there isn't much we could have done to prevent 9/11.

Even after what happened, I don't agree with pre-emptive strikes, and giving up freedoms and liberties even if it would prevent another attack. I love this country for our liberty and openness... I'd rather risk being attacked by a couple dozen nutjobs, then give up our freedoms.

edit: and I see that you ignored the first part of the my quote that you used in response to you repeatedly saying clinton did NOTHING after the first WTC bombing... par for the course I guess....