honestly, i could care less about Clinton. And the Right isn;t saying this is a shared responsibility. they are saying it was clinton's fault, and that Dubya inherited his mistakes.
But if we want to start going back, let's look at who made osama the hero he is to muslims.
It was during the Reagan years (and we all know who his VP was) that Bin Laden really established himself as a leader. no George Bush Sr. (both as CIA director and VP), no bin laden.
Very possibly the silliest thing I've heard in awhile. Bin Laden became a Muslim hero when he stood up against Soviet Aggression. He became heavily anti-American when the USA stood up for Kuwait against the Hussein invasion.
To say no George Bush Sr. No Bin Laden is something that has the factual basis of an elementary student's thoughts
On the Clinton/Bush thing - I don't recall anyone in the Bush admin. quoted as saying it was all Clinton's fault and they're just picking up the pieces. If I'm wrong, give me the quotes - I'd be happy to admit I'm mistaken
You'd call me on the Right I'm sure, but I don't necessarily view things this way.
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
well thats not entirely true. el queda is in iraq hence the name "el queda in iraq"
PNAC recommended the invasion of Iraq/removal of Hussein a few years BEFORE 9-11, and after that, it was pretty easy to convince the nation to go to war. All he had to do was present some sketchy intelligence in a certain light.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Very possibly the silliest thing I've heard in awhile. Bin Laden became a Muslim hero when he stood up against Soviet Aggression. He became heavily anti-American when the USA stood up for Kuwait against the Hussein invasion.
To say no George Bush Sr. No Bin Laden is something that has the factual basis of an elementary student's thoughts
On the Clinton/Bush thing - I don't recall anyone in the Bush admin. quoted as saying it was all Clinton's fault and they're just picking up the pieces. If I'm wrong, give me the quotes - I'd be happy to admit I'm mistaken
You'd call me on the Right I'm sure, but I don't necessarily view things this way.
how do you think he was able to stand up against the soviets? using his dad's dumptrucks?
please...
and i didn;t say the Administration is saying its Clinton's fault. This stuff is coming from the Right (media mostly). Once they plant the seed, and they have, all they need is FOX news to water it (which they have).
So, you are against a president having sex of any kind, huh? That's all you got from the GOP is that? Sorry getting a blow job is against your religious morals....but Clinton did way more for this country and for the better of this country than Bush has ever even thought about. Bush was way too focused on finishing his daddy's war in Iraq to ever try and find Bin laden or get the terrorist who attacked us.
Cmon dude. Are you serious? I'm republican but I am no fucking religious zealot - not even close - I did'nt want Clinton impeached over getting a damn blowjob - I thought that was wrong - But I do have a problem with getting a blowjob deterring his focus - and using military action as a deterrent from him getting a blowjob - pretty fucked up shit
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
Cmon dude. Are you serious? I'm republican but I am no fucking religious zealot - not even close - I did'nt want Clinton impeached over getting a damn blowjob - I thought that was wrong - But I do have a problem with getting a blowjob deterring his focus - and using military action as a deterrent from him getting a blowjob - pretty fucked up shit
funny how republicans hate so called conspiracy thoeries, yet are perfectly capable of thinking that clinton bombed shit to take the focus off of a blowjob. that's an absurd statement.
how do you think he was able to stand up against the soviets? using his dad's dumptrucks?
please...
and i didn;t say the Administration is saying its Clinton's fault. This stuff is coming from the Right (media mostly). Once they plant the seed, and they have, all they need is FOX news to water it (which they have).
Bryan, America assisted the Afghans to counter the Russian power, but Bin Laden did not fight there BECAUSE he heard America was going to help.
You said the " Right " , I assumed you meant the administration. If you were speaking of the Media, I did not understand your point - sorry
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
hey republicans lets make this an issue so that we can take the focus off how retarded our president is and how the middle east wants to blow us out of the fucking water!!! yay!!! perfect idea
funny how republicans hate so called conspiracy thoeries, yet are perfectly capable of thinking that clinton bombed shit to take the focus off of a blowjob. that's an absurd statement.
Republicans don't hate consipiracy theories - Just BS ones that actually try to insinuate that George Bush blew up the Towers, and oh yeah, the Levees in New Orleans too - That my friend is absurd shit
Clinton launching a few cruise missles into un-occupied territories in the desert to throw the media off of his "extra-activities" is not very believable, it is quite politically savvy, to say the least
Apples & Oranges
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
Bryan, America assisted the Afghans to counter the Russian power, but Bin Laden did not fight there BECAUSE he heard America was going to help.
You said the " Right " , I assumed you meant the administration. If you were speaking of the Media, I did not understand your point - sorry
my fault for not clarifying that.
but are you saying that without our help, bin laden would have suceeded against the Soviets? no way. so, with our government's help, bin laden become a hero in the muslim world. doesn't sound "silly" to me.
Cmon dude. Are you serious? I'm republican but I am no fucking religious zealot - not even close - I did'nt want Clinton impeached over getting a damn blowjob - I thought that was wrong - But I do have a problem with getting a blowjob deterring his focus - and using military action as a deterrent from him getting a blowjob - pretty fucked up shit
Getting a blow job didn't deter his focus....the ridiculous GOD impeachment is what you are referring to.....which obviously also didn't deter anything because he was still trying to combat Al-Qaeda....back when the repubs accused him of Wag the Dog.
Republicans don't hate consipiracy theories - Just BS ones that actually try to insinuate that George Bush blew up the Towers, and oh yeah, the Levees in New Orleans too - That my friend is absurd shit
Clinton launching a few cruise missles into un-occupied territories in the desert to throw the media off of his "extra-activities" is not very believable, it is quite politically savvy, to say the least
Apples & Oranges
In your example, I think both apples and oranges are bull shit.
This is a complete lie, but you certainly have your talking points down. Clinton is absolutely right...the same people who stopped him from focusing on Bin Ladin are now trying to paint him as incompetent when it came to defending our country from terror. Prior to Clinton, we had Bush Sr., a man perhaps more single handedly responsible for terrorism thoughout the world than any other power broker since the Roman Empire.
Hate to break it to you, but 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and was facilitated by the Republican's obsession with Clinton's penis. Even still...Bush had the full power of the US government at his disposal for 8 months before 9/11, and was powerless to stop what happened.
Anything you determine as a talking point, is nothing more than a counter to the Clinton Love Fest on this thread , my friend.
Same people who stopped him from Focusing on Bin Laden? What the hell does that even mean?
Bush Sr.? Even the Democrats in government today would mostly tell you that defending Kuwait was a noble thing to do. Yes 9/11 happened on Bush's watch - he deserves a lot of responsibility for that - but so does your boy
Slick Willie
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
Yes 9/11 happened on Bush's watch - he deserves a lot of responsibility for that - but so does your boy
And he (Clinton) claimed responsibility on FOX News...didn't you see? But at least A) HE can admit that. And, At least he tried which is a whole hell of a lot more than GW can say prior to 9/11. Bush has never admitted a single mistake...and he has made too many to even count with regards to this topic of terrorism and the war in Iraq.
but are you saying that without our help, bin laden would have suceeded against the Soviets? no way. so, with our government's help, bin laden become a hero in the muslim world. doesn't sound "silly" to me.
I dis-agree. The Soviets lost because they had no idea about the terrain and logistics. The US funding helped indeed, but it was the will of the Afghani's and geography that did them in.
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
I dis-agree. The Soviets lost because they had no idea about the terrain and logistics. The US funding helped indeed, but it was the will of the Afghani's and geography that did them in.
let me ask again, and try not giving a politician's answer.
without our help, would the mujahadeen have prevailed?
..which obviously also didn't deter anything because he was still trying to combat Al-Qaeda....
Stop right there:
WTC BOMBED
EMBASSIES BLOWN UP
US COLE HIT WITH SUICIDE BOAT
RESPONSE OF CLINTON: LOB SOME CRUISE MISSLES INTO UN-MANNED TENTS AND ASPIRIN FACTORIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
WTC / PENTAGON HIT
RESPONSE OF BUSH: INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN
Combatting Terrorism was not Clinton's legacy - don't try to re-write history here - Good President - painted America as a weak and " Paper-Tiger" in Bin Laden's eyes - He gets pissed off not because of the tone of the questions, but because they reveal his weakness
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
And he (Clinton) claimed responsibility on FOX News...didn't you see? But at least A) HE can admit that. And, At least he tried which is a whole hell of a lot more than GW can say prior to 9/11. Bush has never admitted a single mistake...and he has made too many to even count with regards to this topic of terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Yes, you're right - Bush does not admit mistakes - He is quite stubborn
But dont' forget - Clinton is admitting them NOW - when he's out of office
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
WTC BOMBED
EMBASSIES BLOWN UP
US COLE HIT WITH SUICIDE BOAT
RESPONSE OF CLINTON: LOB SOME CRUISE MISSLES INTO UN-MANNED TENTS AND ASPIRIN FACTORIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
WTC / PENTAGON HIT
RESPONSE OF BUSH: INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN
Combatting Terrorism was not Clinton's legacy - don't try to re-write history here - Good President - painted America as a weak and " Paper-Tiger" in Bin Laden's eyes - He gets pissed off not because of the tone of the questions, but because they reveal his weakness
Making terrorism worse by invading a country that had nothing to do with the war on terror will be GW Bush's legacy.
Making terrorism worse by invading a country that had nothing to do with the war on terror will be GW Bush's legacy.
Not talking about Iraq in this topic -
It was a direct comparison between a President who took the threat seriously and one who now is trying real hard to make it look like he took it seriously - Responses tell a lot
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
It was a direct comparison between a President who took the threat seriously and one who now is trying real hard to make it look like he took it seriously - Responses tell a lot
Hijacking planes and crashing them into multiple targets on US soil gets more people attention and support across this country (and federal offices) than when the USS Cole was attacked.
If what I just said were not true, then we all would have been flying American Flags and hugging our neighbors the day after the USS Cole bombing....but sadly, that wasn't the case. And that was not Clinton's fault. That was merely the size of the catastrophe....one severely out weighed the other.
Hijacking planes and crashing them into multiple targets on US soil gets more people attention and support across this country (and federal offices) than when the USS Cole was attacked.
If what I just said were not true, then we all would have been flying American Flags and hugging our neighbors the day after the US Cole bombing....but sadly, that wasn't the case. And that was not Clinton's fault. That was merely the size of the catastrophe....one severely out weighed the other.
Careful - this kind of perfectly-tuned logic on this board is dangerous!!!
Read the previous posts to which this was a response -
You're patting Clinton on the back for admitting a mistake
He did'nt admit them when he was in office and neither will Bush , it's all political
When he's out, maybe Bush does. Probably not, but maybe he does.
No, because while Clinton was still in office...it wasn't clear that he made a mistake with regards to Al-Qaeda. Bush's mistakes are quite evident today though, before he leaves office.
And to call Clinton's involvement with trying to disrupt Al-Qaeda a "mistake" I believe is also a mistake. I think a "failure" would be a better word....he tried but failed. But at least he tried. Bush on the other hand made the mistake to not take any threat seriously before 9/11. Another one of his mistakes was to ever invade Iraq in the first place and to try and blur the lines between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But I also believe they weren't mistakes...because that implies he didn’t know any better...and I believe he did know better. Which then just comes down to Bush is a bad president who doesn't have the best interest of this country at heart.
bold statement. any factual basis for that statement, or just a hunch?
if that is the case, then the U.S. should not have helped, and therefore not trained them in CIA tactics.
blowback....when will we learn?
As much factual basis as you have for the other side of this argument, my friend - It is my belief based upon reading. When you hear historians discuss the Soviet defeat, they heavily focus on the terrain and the sheer will of the Afghanis - I'm yet to hear the case made that the Soviets were defeated solely because of US involvement -
Just my beliefs is all-
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
No, because while Clinton was still in office...it wasn't clear that he made a mistake with regards to Al-Qaeda.
Not bombing the shit out of Afghanistan after the Cole was a " clear " mistake as you call it - There are military personnel today who felt slapped in the face by his inabilty/desire to take serious measures after that day
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
Hijacking planes and crashing them into multiple targets on US soil gets more people attention and support across this country (and federal offices) than when the USS Cole was attacked.
If what I just said were not true, then we all would have been flying American Flags and hugging our neighbors the day after the USS Cole bombing....but sadly, that wasn't the case. And that was not Clinton's fault. That was merely the size of the catastrophe....one severely out weighed the other.
Your point is valid, but the acts taken by Al-Qaeda during Clinton's years in office could have just as easily killed as many Americans as on 9/11 -
I don't care how many hugs were given out that day - an attack on a US Naval Ship is an attack on all Americans - Those guys out there are out there defending us - do not overlook that
To say that we should not have invaded Afghanistan after that day because
it did'nt catch enough attention is a weak argument
To quote Musharraf - We should have " Bombed them back to the Stone Age " right there and then
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
As much factual basis as you have for the other side of this argument, my friend - It is my belief based upon reading. When you hear historians discuss the Soviet defeat, they heavily focus on the terrain and the sheer will of the Afghanis - I'm yet to hear the case made that the Soviets were defeated solely because of US involvement -
Just my beliefs is all-
i feel ya!
i have to believe that we would not have gotten involved if we thought the mujahadeen could have won without us. why risk getting involved? a long drawn out battle is exactly what we would want, so if I go on your theory, I see no need for U.S. involvement.
Comments
Very possibly the silliest thing I've heard in awhile. Bin Laden became a Muslim hero when he stood up against Soviet Aggression. He became heavily anti-American when the USA stood up for Kuwait against the Hussein invasion.
To say no George Bush Sr. No Bin Laden is something that has the factual basis of an elementary student's thoughts
On the Clinton/Bush thing - I don't recall anyone in the Bush admin. quoted as saying it was all Clinton's fault and they're just picking up the pieces. If I'm wrong, give me the quotes - I'd be happy to admit I'm mistaken
You'd call me on the Right I'm sure, but I don't necessarily view things this way.
Untill their will grows tired
PNAC recommended the invasion of Iraq/removal of Hussein a few years BEFORE 9-11, and after that, it was pretty easy to convince the nation to go to war. All he had to do was present some sketchy intelligence in a certain light.
how do you think he was able to stand up against the soviets? using his dad's dumptrucks?
please...
and i didn;t say the Administration is saying its Clinton's fault. This stuff is coming from the Right (media mostly). Once they plant the seed, and they have, all they need is FOX news to water it (which they have).
Cmon dude. Are you serious? I'm republican but I am no fucking religious zealot - not even close - I did'nt want Clinton impeached over getting a damn blowjob - I thought that was wrong - But I do have a problem with getting a blowjob deterring his focus - and using military action as a deterrent from him getting a blowjob - pretty fucked up shit
Untill their will grows tired
funny how republicans hate so called conspiracy thoeries, yet are perfectly capable of thinking that clinton bombed shit to take the focus off of a blowjob. that's an absurd statement.
Bryan, America assisted the Afghans to counter the Russian power, but Bin Laden did not fight there BECAUSE he heard America was going to help.
You said the " Right " , I assumed you meant the administration. If you were speaking of the Media, I did not understand your point - sorry
Untill their will grows tired
Republicans don't hate consipiracy theories - Just BS ones that actually try to insinuate that George Bush blew up the Towers, and oh yeah, the Levees in New Orleans too - That my friend is absurd shit
Clinton launching a few cruise missles into un-occupied territories in the desert to throw the media off of his "extra-activities" is not very believable, it is quite politically savvy, to say the least
Apples & Oranges
Untill their will grows tired
my fault for not clarifying that.
but are you saying that without our help, bin laden would have suceeded against the Soviets? no way. so, with our government's help, bin laden become a hero in the muslim world. doesn't sound "silly" to me.
Anything you determine as a talking point, is nothing more than a counter to the Clinton Love Fest on this thread , my friend.
Same people who stopped him from Focusing on Bin Laden? What the hell does that even mean?
Bush Sr.? Even the Democrats in government today would mostly tell you that defending Kuwait was a noble thing to do. Yes 9/11 happened on Bush's watch - he deserves a lot of responsibility for that - but so does your boy
Slick Willie
Untill their will grows tired
I dis-agree. The Soviets lost because they had no idea about the terrain and logistics. The US funding helped indeed, but it was the will of the Afghani's and geography that did them in.
Untill their will grows tired
let me ask again, and try not giving a politician's answer.
without our help, would the mujahadeen have prevailed?
Stop right there:
WTC BOMBED
EMBASSIES BLOWN UP
US COLE HIT WITH SUICIDE BOAT
RESPONSE OF CLINTON: LOB SOME CRUISE MISSLES INTO UN-MANNED TENTS AND ASPIRIN FACTORIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT
WTC / PENTAGON HIT
RESPONSE OF BUSH: INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN
Combatting Terrorism was not Clinton's legacy - don't try to re-write history here - Good President - painted America as a weak and " Paper-Tiger" in Bin Laden's eyes - He gets pissed off not because of the tone of the questions, but because they reveal his weakness
Untill their will grows tired
Yes, you're right - Bush does not admit mistakes - He is quite stubborn
But dont' forget - Clinton is admitting them NOW - when he's out of office
Untill their will grows tired
You claiming that it means something that Clinton admit his mistakes now means something is such a stretch....it's not even funny.
The day Bush admits with sincerity all of his mistakes on national TV, I will say I am sorry.
I believe I did
They would have kicked the Soviets out - maybe a little longer duration of time - but they would have succeeded
Untill their will grows tired
Not talking about Iraq in this topic -
It was a direct comparison between a President who took the threat seriously and one who now is trying real hard to make it look like he took it seriously - Responses tell a lot
Untill their will grows tired
Read the previous posts to which this was a response -
You're patting Clinton on the back for admitting a mistake
He did'nt admit them when he was in office and neither will Bush , it's all political
When he's out, maybe Bush does. Probably not, but maybe he does.
Untill their will grows tired
If what I just said were not true, then we all would have been flying American Flags and hugging our neighbors the day after the USS Cole bombing....but sadly, that wasn't the case. And that was not Clinton's fault. That was merely the size of the catastrophe....one severely out weighed the other.
Careful - this kind of perfectly-tuned logic on this board is dangerous!!!
And to call Clinton's involvement with trying to disrupt Al-Qaeda a "mistake" I believe is also a mistake. I think a "failure" would be a better word....he tried but failed. But at least he tried. Bush on the other hand made the mistake to not take any threat seriously before 9/11. Another one of his mistakes was to ever invade Iraq in the first place and to try and blur the lines between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But I also believe they weren't mistakes...because that implies he didn’t know any better...and I believe he did know better. Which then just comes down to Bush is a bad president who doesn't have the best interest of this country at heart.
bold statement. any factual basis for that statement, or just a hunch?
if that is the case, then the U.S. should not have helped, and therefore not trained them in CIA tactics.
blowback....when will we learn?
As much factual basis as you have for the other side of this argument, my friend - It is my belief based upon reading. When you hear historians discuss the Soviet defeat, they heavily focus on the terrain and the sheer will of the Afghanis - I'm yet to hear the case made that the Soviets were defeated solely because of US involvement -
Just my beliefs is all-
Untill their will grows tired
Not bombing the shit out of Afghanistan after the Cole was a " clear " mistake as you call it - There are military personnel today who felt slapped in the face by his inabilty/desire to take serious measures after that day
Untill their will grows tired
Your point is valid, but the acts taken by Al-Qaeda during Clinton's years in office could have just as easily killed as many Americans as on 9/11 -
I don't care how many hugs were given out that day - an attack on a US Naval Ship is an attack on all Americans - Those guys out there are out there defending us - do not overlook that
To say that we should not have invaded Afghanistan after that day because
it did'nt catch enough attention is a weak argument
To quote Musharraf - We should have " Bombed them back to the Stone Age " right there and then
Untill their will grows tired
i feel ya!
i have to believe that we would not have gotten involved if we thought the mujahadeen could have won without us. why risk getting involved? a long drawn out battle is exactly what we would want, so if I go on your theory, I see no need for U.S. involvement.