Addressing problems with the government's account
- Thread starter thatsmystory
- Start date
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
"The Wall" was a legal entity designed to maintain Constitutionality.
If there actually is anyone who thinks, had a credible account and details of an imminent attack on the US been discovered, that anyone in the CIA or FBI would have let that stop them from acting, is an absolute moral bankrupt.
Heroes are MADE, not born. Circumstances would have led to a definite report and that could NOT have been covered up.
If there actually is anyone who thinks, had a credible account and details of an imminent attack on the US been discovered, that anyone in the CIA or FBI would have let that stop them from acting, is an absolute moral bankrupt.
Heroes are MADE, not born. Circumstances would have led to a definite report and that could NOT have been covered up.
Because conservative pundits are full of crap. Let’s see what the all concerned with terrorism Republicans had to say when Clinton tried to something about terrorism…
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):
“‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’” [Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
“There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.” [CNN, 8/20/98]
Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):
“‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure - were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems? ‘ Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):
“I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.” [Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]
Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):
“Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action. ‘” [CNN, 8/20/98]
Former Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):
“Although most in Congress rallied around Clinton on Thursday, two Republican U.S. senators and one Central Florida congressman broke with the tradition of standing behind a president during a foreign crisis.Sen. Daniel Coats, R-Ind., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay, publicly questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks so soon after his public admission of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. … ‘The president has, indeed, broken the trust of the American people, and these are legitimate questions that must be answered. ’” [Orlando Sentinel, 8/21/98]
Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):
“All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention. ” [Fox News, 8/20/98]
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
If those are examples of what Clinton "tried" to do, it proves the point that he , in fact, did nothing. Thanks for proving the conservatives right! Good job!
A highly amusing self-parody. Naturally, you completely ignored my point (or, to be fair, you simply weren't able to comprehend it). I'll say it again, just for you: Democrats on the 9/11 Commission spent too much time in a transparently partisan effort to whitewash Clinton's eight years of indifference and focus almost exclusively on Bush's eight months. The insane fantasy promoted by the conspiracy liars that the commission had a singleminded purpose to cover-up for George Bush insults everyone's intelligence.
Yes because we all know that bogging down a President with an irrelevant sex scandal when he might have had a chance to stop the biggest terrorist attack to ever happen is still considered a brilliant move by Republicans.
It just goes to show what they are really concerned with and it isn’t terrorism.
MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?
SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don't know where the Senate's going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it's a slap on the wrist. It's a, "Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy." The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.
I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy. The question issue now is simply this: Did he lie under oath? Did he perjure himself and did he obstruct justice? And that's where we're trying to go now in this
LOL
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
So Republicans prevented Clinton from having the time to deal with terrorism? Hmmm...I'm sure he was formulating many terrific plans while getting hummers but must have forgot them all in the afterglow.
Well slick Willy was a multi-tasker unlike the present dimwit occupying the oval office. What exactly did Dubya try to do about UBL in the 9 months leading up to 9/11? Except ignore the warnings he was given about an old friend of the family? And has he caught him dead or alive yet? Has there even been an indictment made against UBL since the Clinton days?
applecorped
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,145
Let's see 9 months vs. 8 years. Keep reaching for the stars LostChild!
Ah, this may represent a major break from your usual policy of mindlessly sneering without saying anything. Can we assume, then, that you approved of Bill Clinton's massive, four-day bombing campaign in late 1998, Operation Desert Fox? As you know, the Clinton administration claimed to target Republican Guard barracks and WMD facilities. You agree, then, that bombing the barracks of troops who didn't know they were at war does not constitute a war crime? You acknowledge that in order to bomb WMD facilities, those facilities must, uh, exist?
I'm guessing that you have a new thread to scamper off to.
Only 9 months to catch UBL dead or alive like he said? I don't think so. And there is a bigger threat of terrorism in the world then ever before. Keep apologizing for your nitwit it's all you have left.
Bush had been President for less than eight months on the day of the jihadist attacks.
Why is the threat of terrorism greater than ever before? Oh, right: it isn't.
Bush's IQ is roughly 120, which is considerably higher than yours.
Sorry. I forgot you were fleeing from my previous post.
Beep-beep. ZOOOOOM!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Are you Republicans still ignoring the intelligence agencies in regard to the terrorist threat? You would think after we got burned on 9/11 some of you would learn but I guess not huh?
BANG! KA-BOOM! Hey what was that? Quick! Look under your bed! Is it UBL?
BTW 120 isn't Dubya's IQ it's how many beers on the wall he drank before he got pulled over.
Are you conspiracy liars still pretending that Osama doesn't exist? Yeah, as usual, your analysis is right on the money. We've been struck by terrorists on American soil so many times in the last six years, right? How does that work, exactly? If there had been an attack in the wake of 9/11, Bush would have been blamed. There have been zero attacks, so he gets no credit. Hmmm. As Groucho put it, cut me off a slice of that.
We appreciate that you had the courage to share your thoughts on Clinton's bombing campaign.
Beep-beep. ZOOOOOM!
You started out your tripe by trying to imply that Clinton was somehow to blame for 9/11 after Dubya was in office for 9 months and members of the 9/11 commission tried to cover it up.
Would that make the 93 bombing Poppy Bush's fault? How long was Clinton in office then? Was it even five weeks?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
I wish Ron and LC would take their political discussion to the correct forum. Politically speaking, they deserve each other, they're like left and right bookends.
I don't remember any troops hitting the ground for even a day never mind 5 years and counting. In fact it was Clinton who turned down the PNAC recommendation with a thanks but no thanks. They then went to work getting their stooge put in place.
Clinton is not entirely to blame for 9/11. His indifference to previous al Qaeda attacks and his characteristic unwillingness to take action certainly emboldened the jihadists. I confess that I was extremely angry with Bush on the day of the attacks. Gore would not have done better, but he could have hardly done worse. The response to the attacks was another story. Gore, I suspect, would not have toppled the Taliban. He would have blustered, launched a few ineffectual cruise missile strikes, and delivered an impassioned speech to the U.N.
Your error about Bush being in office for nine months has already been corrected. Understandably, you weren't able to process the information. Your lie about the 9/11 Commission's imaginary cover-up is remarkably stupid, even by your standards.
Last edited: