billvon 2,991 #26 September 13, 2004 >The problem is that it really looked like he was wagging the dog because of his timing. No doubt; nevertheless, he was attacked for going after Bin Laden. Bin Laden doesn't have a lot of allies any more, but he had a few back then. >who would much rather see a democrat attacked than see Bin Laden killed. Were you one of the republicans attacking Clinton for trying to kill Bin Laden? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #27 September 13, 2004 Quote>The problem is that it really looked like he was wagging the dog because of his timing. No doubt; nevertheless, he was attacked for going after Bin Laden. Bin Laden doesn't have a lot of allies any more, but he had a few back then. I disagree....he was attacked because he sat on the intelligence for so long, and then it turned out it was an aspirin factory. QuoteWere you one of the republicans attacking Clinton for trying to kill Bin Laden? Again, no...see above. I would have loved it if BC had gotten OBL. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #28 September 13, 2004 >he was attacked because he sat on the intelligence for so long, and >then it turned out it was an aspirin factory. God knows what would have happened if he had claimed that Afghanistan had WMD's and it turned out they didn't! Republicans would have had him shot. They would be claiming that it was their moral obligation to stand up to such an incompetent president and denounce him, so that the people of the world could see that not everyone in the US is a fool. >Again, no...see above. Ah! Then you're not in the group I was talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #29 September 13, 2004 QuoteGod knows what would have happened if he had claimed that Afghanistan had WMD's and it turned out they didn't! Republicans would have had him shot. They would be claiming that it was their moral obligation to stand up to such an incompetent president and denounce him, so that the people of the world could see that not everyone in the US is a fool. You're channelling democratics again. At the time the death of OBL would have simply been a good footnote for his administration, and it would have completely defused the Monica situation. As it was, it ended up being fodder for his eventual impeachment. Don't get me wrong, I'm a republican, and not for Bill Clinton. I don't hate the guy, but he certainly has no legacy (except impreachment.) No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #30 September 13, 2004 >At the time the death of OBL would have simply been a good footnote >for his administration, and it would have completely defused the Monica > situation. As it was, it ended up being fodder for his eventual impeachment. Agreed - and republicans capitalized on it to no end. Which was extremely fortunate for Bin Laden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #31 September 13, 2004 QuoteAgreed - and republicans capitalized on it to no end. Which was extremely fortunate for Bin Laden. I don't think it had anything to do with it. He simply didn't exercise the power of the Presidency to kill or capture a known and wanted terrorist when he had the opportunity. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #32 September 13, 2004 >He simply didn't exercise the power of the Presidency to kill or capture >a known and wanted terrorist when he had the opportunity. As we just discussed, he did try to do exactly that - and failed the first time. Republicans crucified him for trying, and thus helped a known terrorist escape and commit the crime we now call 9/11. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #33 September 13, 2004 QuoteAs we just discussed, he did try to do exactly that - and failed the first time. Republicans crucified him for trying, and thus helped a known terrorist escape and commit the crime we now call 9/11. Read back through them. He didn't take the other three opportunities when the Sudan offered him up. Hello!!!! We those three attempts by the Sudaneese before or after the aspirin factory debacle? And if so, why didn't he himself claim that was the reason when justifying why he didn't get OBL. Damn... No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #34 September 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteNone. But then again, neither is lying about a blow job Lying about a blowjob = Ok Lying about a blowjob under oath in front of a federal grand jury = Bad You do see the difference in the two, right? Do I need to explain further? Lying about WMD in a country and having 1000+ Americans die = even worse. Don't forget - Powell went on tv and said that even at a conservative guess they had huge stockpiles. Remember this is the supposed reason on why we went to war, and it was 100% false. No argument on the lie under oath, its wrong, bad, etc,....that was the past, Clinton is done and out out office. The mistakes are still being made by the current administration!! Lettin OBL walk around (Bush has said he feels he is no longer a priority) so he can rebuild and lead another attack? Not enforcing policy against North Korea?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #35 September 13, 2004 QuoteLying about WMD He didn't. Anything else? Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #36 September 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteLying about WMD He didn't. Anything else? Ah yea, I can link you back to the old argmuents had on this topic. When you are the most powerful man in the country you can get others to take the fall for you. It was "poor information" right? I've said it before - if you are going to wage war, you better be sure about your facts. There are now more people dead from this invasion than there were from 9/11. Many people going into the war that were in Iraq (Key?) even said there were no weapons, but he wasn't being helpful. Being a pain in the ass is grounds for war? Then there are a few people in this forum that may get invaded._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #37 September 13, 2004 QuoteLying about WMD in a country and having 1000+ Americans die = even worse. Don't forget - Powell went on tv and said that even at a conservative guess they had huge stockpiles. Remember this is the supposed reason on why we went to war, and it was 100% false. He didn't lie. It appears that he was mistaken, but unless you'd like every mistaken, misunderstood, or ultimately incorrect piece of information -you've- ever given to be called a lie, I suggest you reevaluate your position. This just occured to me, so maybe it's way off base, but . . . We got a big slap in the face on 9/11/01, many say it was due to our ignoring key intelligence, or not acting on the intel we had. Soon after 9/11 we get intel from reliable sources that says Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction. Can you imagine the fallout if we ignored that and he did have WMD? Can you? Just like Vietnam, this is a new war for the Western world. As we navigate our way through this new war there are going to be some issues, no doubt; but to imply malicious intent when have no proof that such intent exists is just wrong. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #38 September 13, 2004 >>Lying about WMD >He didn't. Anything else? "You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons? They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." -GWB, 5/30/2003 Now, since conservatives use a different system for evaluating truthfulness than your typical person, they do not define saying something untrue as a lie unless a democrat says it - so the above will be explained away as "not a lie" even though we did not find any facilities to make biological weapons, and even though the administration now admits we probably never will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #39 September 13, 2004 I remember the news at the time. Most of the world said SH was no longer a threat. He was being an asshole, but had no weapons program that could be considered a threat. Bush is the most powerful man in the world with access to just about any intel out there. You had the main inspector Key saying that there was no weapon programs, and he resigned in protest. That should have caused them to validate the intel the White House had on its desk. Now, we have intel saying North Korea is building weapons and a way to deploy them. It even came from our own sources this morning and a few other sources. Why are pulling back troops and not acting on that intel? Now. You would think that the solid intel with other sources backing it up is something you would act upon and the one that is being disputed openly in front of the world should be the one you hesitate on, right? Seems logical. Makes you wonder what the real motives were for invading a helpless country and letting a danger in the East get even worse? If you were to follow your logic Jimbo - we should be getting ready to invade NK today and having Powell in front of the world saying there is no doubt they are building nukes...._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #40 September 13, 2004 QuoteNow. You would think that the solid intel with other sources backing it up is something you would act upon and the one that is being disputed openly in front of the world should be the one you hesitate on, right? Seems logical. You are aware that we had intel besides our own backing up the claim that SH had weapons of mass destruction, correct? Edit: Speaking of Kay http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1245936#1245936. - Jim - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #41 September 13, 2004 Quote QuoteNow. You would think that the solid intel with other sources backing it up is something you would act upon and the one that is being disputed openly in front of the world should be the one you hesitate on, right? Seems logical. You are aware that we had intel besides our own backing up the claim that SH had weapons of mass destruction, correct? - Jim Then all of that intel must have come from the same, incorrect source. There were plenty of very public sources saying there were no weapons. The burden of proof is on GW and his crew and they haven't done anything to back up their claims. In fact everything that GW claimed about invading both Iraq and Afghan have fallen drastically short. Maybe they should have double checked those sources. Or then again, they did and just didn't care?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #42 September 13, 2004 QuoteWhat kind of "girlie man" gives up flying supersonic jet fighters to work on an election campaign in Alabama? I think I agree with you.. For the first time.. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #43 September 13, 2004 QuoteI think I agree with you.. For the first time.. LOL Beer. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #44 September 14, 2004 Quote QuoteI think I agree with you.. For the first time.. LOL Beer. - Jim Nope - I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuote QuoteNow. You would think that the solid intel with other sources backing it up is something you would act upon and the one that is being disputed openly in front of the world should be the one you hesitate on, right? Seems logical. You are aware that we had intel besides our own backing up the claim that SH had weapons of mass destruction, correct? - Jim Then all of that intel must have come from the same, incorrect source. There were plenty of very public sources saying there were no weapons. The burden of proof is on GW and his crew and they haven't done anything to back up their claims. In fact everything that GW claimed about invading both Iraq and Afghan have fallen drastically short. Maybe they should have double checked those sources. Or then again, they did and just didn't care? So why is Clinton attacking an aspirin factory due to bad intelligence okay, but Bush going into Iraq due to bad intelligence is bad? Oh that's right... I forgot. Clinton was a Dem, so that makes it all okay. Bush is a Rep, so that makes everything he does bad.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #46 September 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteNow. You would think that the solid intel with other sources backing it up is something you would act upon and the one that is being disputed openly in front of the world should be the one you hesitate on, right? Seems logical. You are aware that we had intel besides our own backing up the claim that SH had weapons of mass destruction, correct? - Jim Then all of that intel must have come from the same, incorrect source. There were plenty of very public sources saying there were no weapons. The burden of proof is on GW and his crew and they haven't done anything to back up their claims. In fact everything that GW claimed about invading both Iraq and Afghan have fallen drastically short. Maybe they should have double checked those sources. Or then again, they did and just didn't care? So why is Clinton attacking an aspirin factory due to bad intelligence okay, but Bush going into Iraq due to bad intelligence is bad? Oh that's right... I forgot. Clinton was a Dem, so that makes it all okay. Bush is a Rep, so that makes everything he does bad.... "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 Or being translated from Bush-speak, Clinton's experience with bad intel should have been a warning to the Bushites to be wary of their sources. But having Texas size hubris they believed their own propaganda . And then there's the 1000+ dead US boys to think about, courtesy of Bush's hubris.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 September 14, 2004 QuoteAnd then there's the 1000+ dead US boys to think about, courtesy of Bush's hubris. PARTIAL Clinton death toll due to terrorism, below Directly on Clinton's watch: WTC attack, 1993: 6 dead Khobar towers attack: 19 dead Kenya Embassy attack: 213 dead Tanzania Embassy attack: 11 dead U.S.S. Cole attack: 17 dead Subtotal: 266 dead At least partially caused by Clinton due to gutting of intelligence services and refusal to take strong action against terrorists: WTC 2001: 2814 dead (media estimate) Pentagon: 184 dead UA Flt 93: 40 dead Subtotal: 3038 dead Grand total: 3304 + dead At least THIS President is willing to take the fight TO the terrorists rather than saying "it's a law enforcement problem". Oh, wait... didn't KERRY say that terrorism was a police problem in one of his stump speeches? I'm almost positive I saw that on CNN the other day...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #48 September 14, 2004 Quote*** At least THIS President is willing to take the fight TO the terrorists rather than saying "it's a law enforcement problem". The Bush administration, when pressed, admits that Iraq had no link to 9/11 and that OBL and SH were not buddies. The linkage of the Iraq vendetta war to 9/11 and Al Qaeda is bogus and just meant to confuse the ignorant. Terrorism is UP since the Iraq invasion. www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report.ap/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #49 September 14, 2004 QuoteThe linkage of the Iraq vendetta war to 9/11 and Al Qaeda is bogus and just meant to confuse the ignorant. Terrorism is UP since the Iraq invasion. The DIRECT link may be bogus, however it is dishonest of you to deny any link between Al Queda, terrorism against the US and its allies, and Iraq. It is documented that Iraq, at a minimum, provided safe harbor to known Al Queda operatives. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #50 September 14, 2004 QuoteLying about WMD in a country and having 1000+ Americans die = even worse. Don't forget - Powell went on tv and said that even at a conservative guess they had huge stockpiles. Remember this is the supposed reason on why we went to war, and it was 100% false. Well I guess evryone lied about WMD's then: Quote"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
