Because the thread topic is Bill Clinton blahblahblah...Quote:
Originally Posted by HotDiggity
Printable View
Because the thread topic is Bill Clinton blahblahblah...Quote:
Originally Posted by HotDiggity
You will never find a post from me saying we should have gone into Iraq because of WMD. That was a political stunt by Bush to try to garner public support for the war. I thought it was a bad move on his part at the time. I haven't changed my opinion in the interim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
I never said Saddam supported al-qaeda. Saddam supported terrorist's. After 9/11 that was enough to take him out.
This administration reminds me of the 12 circus clowns stuffed onto a small fire engine looking for fires to put out. That doesn't mean that I disaprove of the outcome of some of their actions, namely the overthrow of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fact that you failed to address the substance of my post and instead resorted to name calling and attacking straw men(that I have never had anything to do with) is exhibit "A" that you have nothing to contribute on this topic.
Mr. Wallace looked like a deer in headlights. That was great. I watched the clip with his take on the interview afterwards and he acted surprised that Clinton brought up Somalia which I almost couldn't believe. Somalia was part of his speech/question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edg
Everybody has to be delt with differently.
Besides, I'm not defending any political figure/party. I am supporting some of the actions of our current administration, nothing more.
Proof, please. I smell bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
My lunch break is over, but I'll get back to you on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
I resort to the tactics because you come across like the above matter of fact statement: "It was enough to take him out".Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
Taking out Saddam has led to the current rats nest and while the guy is a was a dictator of our own brewing, that action does not warrant the consequences. We would have been a lot better off following up on bin Laden and attempting to spend our resources in Sudan and the Congo.
I don't think there is any substance to your post. All there is is a statement that we're safer when reports that at least have some credibility say the opposite. As did Madrid and London.Quote:
This administration reminds me of the 12 circus clowns stuffed onto a small fire engine looking for fires to put out. That doesn't mean that I disaprove of the outcome of some of their actions, namely the overthrow of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fact that you failed to address the substance of my post and instead resorted to name calling and attacking straw men(that I have never had anything to do with) is exhibit "A" that you have nothing to contribute on this topic.
The price has been poorly calculated.
Seriously, he seemed off his meds or something. And the gap between his socks and pant cuffs made him look like a copier salesman. I just couldn't get past that.
Don Imus has this right when he suggests they let Saddam go, slap him on the wrist and make him say 'I'm sorry I was such a brutal dictator", and return him to run the country. He'd get it back under control in no time.
And by the way, anyone who doesn't think that Saddam and his pals were not cooking batches of WMDs has had a little to much Kool - Aid. Those were some really stealthy searches, I mean how could they have possibly known in advance that anyone was coming for a looksee?
Also, anyone expecting intellegent political commentary on a website like this really needs a bigger worldview.
Me, I just want to go skiing, and would prefer not to be nuked whilst in the process.
Fact is that neither Clinton or Bush did/is doing enough. They are both putzes in their own unique ways.
I am looking forward to the next presidential election where we are presented with two new putzes to select from. Hey, maybe we will get lucky with some decent candidates.
No, It's a National Intelligence Estimate.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...gence_Estimate
Did anyone watch Bush being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer?
What a bitter little mental midget in Denial. Wolf kept trying to call him out, and he kept being a dick back. Painful.
Weak sauce: all the youtube clips have been removed, just as I was getting to part 3. Anyone know of analternate place to get them?
When you post your credentials for making such a incriminating statement, I'll listen. Were you there? Do you know any of the inspectors? Are they idiots? Do you know how many locations in such a small, mostly desolate country are suitable for creating WMDs? Do you know that WMD byproducts, wastestreams, proxy indicators were tested for or were not tested for? Do you know how easy it is to move every trace of a WMD-producing plant to a location where you cannot be tracked or observed? Since you are so sure of yourself, please, for the love of god, enlighten us.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
I guess those thousands of bodies stacked in big holes all over the country were the result of a nation of naturally curious hobbiest chemists.
I work for Clinton; So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you dont know about the topic.... Dont make yourself sound like you do. Cos some Republicans believe anything they hear.
are you a chubby chick?
Pinko!....Quote:
Originally Posted by f2f
The thousands of bodies stacked in big holes in former Yugoslavia didn't get there from WMDs. Why do you assume it's different in Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
[QUOTE=creaker;915163]Seriously, he seemed off his meds or something. And the gap between his socks and pant cuffs made him look like a copier salesman. I just couldn't get past that.
[QUOTE]
Maybe you should have looked beyond the pant cuffs. Clinton spoke passionately, while staying rational and coherent. He was pissed, so he said what was on his mind. - not like Bush, who just sits there, speechless, with that angry look on his face when faced with a similar situation (see his first debate with Kerry).
Two points:
1) Meat Puppet is thinking of Ansar al-Islam when he refers to "terrorist training camps". Ansar al-Islam was an anti-saddam group based in the kurdish north. So yes, there were terrorists in Iraq. No, they were not working with Saddam (they were trying to overthow him). No, Saddam did not have control of the area in which they operated. Incidently, who was chilling with these guys post 9/11 and pre-invasion? Just some schmoe named Zarqawi; of course, once the government fell to the Americans and chaos reigned he suddenly became very very important.
MP might also be thinking of Abu Nidal and "some other guy" whose name I forget. Both were terrorists active in the 80s. Once Bush listed these two as "terrorists in Iraq" the second dude turned up in Baghdad with two bullets in the back of his head. Seems the Iraqi security services were trying to kill any US justification for the war. Nidal disappeared, and was later caught by Americans.
2) Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader:
"The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for
impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president
has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent
Americans into battle for the right reasons."
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.:
"It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White
House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in
order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people
ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with
CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for
political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly
what he's doing."
GOP Sen. Dan Coats Coats, 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 [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's
personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this
action."
Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the
premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet
it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President
Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his
possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S.
Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in,
yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...
"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of
cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political
difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's
way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh
the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under
oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible
impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military
decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances,
it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the
benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."
GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said
Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an
impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"
Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to
launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude
he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own
impeachment."
Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in
the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and
the policy are subject to question."
Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a
furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What
option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even
postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has
been invisible up to now?'"
Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious
timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is
shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"
Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the
dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention
from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate
trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction'
movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to
'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to
send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities
and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be
part of a NATO force under non-American command."
Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a
justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now
injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice
versa."
Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less
interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable
him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously
compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be
impeached."
One More Point:
3) Yeah... Clinton was a real bitch for withdrawing from Somalia, if only we had listened to those steadfast republicans who demanded that we stay.
Oh wait .... is that what happened?
GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993
I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and
limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in
Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the
scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat
for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is
sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent
option.
GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993
Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid
has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation
building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The
United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young
soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then
it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the
United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the
American troops home.
GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993
I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not
know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of
Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to
bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . .
GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:
All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who,
by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in
efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best
to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by
George Bush last December.
But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban
environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under
the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we
tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr.
President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to
sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking.
Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.
President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal
And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other
nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and
starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission.
. . .
If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will
die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a
reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to
take our place. . .
So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the
job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a
way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin
Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult,
you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution."
. . .
So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world,
as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a
challenge, they do the job right.
Sen. John Kerry, Senate floor speech, 10/7/93, supporting Clinton's
anti-withdrawal position
But, Mr. President, I must say I have also been jarred by the reactions of
many of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress. I am jarred by
the extraordinary sense of panic that seems to be rushing through this
deliberative body, and by the strident cries for a quick exit, an immediate
departure notwithstanding the fact that what we are doing in Somalia does not
bear any resemblance to Grenada, to Panama, to Iraq, and most importantly, to
Vietnam. . . .
We must recognize that any decision that we make about Somalia is not just a
decision to get our troops home. It is not just a decision about looking out for
the interests of the United States. There are extraordinary ramifications
attached to the choice that we make in the next days in the Congress and in this
country. . . .
Mr. President, we are in a situation now where withdrawal would send the
wrong signal to Aidid and his supporters. It would encourage other nations to
withdraw from the U.N. effort in Somalia and no doubt would result in the total
breakdown of the operation and possibly the resumption of the cycle of famine
and war which brought the United States and other members of the international
community to Somalia in the first place.
Rightly or wrongly, the Bush administration committed us to this operation.
We, as a nation, have accepted this responsibility. We should not panic and flee
when the going gets rough. If we are going to withdraw, we have an obligation to
do so in a responsible manner, in a way that does not undermine the operation or
leave the Somali people to a worse fate. I think the President's plan, as
currently outlined, will allow us to step aside responsibly.
New York Times article, October 6, 1993, by then-reporter Thomas Friedman
As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and
aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening
operation swept Congress. . . . But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged
by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for
an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were
unclear or unrealistic.
It is not clear whether the critics can assemble sufficient votes to pass a
law requiring Mr. Clinton to stop the operation. But Congressional anxiety,
already high, has been fueled by a wave of constituents' telephone calls
reflecting outrage over the prospect of a new hostage crisis, and television
pictures of Somali crowds dragging a dead American servicemen through the
streets. . . .
Mr. Christopher said the United States wanted to withdraw its forces when
possible, "but not before our job is done of providing some security."
New York Times, October 6, 1993
A wave of hostility toward the military operation in Somalia swept Congress
today, forcing the White House to send two Cabinet secretaries to Capitol Hill
to try to calm critics and plead for additional time to formulate a new policy.
"It's Vietnam all over again," said Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of
South Carolina, who is in a group of conservatives calling for quick withdrawal
from Somalia. . . .
Mr. McCain, a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, said of Mohammed Farah
Aidid, who has been blamed for attacks on United Nations peacekeepers: "We
should tell Mr. Aidid that we want the Americans back. Otherwise he will pay
sooner or later. Then we should come home."
Will, why are you confusing the issue with facts?
I mean, Clinton had a gap between his shoes and pants fer Chrissakes.
Jeezus, get with the program.
Funny how Ripzalot disappeared after his "fact check" was shown to be a loose collection of right wing fluff. mr_gyptian is gone after parroting the party line falls flat. Tuckerman? "Stop the haten" heh... And MeatPuppet? Indigestion after his "lunch break" must be keeping him away. :rolleyes2
And, they both have a fundementally different approach to counter-terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcwop
Clinton model: terrorism is crime, it's primarily a Law Enforcement issue...terrorists are criminals.
Bush model: terrorism is an act of war, it's primarily a national defense issue...terrorists are the enemy.
Personally, I prefer the Bush model...but it certainly could use some tweaking on the execution phase.
-Astro
Wow- Olbermann is going off.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/
Nice job, Will.
Clearly there are a lot of people here who have swallowed the neo-con party line. Unfortunately, as we've showed time and time again, they LIE. They say exactly what makes them look good and what you want to hear. It doesn't matter if it's true, false, or irrelevant...they'll say it over and over, because they know you don't have the patience to check facts. When confronted with their lies, they stridently deny everything -- just like a little child with sticky hands and face yelling "NO I DIN'T EAT THAT ICE CREAM".
You have to be *vigilant* in order to see this. You have to be *responsible*. You have to *check facts*. You have to do your duty as a goddamn American and *not believe everything you're told by the political party you like*, and *not cop out by saying "everyone lies, there are two sides to everything"*. No. Facts are checkable. They are correct or incorrect. And they don't change if you smirk or say them louder over and over.
Meanwhile the neo-cons are raping you, me, and our country, giving the spoils to their friends in the oil and defense industries, and they will leave us for dead when they are done. The US Government is beyond bankrupt, and the boomers haven't even hit retirement yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
Actually I was thinking of Salman Pak.
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp.
That's him.Quote:
MP might also be thinking of Abu Nidal
Interesting though, Saddam didn't seem to mind Nidal taking refuge in his country. It was only when the US named him did Saddam have a problem with it. Which reinforces my point that Saddam was friendly to terrorist's and terrorism.
I listened to sean hannity's full radio show today and this was 2/3rds of the program. All he could say was that Clinton is a mean mean man and this is proof....that he went crazy on an innocent journalist (who relies on "emails" for his questions).
fucking classic
oooh he's just so big and mean
tacomaluv: thanks for that link, no time for terrah, I got's golf n' brush tah cuht
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-Ungulate
Heh, no, just a bitch of a day at work.:)
You take amazing pictures, but you need turn off Hannity for a while. Did you not listen to Clinton? He said he wanted to use the military to go after OBL but couldn't because of the lack of support. When a crime is commited rarely do the authorities use the military.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
Now compare what Clinton did and tried to do after the terrorist attacks on Americans before 9/11 and what Bush did after the same terrorist attacks before 9/11. Look no further that what Mrs. Rice said about memo "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the US". Here's her quote in case you don't remember:
"historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information."
Here's a paragraph from the memo:
"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparation for hijacking or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
Now this administration says this was old news, which means they knew Bin Laden wanted to attack the US and what did they do?
It was only after 9/11 that the Bush administration took Bin Laden seriously whereas Clinton took Bin Laden seriously and tried to do something about him before 9/11. The US's attitude changed after 9/11. Bush said so himself. So imagine what Clinton would have tried after 9/11 when the the politicians actually realized Bin Laden was determined to attack the US.
MP you're a propoganda swallowing moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq:
"no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." DIA assessed that the foreigners were likely volunteers who traveled to Iraq in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began to fight overtly alongside Iraqi military forces...DIA said it has "no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa'ida with the former regime."
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that:
"Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."
CIA report to the committe:
"There was information developed after OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedem) that indicated terrorists were trained at Salman Pak; there was an apparent surge of such reporting. As with past information, however, the reporting is vague and difficult to substantiate . As was the case with the prewar reporting, the postwar sources provided few details, and it is difficult to conclude from their second-hand accounts whether Iraq was training al-Qa'ida members, as opposed to other foreign nationals. Postwar exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida linked individuals took place there, and we have no information from detainees on this issue"
I thought it was pretty cool. Clinton doesn't have to answer to anyone anymore, so he can pipe off if he wants to. He couldn't do that while he was in office, and Bush can't really speak his mind right now.
I had a couple ideas while reading some of these posts:
- One military strategy is to occupy the enemy and waste their time. I think there is a lot of that going on on both sides.
- Recently there has been a lot of bad press about my business in the press - and it is really poorly informed. I feel a new kind of understanding for all these leaders who are trying to go about their work. I mean, the press has really tried to make my line of work look really bad lately, and if people just got their information from the media - which they do - then it's totally wrong. I wish there was a better way. Fox and CNN both suck.
- A couple months ago, I got to kick it with Guiliani for an afternoon. I have never spent time with a "leader" before, and I was skeptical - even though I'm a New Yorker. I have to say, the guy was really cool. People say Clinton is kind of a regular guy with special qualities. I think I saw that with Rudy.
You think he's not just a talking head for Hilary '08?Quote:
Originally Posted by roll - gybe
Bill Clinton is fluent in 'head'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grange
You are exactly right. When a crime is committed they don't use the military, they convene a grand jury and issue indictments.
-----
"June 8, 1998 The grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996, issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden...
November 4, 1998 A new superceding indictment is issued against bin Laden...
January 16, 1999 The US Attorney's office files its most complete indictment to date of Osama bin Laden..."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html
-----
Lets face it, every administration for the last 30 years has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to terrorism. Clinton is just trying to rewrite history to make it seem like he was different. He wasn't.
I don't know, that's a hypothetical. But to make an educated assumption, I suppose you could look back at the Clinton administration and analyze exactly how they reacted to the following terrorst attacks, and ask yourself how Clinton responded to...Quote:
Originally Posted by Grange
...the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000
...the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel
...the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel
...the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000
...the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors
Regardless, plenty of fault to go around.
Furthermore, you should stop blaming the world problems on the US Governemnt, dumbass! It's the terrorists and Islamo-fascism that you should be expending your energy attacking. Amazing, you just don't see the big pic...which is typical of a secular progressive such as yourself.
-Astro
Once again, the fact of partisan stifling of executive initiative is not addressed in your list of occurances....Clinton was handcuffed by the new political climate in congress and senate that was brought about by Newt Gingrich's ascendancy.
I believe republican populist blocking of any initiative that Clinton endorsed handcuffed his ability to push an aggressive counterstrike through.
That and the fact that international relations AT THE TIME were not conducive to overwhelming shows of force, either covert or overt.
Hindsight is 40/70, at best.
"Islamo-fascism"
please explain this term....if you knew what it meant you would certainly veiw Bush differently.
fascism by definition is simply putting corporate interests above that of the public. point blank.
please review your history books before calling someone else a dumbass.
-aaron
He could be, but for some reason, I don't think he gives a damn anymore. I could be wrong... hell if I used to be President, I would take -273 degrees of sh!t from any reporter!Quote:
Originally Posted by TacomaLuv
not only that but we aren't fighting terrorists. terrorism is a technique of war, not a political party, idealogy or even a group of people.
so lets start by defining who it is we are fighting cause for the life of me i havent heard one good answer to that question.
rule number one-when you start a war, know who you're fighting..
-aaron
1984 really pointed out the concept of not knowing who you're fighting and changing who your fighting in an attempt to scare the public.
What's a secular progressive and why is it worse than being religous neo-con wackjob?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax