Something to ponder

[moochpuppy]

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and

injured 1,000;

 

President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down

and punished.

 

 

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S.

military personnel;

 

Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and

punished.

 

 

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19

and injured 200 U.S. military personnel;

 

Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and

punished.

 

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224

and injured 5,000;

 

Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and

punished.

 

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39

U.S. sailors;

 

Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and

punished.

 

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people

in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

 

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:

This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show.

Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question.

 

There are two men, both extremely wealthy.

One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of

dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.

That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent

more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama

bin Laden?

 

THINK ABOUT IT!

It is a strange turn of events.

 

Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir.

Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written.

 

This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to

recall anything about past events while under oath!

 

 

Writen by Cmdr Hamilton McWhorter

USN(ret)

[Rex Kickass]

Evidence showed, that at a certain level, Clinton indeed tried. In 2000, the Clinton administration developed a counter-terrorism plan that was unable to be administered because of time constraints. That completed plan was given to the Bush administration with the proviso from outgoing NSA Sandy Berger "This is the most pressing issue facing the security of the United States today." It sat on the Bush administration shelf.

 

A panel of former senators, congressmen and intelligence experts advised the Republican congress that the threat of terror in this country was high and that the US was extremely vulnerable to it. The Congress ignored that warning.

 

Within the first six months of the Bush administration, the government removed itself between any dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis, angering Arab sentiment and aligning itself completely with Sharon. The Bush administration sought to end the sanction regime as we know it in 2001 and deal with Iraq in a much lighter way. The Bush administration sought to give the Taliban aid during the first nine months of his administration. Human rights abuses didn't mean as much then, cause they weren't growing Opium anymore. The USA knew of an Al-Qaida terror camp in Iraq in an area Hussein did not control and in an area where the US owned the skies. Yet nothing was done until this war. Terror camps have shown signs of reforming in Afghanistan because the US has forgotten its reconstruction promises already. On September 10, 2001, the Bush administration threatened to veto a bill because it took a couple billion dollars away from an unproven missile shield program to fund counter terror measures.

 

Today, intelligence reports have said that the pressure on Al-Qaida has weakened some of its ability but it remains as great a threat today as it was on September 10th. Firefighters who helped save lives on September 11th are being laid off because the economy is in the toilet and promised federal aid to cities to deal with security measures needed in the face of terror still hasn't made its way to cities and states. The government adopted an anti-terror act without reading it and now allows the government to track what anyone reads at a library or buys at a bookstore without telling you, the library or anyone else. No warrant needed. The attorney general wants a sequel and in a draft leaked out to the press, it included a provision for the government to strip a person's citizenship if he/she is suspected of being in a terror organization. No proof necessary.

 

I'd say this issue is a little more complicated than Clinton didn't fix it. There's plenty of blame to pass around.

[cwsox]

Winodj, thank you for your very wise and informed answer. I would have been much more intemperate in my response.

 

 

I would note, that you said "That completed plan was given to the Bush administration with the proviso from outgoing NSA Sandy Berger "This is the most pressing issue facing the security of the United States today." It sat on the Bush administration shelf."

 

It sat ont he shelf intentionallky because Condaleeza Wright and the rest of the incoming administration made the intentional decision to ignore anything from the Clinton administration.

 

And as for "A panel of former senators, congressmen and intelligence experts advised the Republican congress that the threat of terror in this country was high and that the US was extremely vulnerable to it. The Congress ignored that warning." Of course thery ignored it; they were obsessed with real matters of national security such as blow jobs and blue dresses.

[moochpuppy]

Evidence showed, that at a certain level, Clinton indeed tried. In 2000, the Clinton administration developed a counter-terrorism plan that was unable to be administered because of time constraints.

Time constraints?!? Didn't Clinton take office in January 1993? Talk about "sitting on it"

 

Plus, don't you think that after the WTC attack in 1993 that Clinton wasn't advised that the threat of terror in this country was high and that the US was extremely vulnerable to it?

 

Now, don't think this is a Clinton bashing, I thought he did an adequate job in office and I'm neither a Democrat or Republican, just don't damn Bush for taking action now as opposed to earlier in his administration. If he had taken action before 9/11 some of you would be spewing the same arguments that you are now.

[cwsox]

"Spewing"? That type of wording tells me what the perspective is.

 

Maybe if Bush had paid attention in nthat famous August briefing to the terrorism situation rather than the Enron and his buddy-contributor Kenneth Lay situation, he could have been more focused on reality than politics.

 

Lapses abound everywhere. Before anyone casts stones, get out of the glass house.

[Rex Kickass]

Mooch:

 

The anti-terror initiative was drafted in 2000. Completed in Dec 2000.

 

My point is this: The Bush administration deserves some of the blame. The Clinton administration deserves some of the blame. The Congress deserves some of the blame. I'll even go as far as to say the media deserves some of the blame for underreporting the terror threat rather than the untrue scandals and obsessing over oral sex in the oval office.

 

I don't want to defend the Clinton administration. I didn't vote for it. However, Bush is no saint. In many ways, the things he's done pre and post September 11 have been more discomforting and concerning than anything the Clinton administration did. Bush has buoyed his approval ratings with fear.

 

How many Iraqis were involved in September 11? 0. Every attempt to attach Iraq to the attack was debunked. The money came from Saudi Arabia, an ally. The hijackers came from - to a larger extent - Saudi Arabia, an ally. Yet, we threaten Iraq on a hypothetical threat.

[baggio202]

and what would you have said , cw and windoji , if president bush took"preemptive" action against al-qaeda and the taliban in afghanastan??..or against the terrorists that were in this country at the time???...im sure you would have been all for it

[cwsox]

and what would you have said  , cw and windoji , if president bush took"preemptive" action against al-qaeda and the taliban in afghanastan??..or against the terrorists that were in this country at the time???...im sure you would have been all for it

that is a very false presumption of facts.

 

To do so in this country would be unconstitutional unless a crime had been committed. The arrest of that dude in minnesota should have been a huge tip off but it wasn't followed up - however, all of the plotters of the first WTC bombing were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted very properly.

 

The very point of the the anti-terror initiative that Rice and the Bush administration ignored was to take action against al queda. And under the Clinton administration moves were made against al queda. They have been discussed here before and I am not going to go over old ground for a cheap shot.

 

If you think the only way to deal with anything is to wage war, well, that is your problem.

[moochpuppy]

"Spewing"?  That type of wording tells me what the perspective is.

 

Lapses abound everywhere.  Before anyone casts stones, get out of the glass house.

What is that supposed to mean? What's wrong with the usage of spewing? Is it not the same as "sending out", "churning out", "emiting", etc..? before making a grammar assumption check your thesaurus.

 

Who's casting stones? IMO, if Saddam was to remain in power, stones may be the only weapon of choice.

[SI1020]

and what would you have said  , cw and windoji , if president bush took"preemptive" action against al-qaeda and the taliban in afghanastan??..or against the terrorists that were in this country at the time???...im sure you would have been all for it

that is a very false presumption of facts.

 

To do so in this country would be unconstitutional unless a crime had been committed. The arrest of that dude in minnesota should have been a huge tip off but it wasn't followed up - however, all of the plotters of the first WTC bombing were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted very properly.

 

The very point of the the anti-terror initiative that Rice and the Bush administration ignored was to take action against al queda. And under the Clinton administration moves were made against al queda. They have been discussed here before and I am not going to go over old ground for a cheap shot.

 

If you think the only way to deal with anything is to wage war, well, that is your problem.

You're a real hard guy to figure cw. Your politics are hard left, Dean seems to be your man for the Dems. We've never met in the formal sense but you are a fighter, a warrior. I'm not cyber spouting to pick a fight with you it's just my own personal observation. I admit I find it ironic, you're for peace but at the same time you're such a damn good fighter. We're almost the same age, but I left the left a long time ago and I'm never going back. My voters card says "non partisan" so my politics don't fit into any cliche or label. I do think the original poster was correct in chastising Clinton for his utter and complete failure to deal with this threat. The Democratic party has been a collosal failure repeatedly in the area of foreign policy. That's a major reason why the Democrats have had such a hard time electing presidents since 1968. The American electorate is not McGovernite when it comes to foreign policy and does not trust the Dems to handle these matters, particularly voters in the south, plains and mountain west states. On the other hand many voters are leery of the Republicans when it comes to certain economic and social issues. I laugh at references to the blowhard Sandy Berger. He was a big wallflower on the issue of terrorism until the end of the Clinton regime. Face it Clinton and company sat on this hoping it would go away. The airlines wanted to install a highly sophisticated computer program in the mid 90's that more than likely would have prevented the hijackers from boarding those planes. Critics called it "racial profiling" and 9/11 is the result. Clinton was a big time failure in this area and only the blind or the overly zealous refuse to see it. Are the Republicans beyond criticism on this matter. Hell no! We have spent too much money on too many despots in the past and Republican administrations have been an important part of this. When this war ends I will be looking to see how Bush and any future Republican administrations will adjust our foreign policy. This immediate threat demands a forceful military response, but our present and past foreign policy has helped lead us to this sorry state. I told you I was non partisan so I guess both the left and the right on this board will be unhappy with me.

[baggio202]

and what would you have said  , cw and windoji , if president bush took"preemptive" action against al-qaeda and the taliban in afghanastan??..or against the terrorists that were in this country at the time???...im sure you would have been all for it

that is a very false presumption of facts.

 

To do so in this country would be unconstitutional unless a crime had been committed. The arrest of that dude in minnesota should have been a huge tip off but it wasn't followed up - however, all of the plotters of the first WTC bombing were arrested, prosecuted, and convicted very properly.

 

The very point of the the anti-terror initiative that Rice and the Bush administration ignored was to take action against al queda. And under the Clinton administration moves were made against al queda. They have been discussed here before and I am not going to go over old ground for a cheap shot.

 

If you think the only way to deal with anything is to wage war, well, that is your problem.

yeah, thats my answer to everthing..war

[cwsox]

"Spewing"?  That type of wording tells me what the perspective is.

 

Lapses abound everywhere.  Before anyone casts stones, get out of the glass house.

What is that supposed to mean? What's wrong with the usage of spewing? Is it not the same as "sending out", "churning out", "emiting", etc..? before making a grammar assumption check your thesaurus.

 

Who's casting stones? IMO, if Saddam was to remain in power, stones may be the only weapon of choice.

Words have connotations. Not all words are equal and mean the same thing. There are shades of meaning.

 

Get yourself your own thesarus.

 

And I will consider everything you post from now on to be "spewing." :puke

[doubleM23]

Funny how there's no mention of Reagan and Bush I's pathetic policy towards the Third World.

[CubKilla]

I know what you're saying here mooch

 

Thank God George Bush decided to do something about terrorism after 09/11 instead of sticking his thumb in the air, pounding on a lecturn, proclaiming that those responsible (only two or three were responsible for the first WTC bombing?????) will be brought to justice..... then, going to the Oval Office to slam his dick down some interns throat

[cwsox]

You're a real hard guy to figure cw. Your politics are hard left, Dean seems to be your man for the Dems. We've never met in the formal sense but you are a fighter, a warrior. I'm not cyber spouting to pick a fight with you it's just my own personal observation.  I admit I find it ironic, you're for peace but at the same time you're such a damn good fighter. We're almost the same age, but I left the left a long time ago and I'm never going back. My voters card says "non partisan" so my politics don't fit into any cliche or label.  I do think the original poster was correct in chastising Clinton for his utter and complete failure to deal with this threat. The Democratic party has been a collosal failure repeatedly in the area of foreign policy. That's a major reason why the Democrats have had such a hard time electing presidents since 1968. The American electorate is not McGovernite when it comes to foreign policy and does not trust the Dems to handle these matters, particularly voters in the south, plains and mountain west states. On the other hand many voters are leery of the Republicans when it comes to certain economic and social issues. I laugh at references to the blowhard Sandy Berger. He was a big wallflower on the issue of terrorism until the end of the Clinton regime. Face it Clinton and company sat on this hoping it would go away. The airlines wanted to install a highly sophisticated computer program in the mid 90's that more than likely would have prevented the hijackers from boarding those planes. Critics called it "racial profiling" and 9/11 is the result. Clinton was a big time failure in this area and only the blind or the overly zealous refuse to see it. Are the Republicans beyond criticism on this matter. Hell no! We have spent too much money on too many despots in the past and Republican administrations have been an important part of this. When this war ends I will be looking to see how Bush and any future Republican administrations will adjust our foreign policy. This immediate threat demands a forceful military response, but our present and past foreign policy has helped lead us to this sorry state. I told you I was non partisan so I guess both the left and the right on this board will be unhappy with me.

I'm not so hard to figure. I am run of the mill post Holocaust Lutheran where things like the Barmen Declaration, the Confessing Churchm and the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer are very informative. And that I tenaciously believe what I believe, or will sometimes not shy away from a position of advocacy, is not that hard to understand.

 

What I do not ever expect uniformity of opinion on anything, I will insist on facts being right.

 

And the initial post in this thread is ludicorus and unfactual. Responses to all of those those things were taken, as has been posted. One could make the same glib assertions about anything or anyone. It has no substance.

 

Shall we blast away in the same way at G W Bush because he promised us bin laden "dead or alive" and has not delievered but has distracted the public by video wars on tv against two very weak nations? This one was slighltly tougher than Grenada to be sure, but not by much.

 

It is spin bulls*** in my opinion to say that the American public does or does not rrust a certain party the way you describe. A Democratic candidate has won the popular vote 3 straight elections, the last time with the largest vote ever received by any candidate in US history.

 

But yes, there are certain perceptions out there, right or wrong. And to call the Democratic policies a collassal failure is real bulls*** when you consider that is was 10 years of Reagan and Bush kissing Saddam's ass all through the 1980s and half of 1990. And I could go and list any number of total policy failures from their hands. The foreign policy of Reagan, Bush and Bush has led us to a sorry state. It was Bob Dole shaking hands with Saddam in 1990 and calling him someone we can work with, not the Democratic congressional leader.

 

I could also discuss what I consider to be failures in Clinton's policy, or in Carter's. In reality I do not see the world in the simplistic way that one party is good and one bad, nor do I dwell in the shadow of the past. McGovern? A fighter pilot... and that election was over 30 years ago. Might as well tar the Republicans with Watergate if you are going to charge McGovernism. Or more aptly, Iran-Contra since many of the key players in that are currently employed in DC.

 

I wish Clinton had had a freer hand. Much of what was not accomplished was because of Republican obstructionism in the Congress and their obsession with getting Clinton and their vitrolic responses to anything Clinton said or did.

 

I am partisan though. There is one party that in the areas of congruence there is much more in common than with the other. Simple as that, while I see no party as perfect, of course not, I do advocate strongly within one party. And I am not decided on the next election. I lean towards Dean but am not in anyone's camp yet.

 

When the current outrageous budget deficits balloon, we shall see who America trusts. I think this administration has been a diaster in every way, and contemptuous of anything bipartisan. And its economic polices are woefully ignorant and inept.

 

As far as 9-11 goes - there was no f***ing need for racial profiling or for anything more sophisticated than following then-current polices - when a group of people buy one way tickets oin cash ayt the very last second, that is suspicious. The failure of Amerfican intelligence to give a warning in the weeks prior is well documented. So was Bush's neglect. So was Rice's. And even afterwards,. it was not Bush who supported greater airline security, he just finally when he saw the congressional votes were against him, latched onto the Liberman proposals. And this very day while America is looking elsewhere, 1/3 of the House Republicans went against the president on an airline bill. I find the recent republican congressional dissension from Bush on economoic matters interesting, by the way.

 

I don't see you as nonpartisan other than on your card, unless you are hard right. Which is noit to say that I do not find you as interesting, better informed than most, and a good Sox fan. And you are more rartional than many. I haven't caught you in a disregard for facts, really, just mis-interpretations and maybe some day you will come back to the true fold.

 

But never mistake being for peace with not being tenacious. It is not always easy to go against the contemporary flow. But then, if I were the give in easily type, I wouldn't be a Sox fan, would I?

[cwsox]

I know what you're saying here mooch 

 

Thank God George Bush decided to do something about terrorism after 09/11 instead of sticking his thumb in the air, pounding on a lecturn, proclaiming that those responsible (only   two or three were responsible for the first WTC bombing?????) will be brought to justice..... then, going to the Oval Office to slam his dick down some interns throat 

only because G W Bush is dickless.

 

 

 

Where is bin laden who he pounded on the table for?

 

So the guy who was AWOL with the vice president who was "too busy" and used deferments to avoid service impress you? They are both dickless wonders.

 

And your numbers on those convicted for the first World Trade Center bombing are wrong.

 

And you let others make your decisions last Friday and you left before the game started.

 

Only Democrats stayed, by the way. The Republicans all fled at the sight of rain and sound of thunder. Too bad we can't get the US military to go after the Republican Guard in this country!

[moochpuppy]

Words have connotations.  Not all words are equal and mean the same thing.  There are shades of meaning.

 

Get yourself your own thesarus.

 

And I will consider everything you post from now on to be "spewing."  :puke

Oh, what will I do now? <_>

[Steff]

I know a lot of republican's that stayed for the game...

[CubKilla]

So the guy who was AWOL with the vice president who was "too busy" and used deferments to avoid service impress you?  They are both dickless wonders.

 

And your numbers on those convicted for the first World Trade Center bombing are wrong.

How many were convicted for the WTC bombing then? How many am I off by? 1..... 2?

 

And who said I was impressed by Bush for what he did prior to his Presidency ? I said I'm impressed that he, unlike his draft-dodging counterpart Clinton, took a stand after 09/11..... AND HE STUCK TO IT DESPITE HEAVY CRITICISM. God Bless George Bush for that.

 

And something tells me that the scenes from Iraq today really, to some degree, upset you and your liberal left buddies. You all were so hoping to be able to tell all the pro-Troops/pro-President people, "I told you so." At least admit that this War in Iraq, so far, has gone better than planned..... that Germany, France, Russia, etc. were only against the Coalition because of monetary purposes..... admit that even though many died as a result of attacks so far, that the number saved will greatly out number those that were/would have been killed if this regime was allowed to stay in power.

[SI1020]

You're a real hard guy to figure cw. Your politics are hard left, Dean seems to be your man for the Dems. We've never met in the formal sense but you are a fighter, a warrior. I'm not cyber spouting to pick a fight with you it's just my own personal observation.  I admit I find it ironic, you're for peace but at the same time you're such a damn good fighter. We're almost the same age, but I left the left a long time ago and I'm never going back. My voters card says "non partisan" so my politics don't fit into any cliche or label.  I do think the original poster was correct in chastising Clinton for his utter and complete failure to deal with this threat. The Democratic party has been a collosal failure repeatedly in the area of foreign policy. That's a major reason why the Democrats have had such a hard time electing presidents since 1968. The American electorate is not McGovernite when it comes to foreign policy and does not trust the Dems to handle these matters, particularly voters in the south, plains and mountain west states. On the other hand many voters are leery of the Republicans when it comes to certain economic and social issues. I laugh at references to the blowhard Sandy Berger. He was a big wallflower on the issue of terrorism until the end of the Clinton regime. Face it Clinton and company sat on this hoping it would go away. The airlines wanted to install a highly sophisticated computer program in the mid 90's that more than likely would have prevented the hijackers from boarding those planes. Critics called it "racial profiling" and 9/11 is the result. Clinton was a big time failure in this area and only the blind or the overly zealous refuse to see it. Are the Republicans beyond criticism on this matter. Hell no! We have spent too much money on too many despots in the past and Republican administrations have been an important part of this. When this war ends I will be looking to see how Bush and any future Republican administrations will adjust our foreign policy. This immediate threat demands a forceful military response, but our present and past foreign policy has helped lead us to this sorry state. I told you I was non partisan so I guess both the left and the right on this board will be unhappy with me.

I'm not so hard to figure. I am run of the mill post Holocaust Lutheran where things like the Barmen Declaration, the Confessing Churchm and the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer are very informative. And that I tenaciously believe what I believe, or will sometimes not shy away from a position of advocacy, is not that hard to understand.

 

What I do not ever expect uniformity of opinion on anything, I will insist on facts being right.

 

And the initial post in this thread is ludicorus and unfactual. Responses to all of those those things were taken, as has been posted. One could make the same glib assertions about anything or anyone. It has no substance.

 

Shall we blast away in the same way at G W Bush because he promised us bin laden "dead or alive" and has not delievered but has distracted the public by video wars on tv against two very weak nations? This one was slighltly tougher than Grenada to be sure, but not by much.

 

It is spin bulls*** in my opinion to say that the American public does or does not rrust a certain party the way you describe. A Democratic candidate has won the popular vote 3 straight elections, the last time with the largest vote ever received by any candidate in US history.

 

But yes, there are certain perceptions out there, right or wrong. And to call the Democratic policies a collassal failure is real bulls*** when you consider that is was 10 years of Reagan and Bush kissing Saddam's ass all through the 1980s and half of 1990. And I could go and list any number of total policy failures from their hands. The foreign policy of Reagan, Bush and Bush has led us to a sorry state. It was Bob Dole shaking hands with Saddam in 1990 and calling him someone we can work with, not the Democratic congressional leader.

 

I could also discuss what I consider to be failures in Clinton's policy, or in Carter's. In reality I do not see the world in the simplistic way that one party is good and one bad, nor do I dwell in the shadow of the past. McGovern? A fighter pilot... and that election was over 30 years ago. Might as well tar the Republicans with Watergate if you are going to charge McGovernism. Or more aptly, Iran-Contra since many of the key players in that are currently employed in DC.

 

I wish Clinton had had a freer hand. Much of what was not accomplished was because of Republican obstructionism in the Congress and their obsession with getting Clinton and their vitrolic responses to anything Clinton said or did.

 

I am partisan though. There is one party that in the areas of congruence there is much more in common than with the other. Simple as that, while I see no party as perfect, of course not, I do advocate strongly within one party. And I am not decided on the next election. I lean towards Dean but am not in anyone's camp yet.

 

When the current outrageous budget deficits balloon, we shall see who America trusts. I think this administration has been a diaster in every way, and contemptuous of anything bipartisan. And its economic polices are woefully ignorant and inept.

 

As far as 9-11 goes - there was no f***ing need for racial profiling or for anything more sophisticated than following then-current polices - when a group of people buy one way tickets oin cash ayt the very last second, that is suspicious. The failure of Amerfican intelligence to give a warning in the weeks prior is well documented. So was Bush's neglect. So was Rice's. And even afterwards,. it was not Bush who supported greater airline security, he just finally when he saw the congressional votes were against him, latched onto the Liberman proposals. And this very day while America is looking elsewhere, 1/3 of the House Republicans went against the president on an airline bill. I find the recent republican congressional dissension from Bush on economoic matters interesting, by the way.

 

I don't see you as nonpartisan other than on your card, unless you are hard right. Which is noit to say that I do not find you as interesting, better informed than most, and a good Sox fan. And you are more rartional than many. I haven't caught you in a disregard for facts, really, just mis-interpretations and maybe some day you will come back to the true fold.

 

But never mistake being for peace with not being tenacious. It is not always easy to go against the contemporary flow. But then, if I were the give in easily type, I wouldn't be a Sox fan, would I?

Oh well it's useless to debate I'm not going to even try, we're too far apart. It is nice to know that even if I'm not too bright at least I'm not too dumb. If we ever do meet then maybe we'll hash it out over a few beers. I have some liberal relatives who actually like me at least they act like they do. I'm not a leftist but if I'm on the right then I'm very quirky right. I once tried to get on Rush Limbaugh for about a week to debate him on a particular economic point. Needless to say I never got past the censors and ended up frustrated like this . I still say you're quite the warrior.

[cwsox]

CK, you said "And something tells me that the scenes from Iraq today really, to some degree, upset you and your liberal left buddies. You all were so hoping to be able to tell all the pro-Troops/pro-President people, "I told you so." At least admit that this War in Iraq, so far, has gone better than planned..... that Germany, France, Russia, etc. were only against the Coalition because of monetary purposes..... admit that even though many died as a result of attacks so far, that the number saved will greatly out number those that were/would have been killed if this regime was allowed to stay in power."

 

 

And my friend, wrong on all counts.

 

And to claim "pro troops" for one side is bull. Total bull. That implies that I am "anti troops." And if you imply that, it won't be me, but my Marine son, who will kick the s*** out of you.

 

I would suggest that Bush was in this for monetary purposes and that this is not over and it won't be for decades. And your coalition included such heavyweights as Eritrea and Palau and was a pure pr creation. Admit! Admit! Admit!

 

Or not. But today was inevitable. Was there a question as to who would prevail? There were questions and still are about alternative ways to have done far more and far better with far less ramifications than this so far.

 

But I still love you buddy! You are a good guy and I appreciate that!

[cwsox]

I know a lot of republican's that stayed for the game...   

and of course that was said tongue in cheek -

 

 

There might have been five there!

[Steff]

I know a lot of republican's that stayed for the game...    

and of course that was said tongue in cheek -

 

 

There might have been five there!

No... SIX!!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

How many were convicted for the WTC bombing then? How many am I off by? 1..... 2?

 

And who said I was impressed by Bush for what he did prior to his Presidency  ? I said I'm impressed that he, unlike his draft-dodging counterpart Clinton, took a stand after 09/11..... AND HE STUCK TO IT DESPITE HEAVY CRITICISM. God Bless George Bush for that.

 

And something tells me that the scenes from Iraq today really, to some degree, upset you and your liberal left buddies. You all were so hoping to be able to tell all the pro-Troops/pro-President people, "I told you so." At least admit that this War in Iraq, so far, has gone better than planned..... that Germany, France, Russia, etc. were only against the Coalition because of monetary purposes..... admit that even though many died as a result of attacks so far, that the number saved will greatly out number those that were/would have been killed if this regime was allowed to stay in power.

According to Interpol, "During the six month trial, more than 200 witnesses introduced over 1000 exhibits. On 4th March 1994, exactly one year after Salameh's arrest, the jury found Salameh, Ajaj, Abuhalima and Ayyad guilty on all thirty-eight counts." So, there were 4 convicted of the 1993 WTC bombing.

 

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Publication...R/ICPR469_3.asp

 

CK, last time I checked, Bush and Cheney also dodged the draft and got deferrments out of going to Vietnam.

 

9/11, we had international support to get OSAMA BIN LADEN. Bush went and screwed that up by, NOT GETTING OSAMA BIN LADEN, the man responsible but instead going after Iraq because Bushie couldn't find bin Laden. So we go after Saddam...because they have ties with the horrible Al Qaeda organization. Never mind that the CIA can't link the two. Then the case for war changes to the fact that they have WoMD. Many of these weapons IF they even have them could be found by weapons inspectors and destroyed. But the weapons inspectors weren't allowing Bush to go to the war that he wanted to go to. Hell, they weren't even going to go to the UN before doing this except that Powell stepped in and said that he would resign if Bush didn't go to the United Nations. So, Bush went in looking for every excuse for war since he was all ready to go beforehand no matter what the UN inspectors would say. They could have said Saddam is giving us everything we need etc. etc. etc. and Bush/Ari would have found something wrong with it.

After Powell's UN speech was found to be plagiarized grad school work from 1991, pictures without details, and artist's renderings the US case that they had chem/bio weapons was weak. So we said that they had nukes and Bush cited a UN report that makes no such claim.

Then we went to the "it's all about the humanitarian aid". Granted we never gave a f*** when the UN sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the US even made it a crime to give food etc. to the Iraqis and the penalty was 12 years in prison. Then in our campaign we've accidentally killed over a thousand (conservative minimum) and still more to come.

This has also caused membership in terrorist groups to spike in an increase. This war is poor foreign policy and will lead to more terror attacks in response to this.

 

And don't make me out to be an inhuman monster, CK. I don't think Saddam is any angel. However, going out and having a vigilante cowboy war to get rid of him was not the right policy to take in this situation.

[Rex Kickass]

and what would you have said  , cw and windoji , if president bush took"preemptive" action against al-qaeda and the taliban in afghanastan??..or against the terrorists that were in this country at the time???...im sure you would have been all for it

Al-Qaeda is not a state. President Bush couldn't have taken preemptive action against Al-Qaeda. It is a stated enemy of our people, by their own statement. They declared war on us. They attacked US interests. There was a world community looking to defeat the Al-Qaeda network. There are many differences between a war on terror and a war on Iraq