Sen Clinton = Hypocrite.

[BigSqwert]

Whats worse, f***ing up a intelligence reports on something that might happen, or seeing Bin Laden in your gun scope and deciding not to do a f***ing thing. 

 

This is fun.

HAHAHAHA! Read my previous post. They had the dude cornered and handed him over to the Afghan fighters to finish him off. Pathetic.

[southsideirish71]

And this administration did an outstanding job when they had Bin Laden cornered.  Kudos!

 

 

Cornered in a mountainous area is the same thing as having a predator with its sights trained on an individual sitting out in the open? Ask any military person which is the easier target, the rat in one of many holes in a mountain, or the tall guy having a picnic out in a field. I think even our video gamers in this forum could of taken Bin Laden out with the Predator while he was in the open. But then again its a law enforcement issue or at least that was the previous administrations view.

Edited February 9, 2006 by southsideirish71

[BigSqwert]

Cornered in a mountainous area is the same thing as having a predator with its sights trained on an individual sitting out in the open.  Ask any military person which is the easier target, the rat in one of many holes in a mountain, or the tall guy having a picnic out in a field.  I think even our video gamers in this forum could of taken Bin Laden out with the Predator while he was in the open.  But then again its a law enforcement issue or at least that was the previous administrations view.

We can go back and forth all night with this but to be honest I have gotten serious about politics only after we went to war in Iraq. I can't speak about things during Clinton's presidency...hell I didn't even vote for him. So I won't comment on how well or how poorly he handled terrorism. What I do know is this adminstration did ZERO about it up until 9/11. Nothing. The 9/11 Commision clearly laid that out. And I'm supposed to feel like Bush is some hero or something. Who wouldn't be tough on terror after 9/11? s***, even Ross Perot would be the anti-terror czar after 9/11 if he were president.

Edited February 9, 2006 by BigSqwert

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Also recall that the previous administration had the government of Sudan offer to hand him over and Clinton refused.

[southsideirish71]

We can go back and forth all night with this but to be honest I have gotten serious about politics only after we went to war in Iraq.  I can't speak about things during Clinton's presidency...hell I didn't even vote for him.  So I won't comment on how well or how poorly he handled terrorism.  What I do know is this adminstration did ZERO about it up until 9/11.  Nothing.  The 9/11 Commision clearly laid that out.  And I'm supposed to feel like Bush is some hero or something.  Who wouldn't be tough on terror afetr 9/11?  s***, even Ross Perot would be the anti-terror czar after 9/11 if he were president.

 

 

Well its good that you can take the anti-this administration stuff from the findings of the 9/11 commission, however just ignore the comments made about the previous administration and their handling of the terrorism. Because the 9 months that Bush was in office really is compelling when you look at the body of work on how he could of prevented 9/11. Maybe if we also look at the facts of items that happened since the first bombing of the world trade center, and the years of other acts of terrorism by Al Queda before 9/11. The fact that he was listed as a very real threat, and of course was ignored by the previous administration. These to me are also compelling on why we got hit. But then I forget, 9/11 like all things evil are the result of Bush. And only the things that happened under his watch matter.

[BigSqwert]

Well its good that you can take the anti-this administration stuff from the findings of the 9/11 commission, however just ignore the comments made about the previous administration and their handling of the terrorism.  Because the 9 months that Bush was in office really is compelling when you look at the body of work on how he could of prevented 9/11.  Maybe if we also look at the facts of items that happened since the first bombing of the world trade center, and the years of other acts of terrorism by Al Queda before 9/11.  The fact that he was listed as a very real threat, and of course was ignored by the previous administration.  These to me are also compelling on why we got hit.  But then I forget, 9/11 like all things evil are the result of Bush.  And only the things that happened under his watch matter.

If you can point out the faults of the previous administration why not this one? They obviously ignored the facts up to 9/11 as well. Is there ANYTHING that this administration has done wrong in your opinion?

Edited February 9, 2006 by BigSqwert

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

We can go back and forth all night with this but to be honest I have gotten serious about politics only after we went to war in Iraq.  I can't speak about things during Clinton's presidency...hell I didn't even vote for him.  So I won't comment on how well or how poorly he handled terrorism.  What I do know is this adminstration did ZERO about it up until 9/11.  Nothing.  The 9/11 Commision clearly laid that out.  And I'm supposed to feel like Bush is some hero or something.  Who wouldn't be tough on terror after 9/11?  s***, even Ross Perot would be the anti-terror czar after 9/11 if he were president.

 

 

We all saw how tough on terror the Clinton Administration was on terrorists after the Air Force Barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996, or the embassy bombings in 1998, and the US Cole attack in 2000.

[BigSqwert]

We all saw how tough on terror the Clinton Administration was on terrorists after the Air Force Barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996, or the embassy bombings in 1998, and the US Cole attack in 2000.

Perhaps you just learned how to read but I just said my political acumen was pathetic at best during the Clinton era. Apparently spewing anti-Clintonian propaganda will allow me to back him up or something.

[mr_genius]

Perhaps you just learned how to read but I just said my political acumen was pathetic at best during the Clinton era.  Apparently spewing anti-Clintonian propaganda will allow me to back him up or something. 

 

 

lol

 

I’m starting to see a common thread here, when losing an argument accuse the opposition of being illiterate.

 

You guys sound like a bunch of 12 year olds.

[southsideirish71]

If you can point out the faults of the previous administration why not this one?  They obviously ignored the facts up to 9/11 as well.  Is there ANYTHING that this administration has done wrong in your opinion?

 

 

I think the biggest mistake in Bush's handling of the war on terrorism is our relationship with Pakistan. I dont believe that the Pakistani country is in line with what our goals are. I believe that Pakistan are doing more to help Bin Laden keep hiding. Mustraraf is afraid of an uprising and caters to extremist. I would of approached the mountains by both the paki boarder(after we surpressed their military by airstrikes) and then squeezed the mountain area creating a isolated zone. Now Bush aligned with Paki probably because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and I believe that he probably weighed getting bin laden over toppling Mustaraff and pretty much guarenteeing that the nukes could get into extremist hands.

 

I have a much simplier view on war, and it is probably good that I am not in charge. My view is when you go to war, you do whatever is required to win that war. Your responsibility is to save american lives, and do your best to limit civilian casualities. However now its changed. Because of the laser guided weapons and the first gulf war. People think that we can fight a war without any civilian casualties. Everytime the press shows a laser guided bomb missing the military base 100 feet to the left of Johns house everyone has a s*** fit. My view is if you live next to the ministry of defense and you know that a war is about to happen, f***ing move already. You are a dumbass and are a darwin award winner if you stay. If I was in charge I would have Ted Kennedy choking on his second helping of pumkin pie over my bombing campaign in the middle east.

 

You should be lucky that Bush is in charge. LOL

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I think the biggest mistake in Bush's handling of the war on terrorism is our relationship with Pakistan.  I dont believe that the Pakistani country is in line with what our goals are.  I believe that Pakistan are doing more to help Bin Laden keep hiding.  Mustraraf is afraid of an uprising and caters to extremist.  I would of approached the mountains by both the paki boarder(after we surpressed their military by airstrikes) and then squeezed the mountain area creating a isolated zone.  Now Bush aligned with Paki probably because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and I believe that he probably weighed getting bin laden over toppling Mustaraff and pretty much guarenteeing that the nukes could get into extremist hands.

 

I have a much simplier view on war, and it is probably good that I am not in charge.  My view is when you go to war, you do whatever is required to win that war. Your responsibility is to save american lives, and do your best to limit civilian casualities.  However now its changed.  Because of the laser guided weapons and the first gulf war.  People think that we can fight a war without any civilian casualties.  Everytime the press shows a laser guided bomb missing the military base 100 feet to the left of Johns house everyone has a s*** fit.  My view is if you live next to the ministry of defense and you know that a war is about to happen, f***ing move already.  You are a dumbass and are a darwin award winner if you stay.  If I was in charge I would have Ted Kennedy choking on his second helping of pumkin pie over my bombing campaign in the middle east. 

 

You should be lucky that Bush is in charge.  LOL

 

 

on most of your post. Only thing is that we have no choice but to do everything we can to help Musharaff hang on to power. I shudder to think what might happen if Al Qaeda gets their hands on Paki nukes.

[southsideirish71]

      on most of your post.  Only thing is that we have no choice but to do everything we can to help Musharaff hang on to power.  I shudder to think what might happen if Al Qaeda gets their hands on Paki nukes.

 

Bush thought of that. He weighed the risk of the nukes vs doing everything he could to isolate bin laden. Everyone forgets that we are basically fighting the Taliban with a magically safe home zone. All they have to do is cross over into Paki space and they are safe. The locals keep them safe. They refresh and recross the border. s*** we just had a predator take out some terrorists in paki and their government had a s*** fit.

 

Thank God I am not in charge. My grand air strike campaign would of make Shock and Awe seem like the fireworks at the pier during the summer.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Thank God I am not in charge.  My grand air strike campaign would of make Shock and Awe seem like the fireworks at the pier during the summer.

 

 

I would totally enjoy seeing that.

[Balta1701]

Also recall that the previous administration had the government of Sudan offer to hand him over and Clinton refused.

Simply untrue on all accounts, according to the 9/11 commission's final report.

[Balta1701]

      on most of your post.  Only thing is that we have no choice but to do everything we can to help Musharaff hang on to power.  I shudder to think what might happen if Al Qaeda gets their hands on Paki nukes.

Then of course, there's the other side of the token...with Pakistan protecting the man who's probably the single person most responsible for North Korea having the bomb and Iran being potentially on the verge of building one, and probably having the Pakistani government involved in his activities at some level (Khan!).

 

This is one I don't have an easy solution to...if the Bush Admin were to crack down on Pakistan, there could well be a revolution. If we don't crack down on them...then we're proving our own democracy rhetoric to be meaningless. If we do crack down on them, maybe bad people get the bomb, if we don't crack down on them...maybe bad people get the bomb.

[kapkomet]

Simply untrue on all accounts, according to the 9/11 commission's final report.

And that report had no political motivation, either. What was it again that dickhead Sandy Berger was shoving down his pants?

[Steff]

I think the biggest mistake in Bush's handling of the war on terrorism is our relationship with Pakistan.  I dont believe that the Pakistani country is in line with what our goals are.  I believe that Pakistan are doing more to help Bin Laden keep hiding.  Mustraraf is afraid of an uprising and caters to extremist.  I would of approached the mountains by both the paki boarder(after we surpressed their military by airstrikes) and then squeezed the mountain area creating a isolated zone.  Now Bush aligned with Paki probably because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and I believe that he probably weighed getting bin laden over toppling Mustaraff and pretty much guarenteeing that the nukes could get into extremist hands.

 

I have a much simplier view on war, and it is probably good that I am not in charge.  My view is when you go to war, you do whatever is required to win that war. Your responsibility is to save american lives, and do your best to limit civilian casualities.  However now its changed.  Because of the laser guided weapons and the first gulf war.  People think that we can fight a war without any civilian casualties.  Everytime the press shows a laser guided bomb missing the military base 100 feet to the left of Johns house everyone has a s*** fit.  My view is if you live next to the ministry of defense and you know that a war is about to happen, f***ing move already.  You are a dumbass and are a darwin award winner if you stay.  If I was in charge I would have Ted Kennedy choking on his second helping of pumkin pie over my bombing campaign in the middle east. 

 

You should be lucky that Bush is in charge.  LOL

 

 

Hard to argue this one...

[southsider2k5]

Yeah and it took 8 years between WTC I and WTC II.

 

And oh yeah, let the revisionist history begin -- Clinton did stop a little thing called Project Bojinka (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/dia-bojinka.htm)

 

Supposedly 10 potential attacks have been stopped since 9/11

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bus...r.ap/index.html

[Balta1701]

Supposedly 10 potential attacks have been stopped since 9/11

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bus...r.ap/index.html

A few years ago the FBI or DOJ or one of those organizations said 100 had been stopped since 9/11.

[kapkomet]

A few years ago the FBI or DOJ or one of those organizations said 100 had been stopped since 9/11.

10 'MAJOR' attacks, and probably a few more littler ones in scale.

[southsider2k5]

Hence why I don't put too much faith into the reports that Al Qaeda has plans to attack X. I am sure the government has intelligence that has AQ attacking basically every major city, tourist trap, nuclear power plant, port, utility, energy hub, etc in the country. I am sure they have made plans to try all of that. Now the question is whether they get to a stage where they are immenent attacks, and when exactly they disrupted them. Disrupting an attack could mean something as simple as hiring an extra security guard which just happened to cover the hole that AQ thought they had found in a nuclear power plants security, or it could mean they arrested someone with the bomb strapped on them ready to go to blow themselves up. Technically both would have disrupted an attack. I don't buy into much of this at all.

[kapkomet]

Hence why I don't put too much faith into the reports that Al Qaeda has plans to attack X.  I am sure the government has intelligence that has AQ attacking basically every major city, tourist trap, nuclear power plant, port, utility, energy hub, etc in the country.  I am sure they have made plans to try all of that.  Now the question is whether they get to a stage where they are immenent attacks, and when exactly they disrupted them.  Disrupting an attack could mean something as simple as hiring an extra security guard which just happened to cover the hole that AQ thought they had found in a nuclear power plants security, or it could mean they arrested someone with the bomb strapped on them ready to go to blow themselves up.  Technically both would have disrupted an attack.  I don't buy into much of this at all.

True.

[SSH2005]

I think the biggest mistake in Bush's handling of the war on terrorism is our relationship with Pakistan.  I dont believe that the Pakistani country is in line with what our goals are.  I believe that Pakistan are doing more to help Bin Laden keep hiding.  Mustraraf is afraid of an uprising and caters to extremist.  I would of approached the mountains by both the paki boarder(after we surpressed their military by airstrikes) and then squeezed the mountain area creating a isolated zone.  Now Bush aligned with Paki probably because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and I believe that he probably weighed getting bin laden over toppling Mustaraff and pretty much guarenteeing that the nukes could get into extremist hands.

 

I have a much simplier view on war, and it is probably good that I am not in charge.  My view is when you go to war, you do whatever is required to win that war. Your responsibility is to save american lives, and do your best to limit civilian casualities.  However now its changed.  Because of the laser guided weapons and the first gulf war.  People think that we can fight a war without any civilian casualties.  Everytime the press shows a laser guided bomb missing the military base 100 feet to the left of Johns house everyone has a s*** fit.  My view is if you live next to the ministry of defense and you know that a war is about to happen, f***ing move already.  You are a dumbass and are a darwin award winner if you stay.  If I was in charge I would have Ted Kennedy choking on his second helping of pumkin pie over my bombing campaign in the middle east. 

 

You should be lucky that Bush is in charge.  LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's what I think could be a possibility -- maybe Bush and the government actually know where the WMD's really are but they are afraid of the clusterf*** that could ensue if they go after all of the countries involved (i.e. Syria). Maybe he's afraid of WWIII going down with WMD's involved.

Edited February 9, 2006 by SSH2005

[Cknolls]

Very mature

[Cknolls]

And this administration did an outstanding job when they had Bin Laden cornered.  Kudos!

 

Had him cornered in a mountain area of how many square miles?

 

The same thing as having his head in the cross hairs.