The Republicans did not say wag the dog. They voted to give Clinton permission as requested to institute a regime change. He chose to do nothing. He had already cut the military. Hillary was trying to get the Marine guards to come to work at the White House in civvies because she did not want to see uniforms. Clinton also turned down the chances to do something about it. I guess it meant nothing to him.
Bush got briefed that there would be an attack on some city at some airport in the first couple of weeks of September. He could not get any better intelligence because of the wall that Gorelick had built between the CIA and the FBI so that they could not share intelligence. Given that piece of intelligence,you tell me how he was supposed to know which plane in which city would be doing the attack. NYC alone has over 4K flights per day. Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, LA all have close to the same number. And just think of all the rest of the airports, especially those close to military bases. Not going to happen. To top that off when Kerry was warned that security was lax in Boston Logan airport he disregarded it and did not tell anyone. I guess you could just call in Hillary's fortune teller with her crystal ball and have her ask Eleanor Roosevelt what flight was going to be the one to watch for. Maybe that is what he should have done. Would have worked about as well as anything else. VT VirtualTruth wrote: > Again when Clinton did try to do something about Bin Laden the > Republican obstructionists started shouting 'Wag the dog', > how quickly you fools forget! > > On May 1, 3:52 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You are rewriting history again. Clinton was offered bin Laden several >> times and the only attempt he made was to bomb a baby milk factory. He >> asked for and got legislation that approved a regime change for Iraq if >> Saddam did not continue allowing the UN testers in to verify the >> destruction of WMD. Other than that they never stopped him going after >> the ones attacking our embassies or our troops. He just never went >> after them except when he needed to get the news off his mistakes. It >> may be more coincidence than causality but every time Clinton got in a >> corner Saddam got bombed. Funny, that. >> >> VT VirtualTruth wrote: >> >>> Actually when he tried Republicans blocked Clinton >>> with the 'wag the dog' BS. >>> >>> How quickly we forget >>> >>> On May 1, 1:26 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Just like doing nothing for 8 years while the WTC was attacked, our >>>> embassies were attacked, our military were attacked, the USS Cole was >>>> attacked and Al Qaeda eventually decided that it was safe to attack the >>>> WTC on 9/11, all the while that the primary intelligence agencies were >>>> specifically kept from sharing what they knew thanks to the >>>> wrong-headedness of an attorney general and her primary assistant. That >>>> did a whole lot for our image. >>>> >>>> VT VirtualTruth wrote: >>>> >>>>> Killing 100.000 s of innocent Iraqis kept the US safe how? >>>>> Torturing hundreds of Iraqis kept the US safe how? >>>>> Keeping innocent people in prison for 7 years kept the >>>>> US safer how? >>>>> Not getting Bin Laden and allowing Al qaeda safe haven >>>>> in Pakistan to reconstitute and become an even greater threat >>>>> with the possibility of getting Pakistan nuclear material kept the >>>>> US safer how? >>>>> >>>>> THAT is the full scope of the problems Bush Apologists NEVER >>>>> address. >>>>> >>>>> On May 1, 12:47 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Our beloved Zero made noises about sending them all home or somewhere >>>>>> not in a prison. This now states that at least Zero understands that >>>>>> some of these guys are really dangerous. That is one thing he learned. >>>>>> He has also backtracked on a lot of the other things he was going to do >>>>>> right away once he realized the full scope of the problems. I still >>>>>> don't trust him in the job. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hollywood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> dick, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone ever claim that NONE of the prisoners were legimate? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 1, 10:38 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_12266824?source=email >>>>>>>> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
