LOL! Geez Freddie, I'll bet you pissed yourself jumping to Clinton's defense there.
> "OBL plans to use commercial aircraft to attack the US". What would YOU have done, tough guy. Shut down the commercial airline industry? Close all the airports? You lefties seem to think that was a specific threat. It was not. And it did not exist in a vacuum. Thousands of threat scenarios were being evaluated. The fact is that all of the 9/11 terrorists came to the US while Clinton was in office and trained here to fly planes. But I don't blame Clinton for 9/11. I blame Bin Laden. It could easily happen again. On Jul 18, 8:38 pm, Frederick The Moderate <[email protected]> wrote: > LOL! Clinton to blame for 9/11... .ROFL If only he'd had a memo or > something! Say for instance, one that read "OBL plans to use > commercial aircraft to attack the US". > But I know, I know, it was CLINTON's fault! roflmao > > I love it when Liberals or Conservatives blinded by their ideology > write that hysterical kind of bs. Just cracks me up! > > On Jul 18, 4:24 pm, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This whole argument can easily be put to an end ( if were > > looking for blame ) if Bubba had terminated Osama when the CIA had him > > in their sights in 1998. He ( Osama ) > > would not have been around to plan 9/11, hence the course of history > > would have ( most likely ) been different. Suffice it to say Clinton > > did not act and more or less got caught with his pants down. No 9/11; > > no Afghan war & no Iraq war. The next thing I expect on this thread is > > that 9/11 had nothing to do with it. I will also remind you that the > > Iraq war no matter how you disagree with it was not illegal. The > > Congress of the USA and numerous countries signed on. Just as there > > were no WMD ( questionable ) there is no silver bullet against either > > George Bush or the CIA. > > > ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ > > > On Jul 18, 6:37 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Clinton did not commit the US to armed conflict... it was prohibited by a > > > congress that had been told the truth.... > > > > read more » > > > > Further release date is NOT important.... it was signed in Sept. of > > > 2006... > > > no wiggle room there > > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM, dick thompson > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > What I threw out at you was info about the use of gas on the Kurds > > > > (true) > > > > and about the fact that the US did not provide the nuclear equipment > > > > that > > > > Saddam had (true) and that Clinton signed a bill authorizing him to > > > > cause > > > > regime change in Iraq (true). Also note that the chairman of the > > > > committee > > > > was not a Republican, we have no idea of the bipartisan makeup and vote > > > > of > > > > the committee, the report was released in 2008 (the Republicans were > > > > not in > > > > charge then). Also look back on the Senate report on 9/11 and what a > > > > load > > > > of bull that one was! Why should I accept this then. > > > > > Mark wrote: > > > > > Yes it was and you decided to try a history lesson on me and throw out > > > > some > > > > "holier than thou" Gringo bullshit > > > > > again read the ONLY empiracal repoort done on this > > > >http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775 then choke mon > > > > your BS > > > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:31 PM, dick thompson > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > >> The subject was AFghanistan and Iraq > > > > >> Mark wrote: > > > > >> how about the thirty oir so thousand that died in central america in > > > >> the > > > >> same time period at thands of alzheimer ronnie. ?? US forces lead by > > > >> Felix > > > >> Rodriguez (I know, I met him there) > > > > >> please read the republican dominated "senate intelligence report" from > > > >> sept 2006 that says ALL the info you are trying to feed me now is pure > > > >> BULLSHIT.... > > > > >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> >Thedifference in time from having used and being falsely accused of > > > >>> having gas was 25 years..... > > > > >>> Really?LOL! Did the thousands who died wretching deaths come back to > > > >>> life in those 25 years? Did Saddam act like he'd become a humanitarian > > > >>> in those 25 years? Oh WAIT! Thats right! Saddam insisted that he still > > > >>> HAD WMDs. Only when the UN sanctioned him did he say they were > > > >>> gone.....supplying no evidence of their disposal, of course. > > > > >>> >as far as building that reactor in Iraq... the US supplied and built > > > >>> it AND donated the yellow cake as well..... > > > > >>> ROTFLMAO. You are either a very bad liar or a complete idiot. I think > > > >>> both. Bye! > > > > >>> On Jul 18, 3:26 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > I didn't think he ahd gas or wmd's or nukes (though I Knew he was > > > >>> > sitting on a research reactor and a mountain of yellow cake) The > > > >>> > difference in time from having used and being falsely accused of > > > >>> > having gas was 25 years..... > > > > >>> > as far as building that reactor in Iraq... the US supplied and built > > > >>> > it AND donated the yellow cake as well..... You are right the US is > > > >>> > a > > > >>> > danger even to itself. The only deluded person/people seems to be > > > >>> > you > > > >>> > and Gringolandia. > > > > >>> > On Jul 18, 12:07 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > >If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. > > > > >>> > > We thought he had poison gas. Our soldiers were equipped to > > > >>> > > confront > > > >>> > > it. > > > > >>> > > Everybody thought he had WMDs, mostly because he not only HAD them > > > >>> but > > > >>> > > because he used them against his enemies. > > > > >>> > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state > > > > >>> > > Actually, they were. Iraq had completed construction of a nuclear > > > >>> > > reactor (That makes you a nuclear nation state) but Israel > > > >>> immediately > > > >>> > > blew it up. (Thank you Israel). > > > > >>> > > Some people would say that a leader who builds a nuclear reactor > > > >>> > > despite worldwide protests and has and uses poison gas on > > > >>> > > neighboring > > > >>> > > countries and his own people was a dangerous guy. Other people > > > >>> > > like > > > >>> > > deluding themselves. > > > > >>> > > On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate > > > > >>> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. > > > >>> Large, > > > >>> > > > tight formations are easy targets and we know that. Not to > > > >>> > > > mention > > > >>> > > > that we would have sent a least one division to sweep and search > > > >>> the > > > >>> > > > area where we "knew" the WMD's were for residual (or any other) > > > >>> > > > evidence they ever existed. We never did. Not one peek. I'm > > > >>> > > > former > > > >>> > > > navy intel and i can assure you, even though Bush screwed our > > > >>> Humint > > > >>> > > > network fro some time to come, we still would have been able to > > > >>> find > > > >>> > > > evidence - if believed it was ever there. > > > >>> > > > But I get it. You really, really, really want to believe there > > > >>> > > > were > > > >>> > > > WMD's there. Okay. > > > > >>> > > > Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state > > > >>> but > > > >>> > > > again, if you really want to believe it is or was, okay dokey. > > > > >>> > > > Talk about wanting to believe lies. > > > > >>> > > > I've lost five friends in Iraq. All of them Psy-Ops and a couple > > > >>> Force > > > >>> > > > Recon. They've made it clear for years that Iraq will never > > > >>> appreciate > > > >>> > > > what we've done and no matter how long we're there, they'll > > > >>> > > > regress > > > >>> > > > shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. > > > >>> > > > Iraq has already made clear they view US as outsiders and went > > > >>> > > > out > > > >>> of > > > >>> > > > the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get out of > > > >>> > > > office. > > > >>> But > > > >>> > > > you believe what you want to believe. > > > > >>> > > > On Jul 18, 7:23 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> We also had the certainty that there really were no WMD's > > > > >>> > > > > Not true. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting people > > > >>> > > > > >>> they > > > >>> viewed as invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of > > > > >>> > > > > exit strategy, created a no-win situation. > > > > >>> > > > > Once again you show little understanding... Both AQ and the > > > >>> > > > > Americans are outsiders... As is the harsh form of Radical > > > >>> Islam... > > > >>> > > > > As is the lowland Pakistani... The question here is not > > > >>> fighting the > > > >>> > > > > outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... The exit strategy? Stability > > > >>> and a > > > >>> > > > > non Radical Islamic government in a nuclear nation-state... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border > > > >>> them. They had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & > > > >>> technology have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful > > > >>> only at > > > >>> blowing up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess > > > > >>> > > > > and a mistake and we should get out. > > > > >>> > > > > Tactics and technology make a huge difference... As the fact > > > >>> the our > > > >>> > > > > WILLINGNESS and desire to be a long term occupying power is > > > >>> > > > > far > > > >>> less > > > >>> > > > > than the Russians or the Pakistanis as makes a difference... > > > >>> The > > > >>> > > > > Russian border aided in supplying their troops but harmed the > > > >>> "Soft > > > >>> > > > > Warfare" in being seen a a long term occupying power... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The only upside is at least we're actually going after > > > >>> > > > > >>> people > > > >>> we have truthful cause to go after. > > > > >>> > > > > Once again you proclaim Urban Lies... > > > > >>> > > > > On Jul 18, 3:58 am, Frederick The Moderate > > > > >>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > > I agree with you about Iraq. We had so many sanctions on > > > >>> > > > > > Iraq > > > >>> before > > > >>> > > > > > invading, they couldn't import dental equipment (because it > > > >>> could > > > >>> > > > > > possibly be modified for weapons use - go figure). We also > > > >>> > > > > > had > > > >>> the > > > >>> > > > > > certainty that there really were no WMD's. So it was > > > >>> > > > > > nothing to > > > >>> storm > > > >>> > > > > > right in. Like you said, cakewalk getting there. It was > > > >>> afterward the > > > >>> > > > > > problems started. Urban warfare, their > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
