"Freddie"? lol Okay. If the juvenile bs makes you feel good, well I guess that's just you. You DO get to see what people are like here. Well, I'm glad you "don't blame Clinton" because this kinda threw me off, in that regard: Zebnick Wrote: "if Bubba (Clinton) 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."
A lot of people might have misunderstood that to be blaming Clinton. Thanks for the correction. On Jul 18, 6:52 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
