T Nation

Bin Laden & Stained Blue Dress

Classic!

"IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS …
September 13, 2006

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton’s cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial “bridge to the 21st century.” Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace ? al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian “Party of God” ? staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats’ current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan’s offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because ? he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 ? “(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.” Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters (“normal people”) force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have “sex with that woman,” he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton’s scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don’t tell me impeachment “distracted” Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren’t for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer “distracted” by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of “Losing Bin Laden,” Clinton’s top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

? Attorney General Janet Reno “thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.”

? CIA Director George Tenet “wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was.”

? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright “was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process.” (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

? Secretary of Defense William Cohen “did not consider the Cole attack ‘sufficient provocation’ for a military retaliation.”

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton’s surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night “working” and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

Less than a year after Clinton’s final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush ? but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton’s own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are “most culpable” for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we’ll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history."

— Annie Coulter

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Classic!

"IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS …
September 13, 2006

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton’s cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial “bridge to the 21st century.” Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace ? al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian “Party of God” ? staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats’ current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan’s offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because ? he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 ? “(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.” Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters (“normal people”) force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have “sex with that woman,” he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton’s scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don’t tell me impeachment “distracted” Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren’t for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer “distracted” by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of “Losing Bin Laden,” Clinton’s top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

? Attorney General Janet Reno “thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.”

? CIA Director George Tenet “wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was.”

? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright “was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process.” (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

? Secretary of Defense William Cohen “did not consider the Cole attack ‘sufficient provocation’ for a military retaliation.”

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton’s surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night “working” and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

Less than a year after Clinton’s final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush ? but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton’s own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are “most culpable” for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we’ll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history."

— Annie Coulter

[/quote]

And Bush’s response to the Cole? Ignore Clinton’s advice and forget about terror. Hmmm.

Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

[quote]orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…[/quote]

Do you think 9/11 ‘just happened’ or that it took quite some time to set the whole thing up? Where was Blowjob Billy? Were the Al Qaeda scum emboldened by our lack of a serious response? Where was Blowjob Billy?

BB had 8 years to beef up security, he knew these scum were out there, yet he did everything possible to handcuff law enforcement and cut the military budget. He should be put on trial for dereliction of duty, AT THE LEAST.

[quote]orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…[/quote]

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major successful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror president…

Do you think 9/11 ‘just happened’ or that it took quite some time to set the whole thing up? Where was Blowjob Billy? Were the Al Qaeda scum emboldened by our lack of a serious response? Where was Blowjob Billy?

BB had 8 years to beef up security, he knew these scum were out there, yet he did everything possible to handcuff law enforcement and cut the military budget. He should be put on trial for dereliction of duty, AT THE LEAST.

[/quote]

cool, so when the US is going to be attacked after the Bush era the next president gets a pass even if he is a Democrat and Bush will be to blame?

After all he is sowing wind right now, I doubt he will be around to reap the storm.

When the shit hits the fan in 4 years or so, was it Bush`s fault or is there really no way those “liberals” can win?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage? [/quote]

If that would have worked the way they had planned it, it would have been “major”.

However, since getting lucky seems to count, why not for BC?

Bush profits from the fact that Bin Laden has achieved more than he could have hoped for. Why should there be another attack if he allready started an avalanche?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

Do you think 9/11 ‘just happened’ or that it took quite some time to set the whole thing up? Where was Blowjob Billy? Were the Al Qaeda scum emboldened by our lack of a serious response? Where was Blowjob Billy?

BB had 8 years to beef up security, he knew these scum were out there, yet he did everything possible to handcuff law enforcement and cut the military budget. He should be put on trial for dereliction of duty, AT THE LEAST.

[/quote]

Your party block his initiatives and watered them down (soft on terror). Your President LITERALLY deprioritized terror, and defunded it. The lights weren’t “blinking red” till june/july 2001.

Get your facts straight.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage? [/quote]
3000 deaths or so at WTC, pentagon, pa, seems pretty major, especially when your policy was a de-emphasis on terror.

I’d say 11,000 terrorist attacks last years is “major damage” with 56 more US civilians dead.

This on top of 175 in '03, 675 in '04.

Bush’s response has been to try and stop the 9/ll commission,fight a half-assed war in afghanistan, not finish it, underfund and under-man it, and give pakistan final say over what we can do. Then invaded a totally unrelated country, with no planning, under-man it, and then not take it seriously.

Meanwhile he still hasn’t tried and executed any of the 9/11 related prisoners.

In short he has no balls. And he coddles terrorists. And your party coddles him. NO OVERSIGHT by your congress.

But as awful as he’s been, as you’ve guys been, I mean literally one of the worst track records ever with inept idiots running the military so badly, people who don’t even understand what strategy is (Bush, Rummy, Franks…) and domestic disasters… even with all that you guys will probably still win.

Because you have an agnostic man, who loved his gay step-father as his own who goes out and divides the country over queers and christianity, then preys on their fears (lets bin laden win) to win by 50% + 1. You guys have Karl Rove.

But still 'tards like JeffR and headhunter will proudly proclaim "we raised terrorism 1100%!!! or "we lost 20,000 US troops to horrible injuries all in an effort to create more terrorists!!!“or “We totally f–ked up in Afghanistan, and tried to capture bin laden with just 8 CIA guys who asked for a batallion of rangers and instead got 40 man delta-force team” What did you democrats do??”

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage?
3000 deaths or so at WTC, pentagon, pa, seems pretty major, especially when your policy was a de-emphasis on terror.

I’d say 11,000 terrorist attacks last years is “major damage” with 56 more US civilians dead.

This on top of 175 in '03, 675 in '04.

Bush’s response has been to try and stop the 9/ll commission,fight a half-assed war in afghanistan, not finish it, underfund and under-man it, and give pakistan final say over what we can do. Then invaded a totally unrelated country, with no planning, under-man it, and then not take it seriously.

Meanwhile he still hasn’t tried and executed any of the 9/11 related prisoners.

In short he has no balls. And he coddles terrorists. And your party coddles him. NO OVERSIGHT by your congress.

But as awful as he’s been, as you’ve guys been, I mean literally one of the worst track records ever with inept idiots running the military so badly, people who don’t even understand what strategy is (Bush, Rummy, Franks…) and domestic disasters… even with all that you guys will probably still win.

Because you have an agnostic man, who loved his gay step-father as his own who goes out and divides the country over queers and christianity, then preys on their fears (lets bin laden win) to win by 50% + 1. You guys have Karl Rove.

But still 'tards like JeffR and headhunter will proudly proclaim "we raised terrorism 1100%!!! or "we lost 20,000 US troops to horrible injuries all in an effort to create more terrorists!!!“or “We totally f–ked up in Afghanistan, and tried to capture bin laden with just 8 CIA guys who asked for a batallion of rangers and instead got 40 man delta-force team” What did you democrats do??”

[/quote]

We’d have to fight another 30 years to lose 20K troops at this pace.

It’s way too easy for the CLinto-philes to blame Bush. But your guy had him dead to rights more times than can be counted, and he did nothing. NOTHING.

Once again - 8 years of Clinton v. 8 months of Bush. Clinton has blood on his hands - you are just too partisan to see it.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Classic!

"IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS …
September 13, 2006

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton’s cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial “bridge to the 21st century.” Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace ? al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian “Party of God” ? staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats’ current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan’s offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because ? he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 ? “(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.” Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters (“normal people”) force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have “sex with that woman,” he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton’s scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

— Annie Coulter

[/quote]

I think the charge that Clinton was asleep at the wheel is probably pretty true, but this statement is patently false. The 1998 bombing of Iraq, Operation Desert Fox, actually ruined Saddam’s WMD program, set it back years, and caused such despair in his scientists that most of them just gave up. The idea that it was impeachment-motivated and achieved nothing is completely wrong, it basically removed any remaining significant threat posed by Saddam.

Maybe try reading some decent books instead of the fake rantings of a skinny blonde who looks kinda like a transvestite?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage?
3000 deaths or so at WTC, pentagon, pa, seems pretty major, especially when your policy was a de-emphasis on terror.

I’d say 11,000 terrorist attacks last years is “major damage” with 56 more US civilians dead.

This on top of 175 in '03, 675 in '04.

Bush’s response has been to try and stop the 9/ll commission,fight a half-assed war in afghanistan, not finish it, underfund and under-man it, and give pakistan final say over what we can do. Then invaded a totally unrelated country, with no planning, under-man it, and then not take it seriously.

Meanwhile he still hasn’t tried and executed any of the 9/11 related prisoners.

In short he has no balls. And he coddles terrorists. And your party coddles him. NO OVERSIGHT by your congress.

But as awful as he’s been, as you’ve guys been, I mean literally one of the worst track records ever with inept idiots running the military so badly, people who don’t even understand what strategy is (Bush, Rummy, Franks…) and domestic disasters… even with all that you guys will probably still win.

Because you have an agnostic man, who loved his gay step-father as his own who goes out and divides the country over queers and christianity, then preys on their fears (lets bin laden win) to win by 50% + 1. You guys have Karl Rove.

But still 'tards like JeffR and headhunter will proudly proclaim "we raised terrorism 1100%!!! or "we lost 20,000 US troops to horrible injuries all in an effort to create more terrorists!!!“or “We totally f–ked up in Afghanistan, and tried to capture bin laden with just 8 CIA guys who asked for a batallion of rangers and instead got 40 man delta-force team” What did you democrats do??”

We’d have to fight another 30 years to lose 20K troops at this pace.

It’s way too easy for the CLinto-philes to blame Bush. But your guy had him dead to rights more times than can be counted, and he did nothing. NOTHING.

Once again - 8 years of Clinton v. 8 months of Bush. Clinton has blood on his hands - you are just too partisan to see it.

[/quote]

It only took 3 and half years to get 20k. (I wasn’t talking about deaths)

When did Clinton have a shot and not take it? Answer: never.

How’s about Bush? Men ON THE GROUND on his trail, asking for a battalion and NOT GETTING IT!!!

Big difference.

You’ve yet to explain how Bush deprioritizing, defunding terror in his first 8 months and not responding to intel’s frantic attempts at getting his attention, and republicans attempts at defanging Clinton’s anti-terror measures puts the “blood” on clinton’s hands.

Your guy didn’t do shit(and still doesn’t)

Our guy could have done more (and your guys tried to stop what he did.)

Again big difference.

Hang one of those responsible for 9/11 and then get back to me cowards.

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major successful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror president…

Do you think 9/11 ‘just happened’ or that it took quite some time to set the whole thing up? Where was Blowjob Billy? Were the Al Qaeda scum emboldened by our lack of a serious response? Where was Blowjob Billy?

BB had 8 years to beef up security, he knew these scum were out there, yet he did everything possible to handcuff law enforcement and cut the military budget. He should be put on trial for dereliction of duty, AT THE LEAST.

cool, so when the US is going to be attacked after the Bush era the next president gets a pass even if he is a Democrat and Bush will be to blame?

After all he is sowing wind right now, I doubt he will be around to reap the storm.

When the shit hits the fan in 4 years or so, was it Bush`s fault or is there really no way those “liberals” can win?
[/quote]

If the next president does like Bush, fight the cocksuckers, then neither of them is at fault. No one expects a president to perform miracles and, yes, some terrorists WILL get through. Bush tries, Clinton didn’t. BB didn’t treat the problem as SERIOUS during his whole 8 years. That’s my point.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage? [/quote]

Ouch.

orion, at LEAST try to acknowledge when you’ve been smoked.

Last time I checked, the WTC was on American soil.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage?

Ouch.

orion, at LEAST try to acknowledge when you’ve been smoked.

Last time I checked, the WTC was on American soil.

JeffR

[/quote]

I really do not think that the first attack on the WTC had the same financial , emotional and political consequences as the second.

If you want to call that attack a “major” one after 9-11, be my guest, but I dont think Im that far out there believing it wasn`t.

Easily could have been, but wasn`t.

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage?
3000 deaths or so at WTC, pentagon, pa, seems pretty major, especially when your policy was a de-emphasis on terror.

I’d say 11,000 terrorist attacks last years is “major damage” with 56 more US civilians dead.

This on top of 175 in '03, 675 in '04.

Bush’s response has been to try and stop the 9/ll commission,fight a half-assed war in afghanistan, not finish it, underfund and under-man it, and give pakistan final say over what we can do. Then invaded a totally unrelated country, with no planning, under-man it, and then not take it seriously.

Meanwhile he still hasn’t tried and executed any of the 9/11 related prisoners.

In short he has no balls. And he coddles terrorists. And your party coddles him. NO OVERSIGHT by your congress.

But as awful as he’s been, as you’ve guys been, I mean literally one of the worst track records ever with inept idiots running the military so badly, people who don’t even understand what strategy is (Bush, Rummy, Franks…) and domestic disasters… even with all that you guys will probably still win.

Because you have an agnostic man, who loved his gay step-father as his own who goes out and divides the country over queers and christianity, then preys on their fears (lets bin laden win) to win by 50% + 1. You guys have Karl Rove.

But still 'tards like JeffR and headhunter will proudly proclaim "we raised terrorism 1100%!!! or "we lost 20,000 US troops to horrible injuries all in an effort to create more terrorists!!!“or “We totally f–ked up in Afghanistan, and tried to capture bin laden with just 8 CIA guys who asked for a batallion of rangers and instead got 40 man delta-force team” What did you democrats do??”

We’d have to fight another 30 years to lose 20K troops at this pace.

It’s way too easy for the CLinto-philes to blame Bush. But your guy had him dead to rights more times than can be counted, and he did nothing. NOTHING.

Once again - 8 years of Clinton v. 8 months of Bush. Clinton has blood on his hands - you are just too partisan to see it.

It only took 3 and half years to get 20k. (I wasn’t talking about deaths)

When did Clinton have a shot and not take it? Answer: never.

How’s about Bush? Men ON THE GROUND on his trail, asking for a battalion and NOT GETTING IT!!!

Big difference.

You’ve yet to explain how Bush deprioritizing, defunding terror in his first 8 months and not responding to intel’s frantic attempts at getting his attention, and republicans attempts at defanging Clinton’s anti-terror measures puts the “blood” on clinton’s hands.

Your guy didn’t do shit(and still doesn’t)

Our guy could have done more (and your guys tried to stop what he did.)

Again big difference.

Hang one of those responsible for 9/11 and then get back to me cowards.[/quote]

Here’s a rundown. The Clinton administration:

  1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen. Nothing.

  2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

  3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

  4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

  5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden in 1996. Well documented by State and the Sudanese.

  6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

  7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan and prevented them from doing so.

  8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan. Bush did and took down the Taliban and dismemebred Al-Queda’a safe harbor.

  9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

  10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. This convinced Bin-Laden he had nothing to fear. He didn’t from CLinton.

  11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

  1. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist. The Clinton administration fought against the idea of arming the predator for 3 yrs.

Clinton was a pussy. The Democrats have been on the wrong side of every initiative to defeat terrorism. Defending Clinton on terrorism is comical. It’s also a very good reason why the US voter will never trust them in fighting terrorism or on issues of National Defense.

If Clinton had of acted boldly on any number of occasions he could have killed Bin-Laden. His law enforcement approach was a joke, and one you still call for. It led directly to the deaths of the wTC victims. Law enforcement is a tool, one of many tools. It was also a tool that Clinton also didn’t support.If if was that easy why don’t we just arrest all the terrorists?

[quote]orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…[/quote]

Oklahoma City was pretty major.

[quote]mundele wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

Oklahoma City was pretty major.[/quote]

Oh…Clinton did do something - he burned innocent women and children alive in a house in Waco.

Bill Clinton: Tough on Terror. Murder on Little Kids.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage? [/quote]

If 9/11 is to be blamed on Clinton, then the first WTC attack, coming 9 months into Clinton’s first term, must be blamed on Bush I.

Also, everyone involved in the attack was caught, prosecuted and jailed using law enforcement and prosecuters.

Surprisingly, there was no need to open up secret CIA prisons overseas…

[quote]harris447 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Was there a major succesful attack on US soil under Clinton?

No?

According to Bush`s logic that makes him the better anti-terror presdident…

WTC - 1993?

What do you consider “major”? 100 deaths? How much damage?

If 9/11 is to be blamed on Clinton, then the first WTC attack, coming 9 months into Clinton’s first term, must be blamed on Bush I.

Also, everyone involved in the attack was caught, prosecuted and jailed using law enforcement and prosecuters.

Surprisingly, there was no need to open up secret CIA prisons overseas…

[/quote]

No - it was al Qaeda funded attack. You might have a point about Bush I. I never liked the guy anyhow (but that is beside the point).

Where you are wrong about WTC-I is that prosecuting it as a crime only put a band-aid on what has turned out to be a cancer.

I am for doing any and everything - including torture, and pouring pig fat over the entire region over there to put an end to their shenanigans.

Had the bombers used the right amount of explosives, or placed their vehicle more strategically - they would have killed 10’s of thousands instead of the 3K they murdered on 9/11.

How would they have been treated then? A crime? or an act of war?