al-Qaeda 18,000 strong?

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Format C:
Actually, there's BILLIONS of "potential" terrorists. You guys can go love them and empathize with them if you want. Just don't get in the crosshairs.

This comment could take the cake.

Zephyr

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crimson
And sticking our head in the sand like Clinton did got us where? 3000 dead Americans... But you guys never bring that up in any of your posts.. But you always bring up some Iraqi's who were humiliated... How humiliated are the 3000 people from 9/11? Oh thats right, they aren't humiliated because THEY ARE DEAD..

Except, of course, Clinton did far, far more about terrorism than Bush before 9/11. But hey, bleat on. It's one of those Bush fan-boy lies you guys use to stroke each other into a spittle-soaked frenzy of denial.

What exactly did he accomplish?

What did the Clinton Administration do?

Arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced the culprits behind the WTC Bombing *and* the African Embassy bombings. Also thwarted the Millennium attack plots.

I'd say that's a good job. FAR more than Bush ever did. Bush didn't care about Al Qaeda until after 9/11.

As for the USS Cole, that attack was in Oct. 2000 and by the time enough evidence was found to link it to Al Qaeda and specific members, the Bush Administration was in command and, oh, what was Rumsfeld's own testimony?!?! Too much time had passed! What a fool he is!

Clinton authorized the capture and even the killing of bin Laden.

Clinton wanted to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan but he could not get agreement from the CIA and the Pentagon.

Yeah, that Bin Laden thing.. How exactly is failing to capture and kill him an accomplishment? And how was failing to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan an accomplishment? Perhaps you have a different defininition of accomplishment than the rest of us?

Wait wait wait.. Let me get this straight, are you saying a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan may have been warranted? That seems to go against everything you are saying about Iraq..

Anyways, just to summarize:

He failed to prevent the first trade center bombings, he failed to prevent the USS Cole attack, he failed to prevent the Embassy bombings... He failed to capture Bin Laden.. He failed to kill him... he failed to strike against Afghanistan... and he failed to get cooperation from the CIA and Pentagon..

Sounds like a success to me! Can't argue with that reasoning.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crimson
And sticking our head in the sand like Clinton did got us where? 3000 dead Americans... But you guys never bring that up in any of your posts.. But you always bring up some Iraqi's who were humiliated... How humiliated are the 3000 people from 9/11? Oh thats right, they aren't humiliated because THEY ARE DEAD..

Except, of course, Clinton did far, far more about terrorism than Bush before 9/11. But hey, bleat on. It's one of those Bush fan-boy lies you guys use to stroke each other into a spittle-soaked frenzy of denial.

What exactly did he accomplish?

What did the Clinton Administration do?

Arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced the culprits behind the WTC Bombing *and* the African Embassy bombings. Also thwarted the Millennium attack plots.

I'd say that's a good job. FAR more than Bush ever did. Bush didn't care about Al Qaeda until after 9/11.

As for the USS Cole, that attack was in Oct. 2000 and by the time enough evidence was found to link it to Al Qaeda and specific members, the Bush Administration was in command and, oh, what was Rumsfeld's own testimony?!?! Too much time had passed! What a fool he is!

Clinton authorized the capture and even the killing of bin Laden.

Clinton wanted to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan but he could not get agreement from the CIA and the Pentagon.

Yeah, that Bin Laden thing.. How exactly is failing to capture and kill him an accomplishment? And how was failing to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan an accomplishment? Perhaps you have a different defininition of accomplishment than the rest of us?

Wait wait wait.. Let me get this straight, are you saying a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan may have been warranted? That seems to go against everything you are saying about Iraq..

Anyways, just to summarize:

He failed to prevent the first trade center bombings, he failed to prevent the USS Cole attack, he failed to prevent the Embassy bombings... He failed to capture Bin Laden.. He failed to kill him... he failed to strike against Afghanistan... and he failed to get cooperation from the CIA and Pentagon..

Sounds like a success to me! Can't argue with that reasoning.

Wow, so hindsight is 20/20? Were you advocating an invasion into Afghanistan prior to 9/11? BTW, how many of the 9/11 hijackers had been to Afghanistan in their lifetimes?

Zephyr

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crimson
And sticking our head in the sand like Clinton did got us where? 3000 dead Americans... But you guys never bring that up in any of your posts.. But you always bring up some Iraqi's who were humiliated... How humiliated are the 3000 people from 9/11? Oh thats right, they aren't humiliated because THEY ARE DEAD..

Except, of course, Clinton did far, far more about terrorism than Bush before 9/11. But hey, bleat on. It's one of those Bush fan-boy lies you guys use to stroke each other into a spittle-soaked frenzy of denial.

What exactly did he accomplish?

What did the Clinton Administration do?

Arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced the culprits behind the WTC Bombing *and* the African Embassy bombings. Also thwarted the Millennium attack plots.

I'd say that's a good job. FAR more than Bush ever did. Bush didn't care about Al Qaeda until after 9/11.

As for the USS Cole, that attack was in Oct. 2000 and by the time enough evidence was found to link it to Al Qaeda and specific members, the Bush Administration was in command and, oh, what was Rumsfeld's own testimony?!?! Too much time had passed! What a fool he is!

Clinton authorized the capture and even the killing of bin Laden.

Clinton wanted to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan but he could not get agreement from the CIA and the Pentagon.

Yeah, that Bin Laden thing.. How exactly is failing to capture and kill him an accomplishment? And how was failing to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan an accomplishment? Perhaps you have a different defininition of accomplishment than the rest of us?

Wait wait wait.. Let me get this straight, are you saying a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan may have been warranted? That seems to go against everything you are saying about Iraq..

Anyways, just to summarize:

He failed to prevent the first trade center bombings, he failed to prevent the USS Cole attack, he failed to prevent the Embassy bombings... He failed to capture Bin Laden.. He failed to kill him... he failed to strike against Afghanistan... and he failed to get cooperation from the CIA and Pentagon..

Sounds like a success to me! Can't argue with that reasoning.

So you are using Clinton's failures to justify the Dub's failures? Kind of like saying Micheal Jackson's troubles with the law are the reason William Hung is so popular:roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Crimson
And sticking our head in the sand like Clinton did got us where? 3000 dead Americans... But you guys never bring that up in any of your posts.. But you always bring up some Iraqi's who were humiliated... How humiliated are the 3000 people from 9/11? Oh thats right, they aren't humiliated because THEY ARE DEAD..

Except, of course, Clinton did far, far more about terrorism than Bush before 9/11. But hey, bleat on. It's one of those Bush fan-boy lies you guys use to stroke each other into a spittle-soaked frenzy of denial.

What exactly did he accomplish?

What did the Clinton Administration do?

Arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced the culprits behind the WTC Bombing *and* the African Embassy bombings. Also thwarted the Millennium attack plots.

I'd say that's a good job. FAR more than Bush ever did. Bush didn't care about Al Qaeda until after 9/11.

As for the USS Cole, that attack was in Oct. 2000 and by the time enough evidence was found to link it to Al Qaeda and specific members, the Bush Administration was in command and, oh, what was Rumsfeld's own testimony?!?! Too much time had passed! What a fool he is!

Clinton authorized the capture and even the killing of bin Laden.

Clinton wanted to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan but he could not get agreement from the CIA and the Pentagon.

Yeah, that Bin Laden thing.. How exactly is failing to capture and kill him an accomplishment? And how was failing to pre-emptively attack Afghanistan an accomplishment? Perhaps you have a different defininition of accomplishment than the rest of us?

Wait wait wait.. Let me get this straight, are you saying a pre-emptive strike against Afghanistan may have been warranted? That seems to go against everything you are saying about Iraq..

Anyways, just to summarize:

He failed to prevent the first trade center bombings, he failed to prevent the USS Cole attack, he failed to prevent the Embassy bombings... He failed to capture Bin Laden.. He failed to kill him... he failed to strike against Afghanistan... and he failed to get cooperation from the CIA and Pentagon..

Sounds like a success to me! Can't argue with that reasoning.

<sigh>

Clinton was hamstrung by the Republicans clamoring "Wag the Dog!!"

Clinton had fighting terrorism as a key aspect of his administration. It was greatly in the forefront. Bush completely ignored it until it bit the nation on its collective ass on 9/11.