Bush covered it! (Interesting compairson between Bush and Clinton)

[Brutuskend]

You know, it is easy to forget the 'promises' that Bill and Hillary made while in office. It strikes home when it is listed like this:

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

BUSH COVERED IT!

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

BUSH COVERED IT!

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

BUSH COVERED IT!

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and punished.

BUSH COVERED IT!

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

BUSH COVERED IT!

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

BUSH TOLD THOSE FIREMAN -- THEY WOULD HEAR US TOO!

And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we have Democrats charging him with being a war monger...

AN INTERESTING QUESTION: This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question. there are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that the Clinton administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?

THINK ABOUT IT!

It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her forthcoming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who have spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past events while under oath!

Sincerely, Cmdr Hamilton McWhorter USN(ret)

 

[conjur]

Wrong forum

 

[Ornery]

Where's the punchline?

 

[Yossarian]

wow. bush must be our saviour or something.

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Where's the punchline?

It's one post down from yours.

 

[XZeroII]

well said

 

[stinkycheese]

I'd like to see more details other than "BUSH COVERED IT!!!!!!"

 

[guapo337]

Originally posted by: stinkycheese
I'd like to see more details other than "BUSH COVERED IT!!!!!!"

And the fact that it's all Al-Qaida who committed those "acts of terrorism"... Where's Osama? Can't find him? I thought Bush had it covered?

 

[Brutuskend]

He is looking though, isn't he?

Well maybe HE isn't but he's got people on it. (or so we have been lead to believe)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
Wrong forum

 

[Brutuskend]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur
Wrong forum

What are you trying to say?

 

[DrPizza]

I read to the very end... Apparently there are still people out there who think that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.??? I think the majority of intelligent people with a great deal of knowledge on the issue have determined that
1. Iraq *wasn't* a threat to the U.S.
2. Saddam was *NOT* likely to give WMD to terrorists
3. Iraq wasn't filled with terrorists.

Saddam didn't want fundamental Muslims in his country! They opposed his type of rule. He did a damn good job of keeping them out, too. (or killing them, mostly, along with any other people in the area i.e. Kurds) But, since the war, we've discovered all sorts of foreigners fighting against the U.S. in Iraq... We took over, and we couldn't keep them out.

And, lastly, we still haven't crushed Al Quaida... Bin Laden is still out there. Had we spent the resources that were spent on Iraq (billions of dollars and over 500 lives at this point), then *maybe* the U.S. would be a safer place. But, it isn't any safer for the war. The only ones who have benefitted are the Iraqi people, and Haliburton. And, for the former, I'm not sure that the majority of them realize "they have benefitted."

p.s. and this isn't the politics forum

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey I'm just looking forward to the Presidential Debates to hear Bush explain where all the WMDs went!

 

[DurocShark]

Tasteful defense of current policies.

Thanks for finding this one Brutuskend!

 

[Papagayo]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Where's the punchline?

The Punchline is Bill and Hillary suck A$$!!!


hahahahha..

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I read to the very end... Apparently there are still people out there who think that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.??? I think the majority of intelligent people with a great deal of knowledge on the issue have determined that
1. Iraq *wasn't* a threat to the U.S.
2. Saddam was *NOT* likely to give WMD to terrorists
3. Iraq wasn't filled with terrorists.

Saddam didn't want fundamental Muslims in his country! They opposed his type of rule. He did a damn good job of keeping them out, too. (or killing them, mostly, along with any other people in the area i.e. Kurds) But, since the war, we've discovered all sorts of foreigners fighting against the U.S. in Iraq... We took over, and we couldn't keep them out.

And, lastly, we still haven't crushed Al Quaida... Bin Laden is still out there. Had we spent the resources that were spent on Iraq (billions of dollars and over 500 lives at this point), then *maybe* the U.S. would be a safer place. But, it isn't any safer for the war. The only ones who have benefitted are the Iraqi people, and Haliburton. And, for the former, I'm not sure that the majority of them realize "they have benefitted."

p.s. and this isn't the politics forum

you know you do have permission to remove your head from your @ass

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey I'm just looking forward to the Presidential Debates to hear Bush explain where all the WMDs went!

Why do you still bleat this when you KNOW every single intelligence agency in the world was just as sure as the US that he had them, and was attempting to develop more? Why is it sudeenly all Bush's fault?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I read to the very end... Apparently there are still people out there who think that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.??? I think the majority of intelligent people with a great deal of knowledge on the issue have determined that

1. Iraq *wasn't* a threat to the U.S.

neither was Germany... until 1941

2. Saddam was *NOT* likely to give WMD to terrorists

Nice Monday morning quarterbacking. Not only did he openly support and pay families of Palestinian bombers and terrorists, he also voiced support for any action against the US. And every intelligence agency on the planet was as sure as we were that he had, and was developing WMDs. I don;t know about you, but put those together and it makes for a very scary thing.

3. Iraq wasn't filled with terrorists.

Again, we had reports of an Al Quada base in the north, and Saddam's open support of homicide bombers.

You know, it simply amazes me that people are either,

1. So arrogant as to believe they can get away with rewriting recent events and make poeple believe them, or

2. So ignorant that they believe the BS people put out when they rewrite recent events to fit their world view.

 

[VirginiaDonkey]

If everyone in the world was sure Iraq had WMD, how come we were the only ones to invade? ( don't bring up the brits, they have been our bitches since WW2 and will support pretty much anything we want)

Little George is just finishing big Georges work. And if 9/11 had never happened, this thread would have never existed.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey I'm just looking forward to the Presidential Debates to hear Bush explain where all the WMDs went!

Why do you still bleat this when you KNOW every single intelligence agency in the world was just as sure as the US that he had them, and was attempting to develop more? Why is it sudeenly all Bush's fault?

If you are going to prosecute a war and get the Public's support for it by assuring the American Public that you have proof positive that Iraq had WMDs (among other false claims) you better be right or accept the blame for being wrong. He get's no free pass for me because his Intel was dodgy at best and totally FUBARed at worse. The Buck stops at the top and that's where the Dub resides!

Anyway, it will be interesting listening to him explain it!

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey I'm just looking forward to the Presidential Debates to hear Bush explain where all the WMDs went!

Why do you still bleat this when you KNOW every single intelligence agency in the world was just as sure as the US that he had them, and was attempting to develop more? Why is it sudeenly all Bush's fault?

That, and the WMD were there, in the bottom of a dried up swamp rusted to the point of unusability (Yes, those are confirmed WMD) - but nobody bothered reporting much on it because they were utterly unusable.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gotey
If everyone in the world was sure Iraq had WMD, how come we were the only ones to invade? ( don't bring up the brits, they have been our bitches since WW2 and will support pretty much anything we want)

Little George is just finishing big Georges work. And if 9/11 had never happened, this thread would have never exixted.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Because they wanted to continue the 12 long years of diplomacy and failed inspections with Saddam flipping the world the bird. The debate before the war was NEVER whether or not he had them, but how to go about making him give them up. It simply amazes me how short people's memories are. Germany, France and Belgum ALL conceeded to the 'fact' that he had them in the debates.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I read to the very end... Apparently there are still people out there who think that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.??? I think the majority of intelligent people with a great deal of knowledge on the issue have determined that
1. Iraq *wasn't* a threat to the U.S.
2. Saddam was *NOT* likely to give WMD to terrorists
3. Iraq wasn't filled with terrorists.

Saddam didn't want fundamental Muslims in his country! They opposed his type of rule. He did a damn good job of keeping them out, too. (or killing them, mostly, along with any other people in the area i.e. Kurds) But, since the war, we've discovered all sorts of foreigners fighting against the U.S. in Iraq... We took over, and we couldn't keep them out.

And, lastly, we still haven't crushed Al Quaida... Bin Laden is still out there. Had we spent the resources that were spent on Iraq (billions of dollars and over 500 lives at this point), then *maybe* the U.S. would be a safer place. But, it isn't any safer for the war. The only ones who have benefitted are the Iraqi people, and Haliburton. And, for the former, I'm not sure that the majority of them realize "they have benefitted."

p.s. and this isn't the politics forum

Ok, the threat issue is a toss up. I wasn't for a war with Iraq, but I didn't oppose it. What we see coming out of the media really saddens me though. It's nothing like what is actually going on. I've seen thousands of pictures sent back by soldiers. I don't care whether they were a threat or not, but after seeing these pictures I'm 100% convinced we are in the right to better these peoples' lives.

 

[Amused]

Not only that, but before the war even CLINTON and GORE were 100% positive Saddam had WMDs.

Stop trying to rewrite recent history folks. It will backfire big time.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey I'm just looking forward to the Presidential Debates to hear Bush explain where all the WMDs went!

Why do you still bleat this when you KNOW every single intelligence agency in the world was just as sure as the US that he had them, and was attempting to develop more? Why is it sudeenly all Bush's fault?

What other countries were so sure and had proof??? NONE. Must be nice to be a right wing nut, just believe what ever republicans say, or Fox news.