Lifting the Shroud . . .

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Perhaps Bush should have learned from Clinton's mistakes then? After all, your own words claim there were 8 years of terror attacks and "nothing done." Bush should have resolved to take out the terrorists right away, not wait until the worst terrorist attack on America occurred on his watch.
Fact is, Bush was phoning in his presidency up until 9/11. No mandate to lead from the 2000 election fiasco coupled with his desire to take long vacations ranching it up in Crawford. No wonder he couldn't pay attention to national security. It was hardly a priority.

See my response to Red Deal, the only difference between the answer I gave him and the one I will give you is that with Red I generally understand his viewpoint wheras I see you as another one of those "anyone but Bush" morons....

Screw you too, ballsack.

It is like a double edged sword as you have Red saying that 9/11 and its magnitude was enough justification for action and then you have you saying that even with no event we should have just jumped in balls to the wall and started taking people out...I am willing to bet had we done that you would be on the opposite side of the fence crying "unfair" and "damn Bush" because he acted without provocation.

Where did I say that? Oh yeah, I didn't. Fact is, I was behind Bush 100% in Afghanistan. Also 100% behind him with some of the regional conflicts with AQ offshoots (e.g. the Philippines, etc.). Maybe you should pay attention instead of pretending to know what people around here really think?

Like I said, anyone that came into office then would have done the same thing, the only difference is that the action was responded to with military action whereas under Robot Gore we would still be talking about what we should do.

Crystal ball? Good to see you're one of the omniscient ones who knows all. Hey, what's the DOW and NASDAQ doing next week? Any idea?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bozack
Like I said, anyone that came into office then would have done the same thing, the only difference is that the action was responded to with military action whereas under Robot Gore we would still be talking about what we should do.

On the contrary, I think that Gore or anybody else who would have been President would have done the same thing as Busg with regards to taking out the Taliban. However I think that unber Gore (or McCain)we would have finished the job in Afghanistan and wouldn't have alienated our allies in Europe by jumping the gun in Iraq which would have resulted in better cooperation with regards to fighting terrorists.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: DoubleL
Well the way I see your post is, LOL LOL Clinton had 8 years to do something and he did nothing, Bush had 8 months and kicked the ---- out of the ones that did 9/11, Are you Bush haters really that blind

What 9/11 happened during Clinton? Are you that blind?

No but

the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000,

and the

1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel

and the

1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel

and the

1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000

and finally the

2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors

all happened under Klinton and nothing was done.

Completely false.