August 16, 200520 yr Ex-president Bill Clinton now says he would have taken out Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks ? if only the FBI and CIA had been able to prove the al-Qaida mastermind was behind the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. "I desperately wish that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole," Clinton tells New York magazine this week. "Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early." "I don?t know if it would have prevented 9/11," he added. "But it certainly would have complicated it.? Despite his failure to launch such an attack, Clinton said he saw the danger posed by bin Laden much more clearly than did President Bush. "I always thought that bin Laden was a bigger threat than the Bush administration did," he told New York magazine. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/15/224430.shtml Then why didnt you do something about it?
August 16, 200520 yr What did we ultimately blame the Cole attack on? "Islamic militants from Yemen that were angry that an American warship was allowed to dock in their port" or something along those lines wasn't it?
August 16, 200520 yr What has Bush done about Bin Laden? Lst I checked, since 911 he has successfully attacked Madrid. Oh wait, he took out Saddam. Im sure thatll solve our problems. Not saying Clinton is a foreign affairs genious, cause he certainy isint, but Bush has shifted his focus away from the ultimate goal of taking out the main terrorist leaders and cells to going after a nation with no ties to 911 OR WMDS!
August 16, 200520 yr What has Bush done about Bin Laden? Lst I checked, since 911 he has successfully attacked Mdrid and London Oh wait, he took out Saddam. Im sure thatll solve our problems. Not saying Clinton is a foreign affairs genious, cause he certainy isint, but Bush has shifted his focus away from the ultimate goal of taking out the main terrorist leaders and cells to going after a nation with no ties to 911 OR WMDS! 903934[/snapback] Please, quit saying Saddam didn't have WMD. He used SARIN and VX GAS, those are chemical weapons, in 1988 during the wanning hours of the Iran/Iraq war on HIS OWN PEOPLE! Add to that, our 2nd batallion was hit with a chemical blister agent in 2003, and we found mortar and artillery shells with chemical agents in them as well.
August 16, 200520 yr Bush said we could be attacked by Saddams nukes and cause a "mushroom cloud" in the US in a matter of minutes. Where are those? FACT: The US used more chemical weapons in the Gulf War than the Iraqis.
August 16, 200520 yr Bush said we could be attacked by Saddams nukes and cause a "mushroom cloud" in the US in a matter of minutes. Where are those? FACT: The US used more chemical weapons in the Gulf War than the Iraqis. 903942[/snapback] I don't know where you got that "fact" from, unless you are talking about CS gas, which is a riot control agent commonly used by many US police departments. The US has a nice stockpile of Tabun, Sarin, VX(the most lethal chemical agent), and Sulfur Mustard, yet has never used it's chemical arsenal. And I didn't say anything about Iraq using chemical weapons in the Gulf War, and I am not really sure what Gulf War you are talking about either.
August 16, 200520 yr What has Bush done about Bin Laden? Lst I checked, since 911 he has successfully attacked Mdrid and London Oh wait, he took out Saddam. Im sure thatll solve our problems. Not saying Clinton is a foreign affairs genious, cause he certainy isint, but Bush has shifted his focus away from the ultimate goal of taking out the main terrorist leaders and cells to going after a nation with no ties to 911 OR WMDS! 903934[/snapback] Please, quit saying Saddam didn't have WMD. He used SARIN and VX GAS, those are chemical weapons, in 1988 during the wanning hours of the Iran/Iraq war on HIS OWN PEOPLE! Add to that, our 2nd batallion was hit with a chemical blister agent in 2003, and we found mortar and artillery shells with chemical agents in them as well. 903935[/snapback] Those do not Qualify as WMD. And those had been used up durring the Iran/Iraq conflict and wars since then. He had no capabilities to land such a weapon by assault here. He had no abilities to create more of those weapons as he had only what he had been given. By George Bush Senior btw. I am not saying Clinton didnt fail and not saying he did. But, Bush did let Bin Ladin get away to finish Daddy's war. Against a country that had not attacked us, had no claim (as stated by the CIA and british intelligence as well) to 911 attacks. Had plan to depart from there. And has cost the US over 3,000 Us solider lives. Not to even mention the Billions of Billions or Billons of dollars wasted that could of went to things like fixing the american jobs and educational system. Now the intelligence agencies could not find proof required to go to war durring the clinton administration else he would of bombed them to hell. He has shown the willingness within his administration to do just that in the past. But, Really and honestly they both screwed up. But Bush even more then clinton when he was told of the attacks to come and did nothing. But, will that fix the problem? Will it return lives? Will it fix the economy of the US? Will it return the lives of the innocents in Iraq and the US? No, No, No, No This is political in fighting trying to determine where the blame shall lay in history. It should lay on both of their administrations. Now the important fact is getting as many of our Boys and Gals over seas safe and sound. Dealing with as much of the problem as possible and fixing the US problems here.
August 16, 200520 yr Those do not Qualify as WMD. And those had been used up durring the Iran/Iraq conflict and wars since then. He had no capabilities to land such a weapon by assault here. He had no abilities to create more of those weapons as he had only what he had been given. By George Bush Senior btw. A WMD is any weapon that is not conventional(bullet, mortar), not just nuclear. And Chemical weapons are quite possibly the easiest to make, I have the directions to make VX, Sarin, Tabun, and Sulfer Mustard upstairs, right off of the Center for Disease Control website, because I did a report on the effects of chemical weapons last year in college. You can make a very dandy(yet crude) chemical agent in your house, all you have to do is mix a little bleach and window cleaner together, maybe a bottle of each, and it's potent enough to kill a good portion of a city block. One drop of VX or Sarin into the atmosphere, ONE DROP, is enough to take out 24 or 25 city blocks. So please, tell me, how they are not considered WMD? Oh yes, thats right, you cant.
August 16, 200520 yr And has cost the US over 3,000 Us solider lives. 903957[/snapback] I'm dying to know from where you got that figure. Clinton is saying this to help Hillary's cause, guaran-damn-teed. He wouldn't have attacked bin Laden. He had opportunities to and he knew of the threat of bin Laden and al Qaeda. And I'm not denying that Bush knew...I'm positive Bush knew of the threats as well and did nothing. But Clinton knew as well and did the same jack s*** that Bush did, pre-9/11.
August 16, 200520 yr Those do not Qualify as WMD. And those had been used up durring the Iran/Iraq conflict and wars since then. He had no capabilities to land such a weapon by assault here. He had no abilities to create more of those weapons as he had only what he had been given. By George Bush Senior btw. A WMD is any weapon that is not conventional(bullet, mortar), not just nuclear. And Chemical weapons are quite possibly the easiest to make, I have the directions to make VX, Sarin, Tabun, and Sulfer Mustard upstairs, right off of the Center for Disease Control website, because I did a report on the effects of chemical weapons last year in college. You can make a very dandy(yet crude) chemical agent in your house, all you have to do is mix a little bleach and window cleaner together, maybe a bottle of each, and it's potent enough to kill a good portion of a city block. One drop of VX or Sarin into the atmosphere, ONE DROP, is enough to take out 24 or 25 city blocks. So please, tell me, how they are not considered WMD? Oh yes, thats right, you cant. 903960[/snapback] And where were these when we attacked Iraq recently? Where were these found within Iraq? Where did the CIA, And Military Intelligence and even the Bush Administration admit there was none of it? I am not saying Clinton was in the right, but bush definitely isnt in the right.
August 16, 200520 yr I really don't like the way Clinton or Bush has handeled terrorism, so don't get me started on this subject. Our next president who does a good job battling terrorism will be our first.
August 16, 200520 yr I agree with the previous poster i am not happy with either of the two presidents action on terrorism , I think steps taken during the Clinton administration really gutted American intelligence particularly the Torrceli(probably mis-spelled his name Liberal NJ senator who resigned because of ethical questions in 2002) law which prohibits the US from dealing with informants who havent lived a perfect life , i hate to break too left wing nut job politico's i and most Americans dont care if the people you get intelligence from are bad people i only care if it is right and saves our lives ...i think we all see the result this policy in the extremely flawed intelligence the British and the Americans obtained concerning Iraq
August 16, 200520 yr I like how easy people make it sound to catch ONE single person in the world. It's not like we are looking for Osama in a crowded room. We are looking for Osama somewhere on planet Earth. The man has all kinds of connections. He could be chilling on a beach in California for all we know. And for those that are saying that Bush is not dealing with terrorism well... What would you like us to do, give the terrorists candy and hope they leave us alone? I can't imagine a better method of dealing with terrorists other than BIGGER bombs.
August 16, 200520 yr An excellent way to deal with terrorists is to deploy the main bulk of our troops where terrorists, you know, actually are! Strengthen our numbers in the Pakistani border and throughout Afghanistan, but that is impossible with the quagmire than is Iraq. Iraq and terrorism arent the same. Iraq had no connections to 9/11. What part of that dont you understand?
August 16, 200520 yr An excellent way to deal with terrorists is to deploy the main bulk of our troops where terrorists, you know, actually are! Strengthen our numbers in the Pakistani border and throughout Afghanistan, but that is impossible with the quagmire than is Iraq. Iraq and terrorism arent the same. Iraq had no connections to 9/11. What part of that dont you understand? 904033[/snapback] The part I put in bold is a HUGE reason of why I will never come close to trusting Bush because that is definitely where he mislead the world. The true war on terrorism lost a lot of credibility unfortunately when he tried to say that Fighting Iraq is fighting terrorism. That was very irresponsible on his part.
August 16, 200520 yr What has Bush done about Bin Laden? Lst I checked, since 911 he has successfully attacked Mdrid and London Oh wait, he took out Saddam. Im sure thatll solve our problems. Not saying Clinton is a foreign affairs genious, cause he certainy isint, but Bush has shifted his focus away from the ultimate goal of taking out the main terrorist leaders and cells to going after a nation with no ties to 911 OR WMDS! 903934[/snapback] Please, quit saying Saddam didn't have WMD. He used SARIN and VX GAS, those are chemical weapons, in 1988 during the wanning hours of the Iran/Iraq war on HIS OWN PEOPLE! Add to that, our 2nd batallion was hit with a chemical blister agent in 2003, and we found mortar and artillery shells with chemical agents in them as well. 903935[/snapback] We've got a ton of invasions to conduct then, if this is the new justification for war. Some WMD stockpile we've found there. Just massive.
August 16, 200520 yr What has Bush done about Bin Laden? Lst I checked, since 911 he has successfully attacked Mdrid and London Oh wait, he took out Saddam. Im sure thatll solve our problems. Not saying Clinton is a foreign affairs genious, cause he certainy isint, but Bush has shifted his focus away from the ultimate goal of taking out the main terrorist leaders and cells to going after a nation with no ties to 911 OR WMDS! 903934[/snapback] Please, quit saying Saddam didn't have WMD. He used SARIN and VX GAS, those are chemical weapons, in 1988 during the wanning hours of the Iran/Iraq war on HIS OWN PEOPLE! Add to that, our 2nd batallion was hit with a chemical blister agent in 2003, and we found mortar and artillery shells with chemical agents in them as well. 903935[/snapback] That was a Kurdish Peshmerga settlement, the Kurds and Iranians were in a military alliance against Iraq during the war. If you told a Kurd that Saddam, a Sunni Arab, was kindred to them they would spit in your face. The settlements that were gassed were hostile and in open war against Saddam's establisment. Either way I could care less whether Iraq had WMD or not, there are plenty of reasons to have attacked Iraq. Thing is I think the war was too complex to sell to the American people without resorting to "OMG MUSHROOM CLOUD THE WORLD WILL NEVER BE THE SAME GOD BLESS AMERICA!" rhetoric. I hate how most Iraq arguments boild down to "AGENTS OF EVIL IRAQ/AL QUEDA CONNECTION DOODS!!!" vesus "NO BL00D 4 OIL LOLOLOL BUSH LIED YO!!"
August 16, 200520 yr An excellent way to deal with terrorists is to deploy the main bulk of our troops where terrorists, you know, actually are! Strengthen our numbers in the Pakistani border and throughout Afghanistan, but that is impossible with the quagmire than is Iraq. Iraq and terrorism arent the same. Iraq had no connections to 9/11. What part of that dont you understand? 904033[/snapback] The part I put in bold is a HUGE reason of why I will never come close to trusting Bush because that is definitely where he mislead the world. The true war on terrorism lost a lot of credibility unfortunately when he tried to say that Fighting Iraq is fighting terrorism. That was very irresponsible on his part. 904041[/snapback] Agreed. Iraq was a huge mistake.
August 16, 200520 yr What has Bush done about Bin Laden? Lst I checked, since 911 he has successfully attacked Mdrid and London Oh wait, he took out Saddam. Im sure thatll solve our problems. Not saying Clinton is a foreign affairs genious, cause he certainy isint, but Bush has shifted his focus away from the ultimate goal of taking out the main terrorist leaders and cells to going after a nation with no ties to 911 OR WMDS! 903934[/snapback] Please, quit saying Saddam didn't have WMD. He used SARIN and VX GAS, those are chemical weapons, in 1988 during the wanning hours of the Iran/Iraq war on HIS OWN PEOPLE! Add to that, our 2nd batallion was hit with a chemical blister agent in 2003, and we found mortar and artillery shells with chemical agents in them as well. 903935[/snapback] We've got a ton of invasions to conduct then, if this is the new justification for war. Some WMD stockpile we've found there. Just massive. 904054[/snapback] I can't believe i'm saying this, but I agree 100 percent with you there Shamrock. In fact, I've had people try and tell me that justification for war since they know that I'm against the war and President Bush (even though I am a moderate republican) and I have told them exactly what you said there.
August 16, 200520 yr Why do people still believe ANYTHING Bill Clinton says? What a freakin' liar- he'll do anything to get pub and get Hillary elected in '08. God NO!!! Dont let her win!
August 16, 200520 yr You people seem to forget that the "Democrats" did support going to war in Iraq. You also forget that during the Clinton administration he also claimed that Irag did have WMD's. The same report that our current President had. So stop blaming our current President for doing his job as a leader who does not believe in a popularity contest or stupid polls that the media loves to do on a daily basis. When ever you ask a Democrat how would you fight the war on terror they cannot even give an explanation of how they would do it. All they would do is simply criticize the president and do the whole doom and gloom trip. I cannot wait for them to get deeper into the "Able danger" investigation.
August 17, 200520 yr You people seem to forget that the "Democrats" did support going to war in Iraq. 904482[/snapback] Yes, we're a ficticious group
August 17, 200520 yr You people seem to forget that the "Democrats" did support going to war in Iraq. 904482[/snapback] Yes, we're a ficticious group 904501[/snapback] Who live in the country of Irag. :lol
August 17, 200520 yr You people seem to forget that the "Democrats" did support going to war in Iraq. 904482[/snapback] Yes, we're a ficticious group 904501[/snapback] Wishful thinking? :plain Kidding, just kidding.
August 17, 200520 yr Why do people still believe ANYTHING Bill Clinton says? What a freakin' liar- he'll do anything to get pub and get Hillary elected in '08. God NO!!! Dont let her win! 904392[/snapback] The same that could be said for Bush and Powell. The only difference is the Republicans manages to get clinton on impeachment charges for sex :thumbdown Where bush decided to lie to the world at large. So we are now one of the most hated countries abroad. :mad
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.