Jump to content

Australian PM attacking Obama?


Fishfan79
 Share

Recommended Posts


Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

 

Fact: Like that time he went to Congress and asked for help and they flat out turned him down?

 

END.

 

Keep reading Bill O'Reilly books, and believing everything FOX News tells you, though. It's a NO-SPIN ZONE!

 

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

 

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

 

oh and by the way.....terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow :)

 

 

Yeah Obama is fun to listen to if you want a candidate for President who has no experience and honestly will not beat Hillary and all her money.

 

You are aware that when it's all said and done Bush II will go down as one of the worst presidents, right? Other than being a warmonger and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing he'll be the stem of future problems in the mid-east, not to mention he didn't find Osama with six years to do so.

 

But, continue living in fantasy land.

 

Not the greatest, correct. But to say he's better than ANYONE "would have been" is absolutely ridiculous because it's damn near impossible to predict how they would have done/what they would have done under the circumstances. Plus, I didn't think Kerry was the greatest, but a lame duck over Bush would still be an upgrade. I'm amazed anyone can rationally justify this guy's presidency on any level at this point other than the fact that the second time he was actually nominated to office by the people.

 

I love the republican revision of history where Clinton failed to get Osama even though he was turned down by Congress, etc. first. But, it's all good, you're going to vote republican come hell or high water anyways. Simple slogans like "A vote for democrats is a vote for terror" always work for idiots.

 

 

Nice post. Summed everything up quite well so I don't have much to add. Baldeagle and WildMarlinMan, I'd recommend not passing the buck and blame for once and actually taking a good look at the current administation. The fact that you still hold Bush in some form of high regard while looking down upon Clinton on the same issue is quite absurd if you actually take a minute to look at it. But Buckeye is sadly right, no matter what is said or done you will never change your views or look deep enough into the issue to make a valid point or decision. The ghost of Accord lives on...

 

Its funny how people automatically assume someone is a Republican just because they remember how history has been played out and make an observation. Its unfortunate but yes we were attacked quite often under Clintons watch. I was upset during the whole Monica Lewinsky deal. For one the president getting busted and two the republicans making a deal out of it. If you have read my previous posts I did mention my voting history. I voted for Clinton twice then Al Gore. I decided to vote this time around for the current administration. My voter card says N.P.A. non party affiliation. You people make some comments on these boards blinded by your own hate for the president. So who really is absurd now? You mean to tell me you can make a fair opinion based on your own hate for the president? Sadly enough these boards will not be interesting if all you hear is a bunch of Bush bashers. I don't agree with everything he has done but I rather have him than Kerrry any day.

 

I never once claimed your were a Republican nor did I claim anything about your previous voting habits. I simply responded to the posts which you wrote in this thread. As for my quote on how no matter what it said, you will never change your views, it may be a bit extreme but I believe it is true in many cases. My personal feelings for the current administation aside, it's hard to look at this presidency and find any positives out of it, regardless of if you support Bush or not. I would love for Bush to prove me and everyone else wrong in the next two years. If we could find a positive end to this war, make strides towards ending terrorism, end the conflict in the middle east by all means I will be the first to admit that I was wrong. I just don't see it happening and don't see my obligation to blindly follow this administation as it drives this country into the ground. What's best for this country and the world isn't a clear case of left vs. right and in my opinion this will be the downfall of the US in the long run. People need to start thinking for themselves, reading into issues and making concious decisions. Everyone is ready to jump into any converstation or debate with their two cents but many people won't even take the time to pick up a paper once a day and read about what is happening in the world or to look into all the candidates in something as crucial as a presidential election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say "I'd rather have Bush over Kerry" at this point is ludicrous. Because nobody knows how it actually would have played out. It's flat wrong to assume you know what would have/could have happened when the dude didn't get elected. I could care less about Kerry now, and am more worried about the American people for electing Bush twice. Especially when his first term sucked and was categorized by doing nothing except making lame excuses and including us in some stupid war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

How you got into college, Wild Marlin Man, still perplexes me.

 

Are you so blinded by your conservative ideology that you can't see that it was BUSH (not CLINTON) that was poised to capture Osama once he murdered the thousands of Americans in 9-11, and he let Osama slip through his fingers by:

 

1) not sending enough U.S. troops over to Afghanistan in Oct., Nov., Dec. of 2001 and allowing a bunch of Afghan warload militia take the laboring oar in the hunt for Al-Qaeda's leadership

 

2) diverting what troops had been sent to Afghanistan to fight an inane war in Iraq

 

You and your conservative buddies oughta scrape away the crap that Karl Rove has dabbed onto your eyes and realize a couple of things:

 

1) Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists WANT knee-jerk conservative Republicans in the W.H. because it makes their job of recruitment MUCH, MUCH easier. Let's face it, the only way Al Qaeda will survive is to indoctrinate as many people as possible in their radical ideology. A letter found on Khalid Sheik Mohammed stated as much.

 

Having a crazy cowboy talk about "crusades" and launch a pre-emptive war against a muslim country -- that's Al-Qaeda's wet dream for recruitment. They WANT us to over-react, and broaden our war against Islam. Then they can go to the streets of Cairo, of Riyadh, of Amman and draw moderates or borderline radicals to their cause.

 

2) Al Qaeda *HEARTS* us for going into Iraq -- not only because it makes their recruitment job easier, but because it provides real-world terrorism experience for their new recruits. Much like Afghanistan served as a training ground for Bin Laden and more senior members of Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

 

So go ahead, parrot Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others and say Kerry was a liar, Gore was a nutjob. Show everyone your true level of intelligence.

 

Or think for yourself for a change, and realize that by keeping us out of Iraq and in Afghanistan to finish the job against Bin Laden -- as both Kerry AND Gore would have done -- we'd actually be winning the war on terrorism, instead of losing miserably.

 

 

You just said that with Kerry, we'd be winning the war on terrorism? That communist doesn't even like/respect American troops. Everything you said went in one ear and out the other after you said Kerry would actually be winning the war on terrorism. Thanks for the Valentine's joke. lol

 

Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

 

Fact: Like that time he went to Congress and asked for help and they flat out turned him down?

 

END.

 

Keep reading Bill O'Reilly books, and believing everything FOX News tells you, though. It's a NO-SPIN ZONE!

 

 

 

Thanks it's the only network that gives both sides of the issues. O'Reilly is the best- always has democrats on his show. This is the big reason Katie Couric is failing miserably and Fox News is #1. They give both sides on major issues and lets the viewer decide....try watching it before knocking it.

 

Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

 

Fact: Like that time he went to Congress and asked for help and they flat out turned him down?

 

END.

 

Keep reading Bill O'Reilly books, and believing everything FOX News tells you, though. It's a NO-SPIN ZONE!

 

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

 

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

 

oh and by the way.....terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow :)

 

 

Yeah Obama is fun to listen to if you want a candidate for President who has no experience and honestly will not beat Hillary and all her money.

 

You are aware that when it's all said and done Bush II will go down as one of the worst presidents, right? Other than being a warmonger and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing he'll be the stem of future problems in the mid-east, not to mention he didn't find Osama with six years to do so.

 

But, continue living in fantasy land.

 

Not the greatest, correct. But to say he's better than ANYONE "would have been" is absolutely ridiculous because it's damn near impossible to predict how they would have done/what they would have done under the circumstances. Plus, I didn't think Kerry was the greatest, but a lame duck over Bush would still be an upgrade. I'm amazed anyone can rationally justify this guy's presidency on any level at this point other than the fact that the second time he was actually nominated to office by the people.

 

I love the republican revision of history where Clinton failed to get Osama even though he was turned down by Congress, etc. first. But, it's all good, you're going to vote republican come hell or high water anyways. Simple slogans like "A vote for democrats is a vote for terror" always work for idiots.

 

 

Bush not better than any other President? haha....he's working to disarm North Korea among other issues. You really need to read history. Bush works hard- you may not like him but he works hard and loves his country. For example, William Taft was one of the worst President's. All day, everyday, he slept. Didn't do anything.....research history.

 

Bush is easily better than Jimmy Carter as well....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much to say about a President who had a prosperous country and didn't interfere.

 

Not saying Taft was all that great, but some of our better (read: my favorite) Presidents have been those that didn't actively meddle with a good thing.

 

I don't want my government officials doing things just for the sake of doing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny how people automatically assume someone is a Republican just because they remember how history has been played out and make an observation. Its unfortunate but yes we were attacked quite often under Clintons watch. I was upset during the whole Monica Lewinsky deal. For one the president getting busted and two the republicans making a deal out of it. If you have read my previous posts I did mention my voting history. I voted for Clinton twice then Al Gore. I decided to vote this time around for the current administration. My voter card says N.P.A. non party affiliation. You people make some comments on these boards blinded by your own hate for the president. So who really is absurd now? You mean to tell me you can make a fair opinion based on your own hate for the president? Sadly enough these boards will not be interesting if all you hear is a bunch of Bush bashers. I don't agree with everything he has done but I rather have him than Kerrry any day.

 

 

I think most people who read my posts will agree that I'm not a blind bush hater, but the guy has been absolutely atrocious every step of the way in the war. And I'm really feeling like we are playing a dangerous game by saying the terrorists pray for a Dem. victory, or that Clinton blew his chance to get Osama. Congress refused to approve further military action aside from the bombing of his hideout, and unlike Bush, Clinton has some idea of what the constitution says, so he had to stop going after him. He didn't have the aide of a massive hype machine banging the drum for war to help him catch Osama, like Bush did.

 

If anyone blew catching Osama, it was George Bush. The guy should be in an American Prison or dead right now. We f***ed it up, and there is no one to blame but this administration, and this was public knowledge before the election, so there is no way to justify voting for Bush.

 

 

Clinton defiently blew his chance at Osama...I mean it doesn't matter because Bush hasn't found him either. But Clinton only cared about our economy and oral sex with obese women- not protecting our country.

 

Here's an Article from the London times which is a moderate paper......

 

 

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden

The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

 

 

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

 

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

 

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

 

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

 

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

 

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

 

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

 

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

 

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

 

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

 

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

 

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

 

Clinton could not be reached for comment yesterday, but a former senior White House official acknowledged that the Sudan episode had been a "screw-up".

 

A second offer to get Bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Clinton's election campaign in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president's chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help to extract Bin Laden.

 

Details of the meeting are confirmed in an exchange of e-mails between the White House and Ijaz, which have been seen by The Sunday Times. According to Ijaz, the offer involved setting up an Islamic relief fund to aid Afghanistan in return for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the Gulf state. America could then extract Bin Laden from there.

 

The Sunday Times has established that after a fierce internal row about the sincerity of the offer, the White House responded by sending Richard Clarke, Clinton's most senior counterterrorism adviser, to meet the rulers of the United Arab Emirates. They denied there was any such offer. Ijaz, however, maintained that the White House had thereby destroyed the deal, which was to have been arranged only through unofficial channels. Ijaz said that weeks later on a return trip to the Gulf he was taken on a late-night ride into the desert by his contact who told him that Clarke's front-door approach had upset a delicate internal balance and blown the deal. "Your government has missed a major opportunity," he recalls being told.

 

Senior former government sources said that Ijaz's offer had been treated in good faith but, with the denial of the UAE government, there was nothing to suggest it had credibility.

 

A third more mysterious offer to help came from the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, then led by Prince Turki al-Faisal, according to Washington sources. Details of the offer are still unclear although, by one account, Turki offered to help to place a tracking device in the luggage of Bin Laden's mother, who was seeking to make a trip to Afghanistan to see her son. The CIA did not take up the offer.

 

Richard Shelby, the leading Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said he was aware of a Saudi offer to help although, under rules protecting classified information, he was unable to discuss the details of any offer. Commenting generally, he said: "I don't believe that the fight against terrorism was the number one goal of the Clinton administration."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WildMarlinMan isn't even rational at this point. Screw it. I'm not reading anymore of his crap.

 

*puts on ignore*

 

Seriously, how anyone at this point could justify Bush as working hard or a good president, that's funny.

 

 

You are probably the worst Democrat and peace hippy I've ever seen. Not once have I ever said Bush is a good President. You really are a funny kid how you make up things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The commander in chief can order target attacks without congressional approval. If these target attacks last longer than a certain time period (5 days rings a bell), then the president must get congressional approval.

 

Hence the football for nuclear retaliation on presidential order.

That doesn't answer my question, nor does it apply to anything discussed about Clinton.

 

Clinton wanted to keep going after him' date=' but Congress in their infinited wisdom decided to focus on Monica Lewinsky.[/quote']

what does that mean? where exactly did congress turn him down in his hunt for osama?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny how people automatically assume someone is a Republican just because they remember how history has been played out and make an observation. Its unfortunate but yes we were attacked quite often under Clintons watch. I was upset during the whole Monica Lewinsky deal. For one the president getting busted and two the republicans making a deal out of it. If you have read my previous posts I did mention my voting history. I voted for Clinton twice then Al Gore. I decided to vote this time around for the current administration. My voter card says N.P.A. non party affiliation. You people make some comments on these boards blinded by your own hate for the president. So who really is absurd now? You mean to tell me you can make a fair opinion based on your own hate for the president? Sadly enough these boards will not be interesting if all you hear is a bunch of Bush bashers. I don't agree with everything he has done but I rather have him than Kerrry any day.

 

 

I think most people who read my posts will agree that I'm not a blind bush hater, but the guy has been absolutely atrocious every step of the way in the war. And I'm really feeling like we are playing a dangerous game by saying the terrorists pray for a Dem. victory, or that Clinton blew his chance to get Osama. Congress refused to approve further military action aside from the bombing of his hideout, and unlike Bush, Clinton has some idea of what the constitution says, so he had to stop going after him. He didn't have the aide of a massive hype machine banging the drum for war to help him catch Osama, like Bush did.

 

If anyone blew catching Osama, it was George Bush. The guy should be in an American Prison or dead right now. We f***ed it up, and there is no one to blame but this administration, and this was public knowledge before the election, so there is no way to justify voting for Bush.

 

 

Clinton defiently blew his chance at Osama...I mean it doesn't matter because Bush hasn't found him either. But Clinton only cared about our economy and oral sex with obese women- not protecting our country.

 

Here's an Article from the London times which is a moderate paper......

 

 

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden

The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

 

 

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

 

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

 

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

 

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

 

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

 

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

 

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

 

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

 

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

 

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

 

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

 

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

 

Clinton could not be reached for comment yesterday, but a former senior White House official acknowledged that the Sudan episode had been a "screw-up".

 

A second offer to get Bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Clinton's election campaign in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president's chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help to extract Bin Laden.

 

Details of the meeting are confirmed in an exchange of e-mails between the White House and Ijaz, which have been seen by The Sunday Times. According to Ijaz, the offer involved setting up an Islamic relief fund to aid Afghanistan in return for the Taliban handing over Bin Laden to the Gulf state. America could then extract Bin Laden from there.

 

The Sunday Times has established that after a fierce internal row about the sincerity of the offer, the White House responded by sending Richard Clarke, Clinton's most senior counterterrorism adviser, to meet the rulers of the United Arab Emirates. They denied there was any such offer. Ijaz, however, maintained that the White House had thereby destroyed the deal, which was to have been arranged only through unofficial channels. Ijaz said that weeks later on a return trip to the Gulf he was taken on a late-night ride into the desert by his contact who told him that Clarke's front-door approach had upset a delicate internal balance and blown the deal. "Your government has missed a major opportunity," he recalls being told.

 

Senior former government sources said that Ijaz's offer had been treated in good faith but, with the denial of the UAE government, there was nothing to suggest it had credibility.

 

A third more mysterious offer to help came from the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, then led by Prince Turki al-Faisal, according to Washington sources. Details of the offer are still unclear although, by one account, Turki offered to help to place a tracking device in the luggage of Bin Laden's mother, who was seeking to make a trip to Afghanistan to see her son. The CIA did not take up the offer.

 

Richard Shelby, the leading Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, said he was aware of a Saudi offer to help although, under rules protecting classified information, he was unable to discuss the details of any offer. Commenting generally, he said: "I don't believe that the fight against terrorism was the number one goal of the Clinton administration."

 

 

you do know that was completely refuted as nonsense, if you search I am pretty sure you will even find a retraction. Clinton's own interview on TV pretty much covered the topic.

 

 

On another note:

I hate the "doesnt have experience" thing being cast at Obama, it if funny most of the folks casting it was Rudy as President whom has the same issue. Neither have experience upon the world stage.

 

Personally though once more I would like to see a Gore/Obama ticket

Gore did win before (and if the courts did not pull a coupe I have a feeling none of this situation would of been dealt with and we would right now be in afghanistan with a stable Government there). I think Gore's experience and Obama's presence would be a good combination for a ticket together.

 

Gives you a northern and southern democrat together as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be called a "screw up" but it wasn't a main target of the presidency, as it was for Bush. Stop rehashing the past to try and justify the goverment's shortcomings... and don't try to pull any cards for intelligence, you're enrolled at UCF....

 

It may be called a "screw up" but it wasn't a main target of the presidency, as it was for Bush. Stop rehashing the past to try and justify the goverment's shortcomings... and don't try to pull any cards for intelligence, you're enrolled at UCF.... (low blow? yes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be called a "screw up" but it wasn't a main target of the presidency, as it was for Bush. Stop rehashing the past to try and justify the goverment's shortcomings... and don't try to pull any cards for intelligence, you're enrolled at UCF....

 

It may be called a "screw up" but it wasn't a main target of the presidency, as it was for Bush. Stop rehashing the past to try and justify the goverment's shortcomings... and don't try to pull any cards for intelligence, you're enrolled at UCF.... (low blow? yes)

 

 

Ok so what Im enrolled and graduating from UCF this May (4 years). I go to the #2 Hospitality Program in the USA (behind only Cornell).

 

http://www.hospitality.ucf.edu/

 

I'm graduating with a 3.9 GPA and an SAT score of 1280. I've won 3 scholarships totaling $13,000 along with the Bright Futures. I also am a manager at Marriott Vacation Club in Orlando working full time, where I make $52,000/year at age 22 and managing 22 associates.

 

Oh yeah Marriott is a fortune 500 company and the #1 hotel chain in the World.

 

I guess I'm an idiot.....keep the low blows all you want. My future is brighter than yours!

 

 

BTW, all of my professors are big shots....(EX: Former Vice President of Disney (Ron Logan) made $800,000/year plus bonus, many Cornell Professors, etc.)

 

I don't have time from somebody who has no clue what they are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be called a "screw up" but it wasn't a main target of the presidency, as it was for Bush. Stop rehashing the past to try and justify the goverment's shortcomings... and don't try to pull any cards for intelligence, you're enrolled at UCF....

You're a tool.

 

Do they teach you how to spell 'government' in the Peace Corps?

 

 

How you got into college, Wild Marlin Man, still perplexes me.

 

Are you so blinded by your conservative ideology that you can't see that it was BUSH (not CLINTON) that was poised to capture Osama once he murdered the thousands of Americans in 9-11, and he let Osama slip through his fingers by:

You and your conservative buddies oughta scrape away the crap that Karl Rove has dabbed onto your eyes and realize a couple of things:

So go ahead, parrot Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others and say Kerry was a liar, Gore was a nutjob. Show everyone your true level of intelligence.

 

Or think for yourself for a change

You're a tool, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just said that with Kerry, we'd be winning the war on terrorism? That communist doesn't even like/respect American troops.

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

What kind of inane statements are these? Kerry's a communist? You're a college student man, try & do a little better than that. The man's a U.S. Senator. You might disagree with him but to say he "doesn't like/respect American troops" is flat retarded.

 

And then you agree that Bush is "light years" better than Gore or Kerry would've been? Based on what? Bush has been an absolute mess, by almost any measure. Go back & look at things he's proposed in state of the union speeches, or back when he was running for each term, then tell me which of them he's accomplished. And he's had a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in congress to work with. That's almost laughably inept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just said that with Kerry, we'd be winning the war on terrorism? That communist doesn't even like/respect American troops.

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

What kind of inane statements are these? Kerry's a communist? You're a college student man, try & do a little better than that. The man's a U.S. Senator. You might disagree with him but to say he "doesn't like/respect American troops" is flat retarded.

 

And then you agree that Bush is "light years" better than Gore or Kerry would've been? Based on what? Bush has been an absolute mess, by almost any measure. Go back & look at things he's proposed in state of the union speeches, or back when he was running for each term, then tell me which of them he's accomplished. And he's had a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in congress to work with. That's almost laughably inept.

 

 

How come the men who served with him did not support him? Most people find that humorous. His voting records and botched jokes are hilarious. The guy is a joke.

 

 

Oh yeah, Kerry lost to Bush in the DEBATES! hahaha. The worst public speaking President of all time and Kerry lost to him according to most. What does that say about him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just said that with Kerry, we'd be winning the war on terrorism? That communist doesn't even like/respect American troops.

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

What kind of inane statements are these? Kerry's a communist? You're a college student man, try & do a little better than that. The man's a U.S. Senator. You might disagree with him but to say he "doesn't like/respect American troops" is flat retarded.

 

And then you agree that Bush is "light years" better than Gore or Kerry would've been? Based on what? Bush has been an absolute mess, by almost any measure. Go back & look at things he's proposed in state of the union speeches, or back when he was running for each term, then tell me which of them he's accomplished. And he's had a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in congress to work with. That's almost laughably inept.

 

 

How come the men who served with him did not support him? Most people find that humorous. His voting records and botched jokes are hilarious. The guy is a joke.

 

 

Oh yeah, Kerry lost to Bush in the DEBATES! hahaha. The worst public speaking President of all time and Kerry lost to him according to most. What does that say about him?

 

Please provide proof of either of those being true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just said that with Kerry, we'd be winning the war on terrorism? That communist doesn't even like/respect American troops.

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

What kind of inane statements are these? Kerry's a communist? You're a college student man, try & do a little better than that. The man's a U.S. Senator. You might disagree with him but to say he "doesn't like/respect American troops" is flat retarded.

 

And then you agree that Bush is "light years" better than Gore or Kerry would've been? Based on what? Bush has been an absolute mess, by almost any measure. Go back & look at things he's proposed in state of the union speeches, or back when he was running for each term, then tell me which of them he's accomplished. And he's had a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in congress to work with. That's almost laughably inept.

 

 

How come the men who served with him did not support him? Most people find that humorous. His voting records and botched jokes are hilarious. The guy is a joke.

 

 

Oh yeah, Kerry lost to Bush in the DEBATES! hahaha. The worst public speaking President of all time and Kerry lost to him according to most. What does that say about him?

 

Please provide proof of either of those being true.

 

 

Probably the fact that the country was divided yet Bush won the election.....many so called experts said the same on TV. I will try to find some proof for you. I thought he won the debates as he came across much more honest.

 

But I just did some quick research on who won the 2004 Presidental Debates....one site had Kerry winning 47-46%. Another had Bush winning by 3%......I'm guessing it was about 50-50. I just find it funny that Bush is a horrible public speaker yet Kerry wasn't smart enough to distance himself from Bush.

 

You just said that with Kerry, we'd be winning the war on terrorism? That communist doesn't even like/respect American troops.

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

What kind of inane statements are these? Kerry's a communist? You're a college student man, try & do a little better than that. The man's a U.S. Senator. You might disagree with him but to say he "doesn't like/respect American troops" is flat retarded.

 

And then you agree that Bush is "light years" better than Gore or Kerry would've been? Based on what? Bush has been an absolute mess, by almost any measure. Go back & look at things he's proposed in state of the union speeches, or back when he was running for each term, then tell me which of them he's accomplished. And he's had a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in congress to work with. That's almost laughably inept.

 

Just because Kerry works for the US government doesn't mean I have to like him. Let me ask you something: Do you like John Murtha or agree on his statements/opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

How you got into college, Wild Marlin Man, still perplexes me.

 

Are you so blinded by your conservative ideology that you can't see that it was BUSH (not CLINTON) that was poised to capture Osama once he murdered the thousands of Americans in 9-11, and he let Osama slip through his fingers by:

 

1) not sending enough U.S. troops over to Afghanistan in Oct., Nov., Dec. of 2001 and allowing a bunch of Afghan warload militia take the laboring oar in the hunt for Al-Qaeda's leadership

 

2) diverting what troops had been sent to Afghanistan to fight an inane war in Iraq

 

You and your conservative buddies oughta scrape away the crap that Karl Rove has dabbed onto your eyes and realize a couple of things:

 

1) Al Qaeda and the radical Islamists WANT knee-jerk conservative Republicans in the W.H. because it makes their job of recruitment MUCH, MUCH easier. Let's face it, the only way Al Qaeda will survive is to indoctrinate as many people as possible in their radical ideology. A letter found on Khalid Sheik Mohammed stated as much.

 

Having a crazy cowboy talk about "crusades" and launch a pre-emptive war against a muslim country -- that's Al-Qaeda's wet dream for recruitment. They WANT us to over-react, and broaden our war against Islam. Then they can go to the streets of Cairo, of Riyadh, of Amman and draw moderates or borderline radicals to their cause.

 

2) Al Qaeda *HEARTS* us for going into Iraq -- not only because it makes their recruitment job easier, but because it provides real-world terrorism experience for their new recruits. Much like Afghanistan served as a training ground for Bin Laden and more senior members of Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

 

So go ahead, parrot Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others and say Kerry was a liar, Gore was a nutjob. Show everyone your true level of intelligence.

 

Or think for yourself for a change, and realize that by keeping us out of Iraq and in Afghanistan to finish the job against Bin Laden -- as both Kerry AND Gore would have done -- we'd actually be winning the war on terrorism, instead of losing miserably.

 

 

You just said that with Kerry, we'd be winning the war on terrorism? That communist doesn't even like/respect American troops. Everything you said went in one ear and out the other after you said Kerry would actually be winning the war on terrorism. Thanks for the Valentine's joke. lol

 

Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

 

Fact: Like that time he went to Congress and asked for help and they flat out turned him down?

 

END.

 

Keep reading Bill O'Reilly books, and believing everything FOX News tells you, though. It's a NO-SPIN ZONE!

 

 

 

Thanks it's the only network that gives both sides of the issues. O'Reilly is the best- always has democrats on his show. This is the big reason Katie Couric is failing miserably and Fox News is #1. They give both sides on major issues and lets the viewer decide....try watching it before knocking it.

 

Its too bad Clinton missed his opportunities to kill Osama (treated it like a law enforcement issue)... that fact will never be forgotten. End.

 

Fact: Like that time he went to Congress and asked for help and they flat out turned him down?

 

END.

 

Keep reading Bill O'Reilly books, and believing everything FOX News tells you, though. It's a NO-SPIN ZONE!

 

Of course they're going to play up "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism" card. Just wait, I really expect this to be one of the dirtiest races for the presidency ever. I mean, the Republicans have to follow a f*** up like Bush and they've already got that smear spot, so of course this is the best they could come up with.

 

How about the great job Bush has done not only fighting the terrorists and finding Osama, but actually finding a way to MULTIPLY willing future terrorists with his awesome "plan" in Iraq? Guess he forgot that portion of his "I've got big Australian cajones and always tell the truth, mate," philosophy on speaking to the press.

 

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

 

oh and by the way.....terrorists do want a Democrat in office. Think....Clinton should have had Osama.

 

Obama owned him by saying that he should put his money where his mouth is and call up 20,000 more Australian troops to send to Iraq.

 

Howard's son, unsurprisingly, worked for the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign.

 

 

yeah I loved that line too. Obama is fun to listen to.

 

Dang I miss Accord, he would make a comment here about how the Australian prime minster is right somehow :)

 

 

Yeah Obama is fun to listen to if you want a candidate for President who has no experience and honestly will not beat Hillary and all her money.

 

You are aware that when it's all said and done Bush II will go down as one of the worst presidents, right? Other than being a warmonger and doing ABSOLUTELY nothing he'll be the stem of future problems in the mid-east, not to mention he didn't find Osama with six years to do so.

 

But, continue living in fantasy land.

 

Not the greatest, correct. But to say he's better than ANYONE "would have been" is absolutely ridiculous because it's damn near impossible to predict how they would have done/what they would have done under the circumstances. Plus, I didn't think Kerry was the greatest, but a lame duck over Bush would still be an upgrade. I'm amazed anyone can rationally justify this guy's presidency on any level at this point other than the fact that the second time he was actually nominated to office by the people.

 

I love the republican revision of history where Clinton failed to get Osama even though he was turned down by Congress, etc. first. But, it's all good, you're going to vote republican come hell or high water anyways. Simple slogans like "A vote for democrats is a vote for terror" always work for idiots.

 

 

Bush not better than any other President? haha....he's working to disarm North Korea among other issues. You really need to read history. Bush works hard- you may not like him but he works hard and loves his country. For example, William Taft was one of the worst President's. All day, everyday, he slept. Didn't do anything.....research history.

 

Bush is easily better than Jimmy Carter as wellok...so im gonna backtrack on this one...just because of its slanderous rediculousness.......bush will go down as the worst president in united states history...why...because he is steering us in the direction of the end of the world...we fought communism in this country for about 30 years...which is a blink of the eye of how long we will be fighting islam...and say what you want...but this war has zero to do with weapons of mass distraction, or freeing a people, or bringing democracy to the middle east...this war is about imperialism, economics, and swindeling people out of the greatest natural resource in history...in other words...we arent defending freedom, we are forcing our culture on the world...and bush works hard at what exactly? taking vacations at the worst possible time or appointing unqualified people for positions vastly above their head? and i guarentee that bush's vast political positioning abilities will never ever never get him to get north korea to start disarming...and really...please tell me how you can say he loves his country while he sends men off to die that have infinitely more balls than him to fight in a pointless war? and you know what? as far as taft goes there is alot to be said for people who dont screw up when they have their chance...if you research history more thoroughly you will see that not one president has done a worse a job in his tenure...actually...you could make a solid argument that all the presidents combined havent screwed up as badly as bush 2...unfortunetly...if the government shaves it's bush...all its left with is a dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because Kerry works for the US government doesn't mean I have to like him. Let me ask you something: Do you like John Murtha or agree on his statements/opinions?

Huh? When did I say you have to like him? I said that claiming he doesn't like or respect American troops when he is a United States Senator and a veteran himself is ridiculous. You can disagree with him & dislike him all you want.

 

Ah this thread has run it's course already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just said that with Kerry, we'd be winning the war on terrorism? That communist doesn't even like/respect American troops.

 

Sorry man but I understand Bush is not the greatest President of all time, however he's light years better than Kerry or Gore would have been. So sadly enough, Dems couldn't come up with anything better than a lying Kerry or a nut job in Gore.

 

Now they have another flip flopper in Hillary and a candidate Obama (who seems like a nice guy) but will never win the election because of his race and inexperience.

 

Giuliani will tear apart both Hillary and/or Obama in a debate even if they were together.

 

What kind of inane statements are these? Kerry's a communist? You're a college student man, try & do a little better than that. The man's a U.S. Senator. You might disagree with him but to say he "doesn't like/respect American troops" is flat retarded.

 

And then you agree that Bush is "light years" better than Gore or Kerry would've been? Based on what? Bush has been an absolute mess, by almost any measure. Go back & look at things he's proposed in state of the union speeches, or back when he was running for each term, then tell me which of them he's accomplished. And he's had a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in congress to work with. That's almost laughably inept.

 

 

How come the men who served with him did not support him? Most people find that humorous. His voting records and botched jokes are hilarious. The guy is a joke.

 

 

Oh yeah, Kerry lost to Bush in the DEBATES! hahaha. The worst public speaking President of all time and Kerry lost to him according to most. What does that say about him?

 

Please provide proof of either of those being true.

 

 

Probably the fact that the country was divided yet Bush won the election.....many so called experts said the same on TV. I will try to find some proof for you. I thought he won the debates as he came across much more honest.

 

But I just did some quick research on who won the 2004 Presidental Debates....one site had Kerry winning 47-46%. Another had Bush winning by 3%......I'm guessing it was about 50-50. I just find it funny that Bush is a horrible public speaker yet Kerry wasn't smart enough to distance himself from Bush.

 

People thought Bush won because they are stupid and they thought KErry was being "too mean" to Bush, and they felt he bullied him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...