storm1977 0 #1 June 25, 2004 http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 June 25, 2004 That's it....I'm not voting for Clinton after reading that!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #3 June 25, 2004 What about his wife in 4 years or 8 depending on the outcome of this election? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #4 June 25, 2004 c'mon broh' it's such a waste of server space to simply post a link to a news site and not offer any discussion or arguement... We all read the news. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #5 June 25, 2004 What this shows is that the intel Bush has/had is the same that the previous administration had. Liberal love to blame the Bush admin for their "Bad Intel" on Iraq. Which truthfully we don't know what is true or false anymore as far as that intel goes...... BUt it looks more like an institutional thought instead of a single leaders thoughts. We can't say what Clinton would have done if 9/11 happened on his watch, because it would be speculation. But, based on what he was told, he may have made the same types of decisions as Bush as far as fighting terrorism ever where ever it is. Who knows..... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 June 25, 2004 QuoteWhat about his wife in 4 years or 8 depending on the outcome of this election? I have no idea. I've never really delved into her politics since she doesn't represent me. And I filter out the noise from both sides about her. Based on what I know about her now, though, I doubt it. But for one thing, that has nothing to do with what you posted. And for another thing, I find it ironic that one minute Clinton is a lying, cheating, perjurer, and the next he is yet another reliable source of intel regarding Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #7 June 25, 2004 QuoteWe can't say what Clinton would have done if 9/11 happened on his watch, because it would be speculation. But, based on what he was told, he may have made the same types of decisions as Bush as far as fighting terrorism ever where ever it is. Who knows..... Who cares? He's not running. If he were in office and made the same bad decisions I'd be just as critical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #8 June 25, 2004 read the post before i just did.... I don't think it was Clintons Idea there was a link. I think it was the Intel services. So one can not blame Bush just as they can't blame Clinton. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 June 25, 2004 QuoteSo one can not blame Bush just as they can't blame Clinton. I don't recall Clinton launching an invasion of Iraq based on that intel. If he did, I would blame him too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #10 June 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo one can not blame Bush just as they can't blame Clinton. I don't recall Clinton launching an invasion of Iraq based on that intel. If he did, I would blame him too. No, but he did launch some massive airstrikes. Bush & Clinton both committed military force against Iraq. Taking out SH was the right thing to do, irrespective of whether Bush's justifications were a little tenuous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #11 June 25, 2004 QuoteWe can't say what Clinton would have done if 9/11 happened on his watch, because it would be speculation By 9/11, you mean the WTC jet attack. That would be the second one. The first one was during Clintons administration, the van bombing attack on the WTC. Speculation? Fact - he didn't go get OBL after the first attack. If he had, there would be no attack-part-2. The WTC would still be standing. We wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan to get him. Lots of turmoil and death could have been prevented. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 June 25, 2004 QuoteTaking out SH was the right thing to do SH being gone is a good thing. Us commiting ground forces for a decade and alienating the rest of the world wasn't worth it. Quoteirrespective of whether Bush's justifications were a little tenuous. So it's ok for the POTUS to wing it when dealing with war. That's beautiful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 June 25, 2004 Funny thing is, GWB didn't go get BinLaden either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #14 June 25, 2004 But is actively trying..... We didn't "GO GET HITLER" in WWII.... But that was one of our goals. Took a few years and he finally did himself in!!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckbrown 0 #15 June 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteTaking out SH was the right thing to do SH being gone is a good thing. Us commiting ground forces for a decade and alienating the rest of the world wasn't worth it. Quoteirrespective of whether Bush's justifications were a little tenuous. So it's ok for the POTUS to wing it when dealing with war. That's beautiful. Yes, we should have done this 12 years ago. I don't think Bush was "winging it." SH openly financed terrorists (paying suicide bombers) and provided a safe haven for an AQ branch (Ansar al Islam), attempted to assassinate one POTUS, repeatedly demonstrated the desire to develop a WMD capacity (irrespective of what stage of development WMD SH actually acheived), and attacked 4 nations (Iran, Kuwait, Israel & Saudia Arabia) in an already volitile region. Sure the intel on WMD was "tenous" but Bush was right to do this. IMHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #16 June 25, 2004 QuoteFunny thing is, GWB didn't go get BinLaden either. GWB went after him..Clinotn did NOTHING about him. If Clinton had done his job 9/11 would not have happend. As for GWB not getting OBL..Give it time. At least he is DOING something about OBL. Edit to add: QuoteTo justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #17 June 25, 2004 QuoteBut is actively trying..... Forgive my ignorance, but I cant keep up with W's staff's comments... I though OBL wasnt important anymore?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #18 June 25, 2004 QuoteFunny thing is, GWB didn't go get BinLaden either. msn It is ridiculous to compare the two. Obviously, Bush sent an army to Afghanistan to find him. Clinton knew where he was exactly. Clinton knew exactly where he was. He was in his compound in Afghanistan where he was known to live. They have video of him. He is 6'5, towers over his peers, walking in a group of bodyguards at his home. QuoteAs the 9/11 commission investigates what Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush might have done to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, one piece of evidence the commission will examine is a videotape secretly recorded by a CIA plane high above Afghanistan. The tape shows a man believed to Osama bin Laden walking at a known al-Qaida camp. Quote...Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away. A real leader doesn't need a "consensus" to take bold action, they take action. Another example of the "do nothing" president. And with the election close... How much did all of his failures cost us? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #19 June 25, 2004 >It is ridiculous to compare the two. Obviously, Bush sent an army to >Afghanistan to find him. Clinton knew where he was exactly. So? Bush passed up several opportunities to get al-Zarqawi, even when he had solid intel that he was in one location and vulnerable. And since he didn't, hundreds of US soldiers and Iraqis are now dead. Like Ron always likes to say, hindsight is 20/20. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #20 June 25, 2004 GWB knows where OBL is too. Afghanistan or Pakistan. For some odd reason, most of our troops are in Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #21 June 25, 2004 Would you agree that Clinton knew where OBL was? Would you agree that he could have saved us unmeasured amounts of grief by capturing or killing him? Isn't attempting to blow up the WTC enough reason to do something? This isn't hindsight at all. Based on the evidence in front of him, during the time period, he should have acted. I can think of no other alternative but action. This is just an example of the undercurrent of his entire administration that has always angered me. Even when face with an overwhelming reason to take action, he did nothing. My personal definition of a non-leader. Oh, wait...he is charming and has nice hair - all forgiven. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #22 June 25, 2004 QuoteForgive my ignorance, but I cant keep up with W's staff's comments... I though OBL wasnt important anymore? Oh I guess that is why we pulled troops out of Afganistan..... Oh wait we didn't. Did we Kill or capture Hitler? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #23 June 25, 2004 not yet... QuoteThe United States, which has increased troops numbers in Afghanistan to hunt for Osama bin Laden and other militants, may cut their number after the country holds elections, the top U.S. military officer said on Friday http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4737550/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #24 June 25, 2004 > Would you agree that Clinton knew where OBL was? Yep. >Would you agree that he could have saved us unmeasured amounts of >grief by capturing or killing him? Yep. Of course, you could say the same thing about Timothy McVeigh. >Isn't attempting to blow up the WTC enough reason to do something? Yep. >This isn't hindsight at all. Based on the evidence in front of him, during >the time period, he should have acted. I can think of no other alternative >but action. If Bin Laden had not blown up the WTC he would be thought of as far less evil than Castro, someone who (like Bin Laden) we tried to assassinate but failed. OTOH, Bush didn't even _try_ to take out al-Zarqawi, who is shaping up to be every bit the terrorist leader Bin Laden is. >Even when face with an overwhelming reason to take action, he did >nothing. My personal definition of a non-leader. Are you talking about Bush not taking out al-Zarqawi or Clinton not taking out Bin Laden? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #25 June 25, 2004 Bush didn't even _try_ to take out al-Zarqawi, who is shaping up to be every bit the terrorist leader Bin Laden is. *** Look Bill we almost got him. Seems your argument isn't holding water. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/25/iraq.main/index.html ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
