he came so close to actually admitting they f**ked up by going after Iraq, and then went back to their tried and true "but I acted to defend america" lines. ummmm, how did he defend america?
That means nothing at all. I don't know how to explain that any better. Al-Quaeda isn't bound to a term-of-presidency timeline. They're patient, and they're bleeding us dry, or just watching us bleed dry, as we overextend overseas. There will be a time when they think it's opportune to do it again...probably just after we get done heartily congratulating ourselves on a few more domestic-terror-free years.N8 said:There have been no more repeats since, yet.
Bin Laden himself said we weren't safe, over and over and over again, long before 2001. We just didn't bother to listen or react.N8 said:Well, we damn sure weren't safe before as painfully demonstrated on Sept 11th.
NO ONE outside Bush's top cronies has established ANY connection between Iraq and Al_Q. Get it through your head... Iraq is purely a vendetta!!!N8 said:Well, we damn sure weren't safe before as painfully demonstrated on Sept 11th.
There have been no more repeats since, yet.
Back to Lisa's rock again.N8 said:Well, we damn sure weren't safe before as painfully demonstrated on Sept 11th.
There have been no more repeats since, yet.
I don't think it's so much that N8 doesn't get it, it's that he's incapable of getting it. If the inevitable does occur on Dubya's watch I wonder who N8'll blame then.Silver said:Back to Lisa's rock again.
How many times do we really have to explain this one?
Oh, that one is easy.valve bouncer said:I don't think it's so much that N8 doesn't get it, it's that he's incapable of getting it. If the inevitable does occur on Dubya's watch I wonder who N8'll blame then.
Silver said:Oh, that one is easy.
It'll be Clinton's fault, for sure...after all, it occured on Dubya's watch once allready...
Partially. Still, Bush didn't do much about Bin Laden either. Remember the memo Condi didn't want to testify about?MikeD said:No, 9/11 was Clinton's fault; future attacks are going to have to be borne on the contemporary administration's shoulders.
And I'm not kidding about Clinton. I can't stand all this retro-glorification of Clinton by Democrats these days...the man was a terrible leader with terrible character whose 'brilliant foreign policy' had terrible consequences for this nation in the long term. Not that GW's doing any better, mind you, and Clinton was a product of national naivete and short attention span, like any politician these days.
Man, I'm depressed, especially because I can't offer some world-saving plan in the face of all this negativity.
MD
Slugman said:NO ONE outside Bush's top cronies has established ANY connection between Iraq and Al_Q. Get it through your head... Iraq is purely a vendetta!!!
Personally I don't think it was anyone in the governments fault. They are elected officials and must respond to the masses to keep their jobs. Before 9-11 the public was more interested in oval office hummers, flag burning, getting entitlements and tax cuts. There were no special interest groups beating down the doors of Senaters or public outcry after the first WTC bombings. Even now the public is not willing to do what is needed to take care of terrorism, they just want to hear good news, pound their chests and cry out God Bless America.MikeD said:No, 9/11 was Clinton's fault; future attacks are going to have to be borne on the contemporary administration's shoulders.
And I'm not kidding about Clinton. I can't stand all this retro-glorification of Clinton by Democrats these days...the man was a terrible leader with terrible character whose 'brilliant foreign policy' had terrible consequences for this nation in the long term. Not that GW's doing any better, mind you, and Clinton was a product of national naivete and short attention span, like any politician these days.
Man, I'm depressed, especially because I can't offer some world-saving plan in the face of all this negativity.
MD
N8 said:Well, we damn sure weren't safe before as painfully demonstrated on Sept 11th.
There have been no more repeats since, yet.
biggins said:N8 why dont you just think about the fact that things are cyclical. we did not get attacked for years and suddenly bam it happens. you dont think it will happen again now that the all powerful all knowing W is in power? did he actually do anything to prevent another attack?could he have? are we safer now than we were before? maybe, maybe not but i can assure you that attacking iraq did nothing to stop terrorist attacks.
Those things work, since I have gotten mine I have had no problems with tigers, lions, bigfoot, loch ness monsters or fire breathing dragons.Silver said:Back to Lisa's rock again.
Those protestors who broke into the RNC (at least a few times I might add) should have said who is safer now buddy, we got in no problem when they were taken away. Maybe also add for affect:narlus said:anyone see the RNC w/ all the banners proclaiming "A Safer World"? safer for who? do any of you feel safer? i sure as hell don't.
Nothing to do with Iraq. Those plans took years to set into motion, dont think for a secong that GW stopped any terrorism plans with his actions in Iraq, if anything he inspired even more plans to begin.N8 said:Well, we damn sure weren't safe before as painfully demonstrated on Sept 11th.
There have been no more repeats since, yet.
No worse that your broken record bull shizz hat you spout on a regular basis. Talk about yawn.N8 said::yawn:
Zzzzzzzzzzzz.....
fluff said:Yo N8,
I see your Vietnam vet and raise you one cheerleader:
Dude, I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire...N8 said:You want to blow me..???
1st attack on the WTC:N8 said:Well, we damn sure weren't safe before as painfully demonstrated on Sept 11th.
There have been no more repeats since, yet.
But the organization which used them as patsies got off scot-free. It's nice to think we 'did something about it,' but we did absolutely nothing on a meaningful scale or in the long term, and we certainly didn't deter or pre-empt future attacks.dante said:The men who bombed the WTC in 1993 were tried and convicted
Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that, but the leaders could at least be realistic. Oh, wait, then they wouldn't be elected...crap...now you see why I'm generally so pessimistic.Westy said:Personally I don't think it was anyone in the governments fault. They are elected officials and must respond to the masses to keep their jobs. Before 9-11 the public was more interested in oval office hummers, flag burning, getting entitlements and tax cuts. There were no special interest groups beating down the doors of Senaters or public outcry after the first WTC bombings. Even now the public is not willing to do what is needed to take care of terrorism, they just want to hear good news, pound their chests and cry out God Bless America.
I lost faith in the system a long time ago. But these days it is starting to piss me off. As much as I would like, I can't blame Bush or Clinton. Half of the voting public still does not know the truth behind current events of the last 10 years, has no idea how the economy works and really just votes for a caricature of a candidate as drawn by the media and spin doctors. I am starting to wonder if voting should no longer be a right but a privilege.MikeD said:Yep, I agree with pretty much all of that, but the leaders could at least be realistic. Oh, wait, then they wouldn't be elected...crap...now you see why I'm generally so pessimistic.
MD
dr. evil said:friggin whiny, liberals. its never your fault is it? pffft dems, cant live with em, cant kill 'em
Wow, you contribute some great thoughts.dr. evil said:xc is for sissies
Actually, it's all the fault of an ignorant American public when you really get down to it, and that's what we've been saying. Whose 'fault' do you think it is, the Democrats'?dr. evil said:friggin whiny, liberals. its never your fault is it? pffft dems, cant live with em, cant kill 'em
You obviously don't bow down before the wisdom of our God given leader, and that makes you a democrat or a liberal.MikeD said:Why do you think I'm a democrat or a liberal, anyhow?
It's astounding how 95% of Americans just want to fall in on a pre-fab, pre-polarized political identity and endlessly spout the rhetoric it provides them.
MD
Sounds like you've been influenced by the N8 media too muchMikeD said:But the organization which used them as patsies got off scot-free. It's nice to think we 'did something about it,' but we did absolutely nothing on a meaningful scale or in the long term, and we certainly didn't deter or pre-empt future attacks.
1993 Trade Tower bombing. 4 suspects were captured in March of 1994. A fifth (the supposed mastermind) was captured in 1995. Each of these have been convicted and are currently serving time in US prisons.
1995 Saudi Arabian bombing. 4 Saudi nationals were captured by the Saudis (after being indicted by US courts) each was beheaded in 1996
1996 Khobar Towers. 14 indicted by US courts. Each is being held in Saudi custody. No one is exactly sure of the current disposition. It is thought they have probably been "dealt" with.
1998 Embassy bombings. 4 captured and sentenced in US courts to life in prison. 3 that have been indicted are in London fighting extradition. 14 more are indicted but still at large. Also Clinton authorized an attack on Afganistan attempting to kill Osama in 1998 as a result of these bombings. All he got for his troubles was blame that he was deflecting attention away from Monica.
2000 Cole bombing. Clinton only had two months left so....
Also the the spending for anti-terror activities nearly tripled to 6.7 billion during his administration. Of course he didn't catch Osama. That would have been nice but the fact of the matter is that he has proven to not be easy to catch.