09 Feb 09
Originally posted by dystoniacI have news for you Mr. Twilite zone. The 9/11 attacks happened over 7 months into the 1st term of GEORGE W BUSH (Mr. national security)
It's a fact! What part of the Twilight Zone do you live in?
If "W" was such a whiz at "protecting America" then why was he diddling around reading childrens books when America was under attack?? If this had happened on Clintons watch, the G O P would be screaming incompetence. But when it happens on "W"s watch, I guess we're not supposed to talk about it eh?? 😏
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by bill718Your argument is weak. What does the fact that "W" being in a children's classroom at the time of 9-11 have to do with the price of tea in China? I didn't say Bush was totally non-culpable; his administration has some blame, but al-Qaeda has all of the nineties to become as strong as it was. Who was the Pres. atb the time? You still haven't answered my mentioning of the USS Cole? Cat got your tongue? 😏
I have news for you Mr. Twilite zone. The 9/11 attacks happened over 7 months into the 1st term of GEORGE W BUSH (Mr. national security)
If "W" was such a whiz at "protecting America" then why was he diddling around reading childrens books when America was under attack?? If this had happened on Clintons watch, the G O P would be screaming incompetence. But when it happens on "W"s watch, I guess we're not supposed to talk about it eh?? 😏
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by dystoniacThe Bush administration got a specific warning that al-Qaeda was going to fly passenger planes into skyscrapers. It was shelved. What's this got to do with the previous (pro-choice) president?
Your argument is weak. What does the fact that "W" being in a children's classroom at the time of 9-11 have to do with the price of tea in China? I didn't say Bush was totally non-culpable; his administration has some blame, but al-Qaeda has all of the nineties to become as strong as it was. Who was the Pres. atb the time? You still haven't answered my mentioning of the USS Cole? Cat got your tongue? 😏
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by FMFYou're right, and Bush didn't react to the warnings. As I previously stated, Bush is not entirely absolved for the 9-11 incident. You are obviously in love with Clinton to not see his mistakes. If you can't see them, what's the use in discussing them? Now, what about the USS COLE...ever hear of it?!!!!
The Bush administration got a specific warning that al-Qaeda was going to fly passenger planes into skyscrapers. It was shelved. What's this got to do with the previous pro-choice president?
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by dystoniacYes...We've all heard of the Cole. It was tragic, which is why Clinton specifically warned in Jan of 2001 "W" that terrorism is "the biggest threat to America's national security". Now that we have that cleared up , how many people were killed in the Cole attack? and how many were killed on 9/11? Both Presidents made mistakes... but Bush made a far larger one than Clinton...and Bush was warned! 😏
You're right, and Bush didn't react to the warnings. As I previously stated, Bush is not entirely absolved for the 9-11 incident. You are obviously in love with Clinton to not see his mistakes. If you can't see them, what's the use in discussing them? Now, what about the USS COLE...ever hear of it?!!!!
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by bill718Well, you are not totally incorrect, but listen to me.....carefully...please....here I go: terrorism was like a tumor in the early 90s...easliy excised, but Clinto did nothing. Read the book "Dereliction of Duty". As the 90s progressed, how many US embassies were attacked, not to mention Khobar Towers. The military had clear kill-shots at bin-Laden, but Clinton said "NO". While Bill was geting his "willy" "wonkered" in the Blew Room, al-Qaeda was strengthening. Sudan offered bin-Laden to the US..."naw, we don't weant 'im" mused Clinton....the number of people killed makes no difference. The fact that Clinton could have prevented al-Qaeda from becoming strong enough to commit 9-11 does make a difference.
Yes...We've all heard of the Cole. It was tragic, which is why Clinton specifically warned in Jan of 2001 "W" that terrorism is "the biggest threat to America's national security". Now that we have that cleared up , how many people were killed in the Cole attack? and how many were killed on 9/11? Both Presidents made mistakes... but Bush made a far larger one than Clinton...and Bush was warned! 😏
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by dystoniacWhat makes you parochial and daftly America-centric is comments like this: "You are obviously in love with Clinton to not see his mistakes. If you can't see them, what's the use in discussing them?"
Well, what do you want me to be...Indonesia-centric? If I am parochial, does that make you Matriarcical?
It's like eavesdropping on one side of an American dufus bickering with another American dufus.
Problem is I am not a dufus. And I am not American either.
So that's why you come across as parochial.
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by FMFWell, what makes you Anglo-Indonesiacentric is your hauty pompous presumptions. You don't even have a clue. You are not a dufus?...that's debatable. I'll be parochial, and you can be pompous like a lot of your kind are. If you don't think I meet your calibre of thought, then don't respond to my posts and go FY.
What makes you parochial and daftly America-centric is comments like this: "You are obviously in love with Clinton to not see his mistakes. If you can't see them, what's the use in discussing them?"
It's like eavesdropping on one side of an American dufus bickering with another American dufus.
Problem is I am not a dufus. And I am not American either.
So that's why you come across as parochial.
09 Feb 09
Originally posted by dystoniacIs Jesus your favourite philosopher?
Well, what makes you Anglo-Indonesiacentric is your hauty pompous presumptions. You don't even have a clue. You are not a dufus?...that's debatable. I'll be parochial, and you can be pompous like a lot of your kind are. If you don't think I meet your calibre of thought, then don't respond to my posts and go FY.
09 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by dystoniacWith all due respect... the number of people killed makes A LOT of difference! It's one thing to monitor a growing threat abroad, it's quite another to allow terrorists to hijack airplanes and fly them into the Twin Towers while America's commander in chief reads a childrens book. You really think Clinton did nothing? What was Clinton supposed to do? Invade every country that might be a threat? "W" tried that. America is now left with a severly weakened military machine, and the largest national debt in all of human history. And is America really any safer in our weakened state? I don't think so. And as far as your "Dereliction of Duty" book, I did read it! It's filled with all the usual right wing half truths, lies, and inuendo. You folks on the right wing are going to have to understand America does not have the resources to police the whole world. Clinton was working with the international community to undermine terrorists threats, Bush's answer to everything was "send in the marines!" So...are we any safer than 8 years ago? NO. Are we any better off than 8 years ago? NO. Clintons response to terrorism, while not perfect was superior. Bush's response to terrorism was still stupid. Deal with it!
Well, you are not totally incorrect, but listen to me.....carefully...please....here I go: terrorism was like a tumor in the early 90s...easliy excised, but Clinto did nothing. Read the book "Dereliction of Duty". As the 90s progressed, how many US embassies were attacked, not to mention Khobar Towers. The military had clear kill-shots at bin-Laden, bu revented al-Qaeda from becoming strong enough to commit 9-11 does make a difference.