Pandering To "conservative" Whiners/Paranoids

Werbung:
pocketfullofshells said:
Umm I hated Clinton...also no proven Cocaine use...and Bush admited to Cocaine use basically.

once again the ditto's fall back to well Clinton did X...without bothering to figure out if I even liked him at all.. because you can't go on merits of the story at hand
Click to expand...


And once again the left wing ideologues attempt to deny reality by their reference to one being a "dittohead" without any knowledge of who the party gets their information from.

My post was a direct reference to the topic at hand, or the "off topic" at hand.

As to Clinton, there was more evidence that Clinton used cocaine then ever provided for Bush.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=14

Now, anytime you whiners on the left want to go "offtopic", and attack whomever you want, that seems to be ok by you. However, if one points out the hypocrisy of your actions, especially when it comes to Clinton, why that is just horrendous.

This is kind of like BO passing a tax on tobacco users declaring their cost to the health care system as a justification while the media covers up that he is a smoker.
 
pocketfullofshells said:
Minority, sorta like the Republican party....Enjoy
Click to expand...

Here's one who loves it when his friends are wielding the stick but pisses and moans like a french school girl when someone else is holding it.

Political retaliation will only get worse if we continue making the stick bigger, both sides will try to out manuever the other in finding ways to get around the constitution and using the stick to beat down their fellow Americans.

The only solution is to ban the use of the stick against fellow Americans. End the governments ability to legally violate the rights of any American. Suddenly, it doesn't matter how much you hate or fear someone you disagree with politically, they will be powerless to use force against you and violate your rights.
 
Says the man who loves the US attacking foreigners and violating them, killing them, maiming them, impoverishing them etc
 
Diamond said:
Oh, no terrorists are not the US or any other civilized countries problem. New York City 1993/2001, Paris 1996, Bali 2002, Madrid 2004, Beslan 2004, London 2005.. want me to go on?
Click to expand...

AQ is our enemy & we are killing them. The Taliban is just a bad group of people who never attacked us....They are not our problem.
 
But after 8 years and a gazillion dollars OBL hasn't been caught.

But then he is well connected isn't he?

And if he was caught the US wouldn't gt away with faking all those videos he conveniently makes when half wits need reminding that there really is a war on terror.

No, there really really is.......nt
 
Devil505 said:
AQ is our enemy & we are killing them. The Taliban is just a bad group of people who never attacked us....They are not our problem.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda is, as is the Taliban, heavily stationed on Afghan-Pakistani border. The US has equal interest in removing the Taliban because of their support for terrorist actions. When I listen to your logic, it's the same as saying back in World War II: We'll defeat Italy and Japan, and leave Germany alone since they've never caused us any harm. This is down right naive, you can't fight a war like that.
 
Diamond said:
Al Qaeda is, as is the Taliban, heavily stationed on Afghan-Pakistani border. The US has equal interest in removing the Taliban because of their support for terrorist actions. When I listen to your logic, it's the same as saying back in World War II: We'll defeat Italy and Japan, and leave Germany alone since they've never caused us any harm. This is down right naive, you can't fight a war like that.
Click to expand...

I grew up in a country that only fought...in self-defense, when it (or its allies) were attacked directly. Preemptive wars are neocon wars of aggression. The United States should never start wars of aggression or torture prisoners.....period!
 
Devil505 said:
When did the Taliban attack us?
Click to expand...
There're a lotta people who're (still) confused about events; pre-9/11.​

"There are differing opinions on how seriously the Bush team took Clarke's warnings. Some members of the outgoing Administration got the sense that the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism.

For other observers, however, the real point was not that the new Administration dismissed the terrorist theat. On the contrary, Rice, Hadley and Cheney, says an official, "all got that it was important." The question is, How high a priority did terrorism get? Clarke says that dealing with al-Qaeda "was in the top tier of issues reviewed by the Bush Administration." But other topics got far more attention. The whole Bush national-security team was obsessed with setting up a national system of missile defense."
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:​
 
Werbung:
Mr. Shaman said:
There're a lotta people who're (still) confused about events; pre-9/11.

:rolleyes:​
Click to expand...


Yep, they certainly are, especially you as usual.

http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.html

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a
 

Similar threads

C
Media Weiner Roast Fries Politician's Career!
Replies
1
Views
2K
TruthSeeker
T
Stiffy
    • Like
Muslim Congress: America “Is Not Going to Be the Country of White People”
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
pjmret
P
Back
Top