ABC Docudrama: To Shift 9/11 Blame To Clinton

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
He's human. His philandering ways have shown that to be true So, if he err in his marriage, why not in his job?

Oh, wait, I forgot, you don't think his cheating on his wife, several times, is a bad thing. If he did it with nice tail, I'd forgive him too but he swapped ugly for ugly and that is a crime in and of itself.


As you must know, this argument is contradicts itself unless you were trying to be cute with the last comment. I do find it amusing that Republicans (I know, you disclaim it) simultaneously mock Bill for being stuck with Hillary and also pillory him for his infidelity. Which is it people? And the joke is that as many Republicans as Dem's cheat on their wives in D.C. Must we name names? Who really cares anway? It's just another distraction from what really matters which is the right's failed policies and inept programs. No Child Left a Dime is more like it for that unfunded mandate.

But my biggest complaint, Crakeur, is that you continue to feably attack Clinton by failing to support your "argument" with facts. You say he met weekly to discuss the bin Laden threat and keep updated and you attack him for this? That is ludicrous. You're upset because he didn't have him killed outright? That would be murder, my confused friend.

So what else have you got to slander the man with? Anything of substance?

I thought not.







posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelawBut my biggest complaint, Crakeur, is that you continue to feably attack Clinton by failing to support your "argument" with facts. You say he met weekly to discuss the bin Laden threat and keep updated and you attack him for this? That is ludicrous. You're upset because he didn't have him killed outright? That would be murder, my confused friend.



I'm far from confused other than the fact that Clinton and his staffers all claimed to have met weekly regarding Bin Laden. I'm going on what they said.

And seriously, I'm not a republican nor a democrat. My vote isn't determined before I get to see who's running. Sadly, the system is such that we get morons like bush going up against morons like kerry and nobody wins.

Yes, they do all cheat. Unfortunately for Clinton, he did so during a time when reporters were no longer willing to respect the office and protect the office and, thus, you have all the girls he cheated with showing up in the news.

Can you admit that Clinton is not a superhero and he might actually make a mistake from time to time? If you say no you are lying so let me continue. If Clinton might make a mistake from time to time, why is it impossibly for you to admit that one of those mistakes might have been to not take out Bin Laden, if the opportunity presented itself. Before you go off on my being a republican protecting the current administration, let me make this easier.

Is it possible that Clinton might have erred in not taking out a man who was known to be involved or funding terror against american interests, a man who openly declared war on the United States and who was apparently training militants for action. If (if if if I never said it did) the opportunity presented itself, shouldn't he take this terrorist out?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Clinton has not been canonized, has he?

He made mistakes, yes. When one person is replaced by another, that new person is there to take responsibility and clean up- make things better, safer for everyone. Right? This applies to any job or profession i can think of.

Bush repeatedly got "*WARNINGS*" from our intelligence officials and he did not ACT.
Why?????????????
That is the question. He knew full well there was something coming, as did many others- For the sake of the wannabe war president, these things went over everyones head...I ask why.
I can tell ya why. This, after Bush forced himself into the stolen precidency and everyone was BS because he stole it came at a most FORTUNATE TIME, didnt it?
What's 3000 lives and people leaping to their deaths on Sept 11, when the advantages would be exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted?????
A nation came together (for a short time) and THE FACT THAT BUSH STOLE THE PRESIDENCY was forgotten, wasnt it??? Oh yes, a matter of convinience, i would say- coupled with the fact that Bush had to be the "Wartime" president...what other president could he have been???


He would have been a one term (if that) president had it not been for 9/11.
Since he started his war, he was more or less assured of a second term.


Put it all together and you have the puzzle of an incompetent president, disgraced due to other things, had there been no war. Ah yes, this worked out beautifully.

The fact that people dont want a war, the fact that thousands are dying is much better than another one-term Bush.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Bush repeatedly got "*WARNINGS*" from our intelligence officials and he did not ACT.


What's worse, someone who admits to being aware of a danger, finds chances to, possibly, stop the danger and does nothing or someone who is aware of a danger and pretty much ignores it?


They are both bad and putting a larger level of blame on either would not be right.

Look at it this way. Bush got his warnings from our intelligence officials that began compiling intel during Clinton's term. They passed this intel along in briefings meant to being the new guy up to speed with all the things the old guy was working on. Did their intel change from the day before, when Clinton figured Bin Laden wasn't a big enough threat to go after, other than spend money spying and watching and trying to locate opportunities? I doubt it. So, either Clinton is outright lying about being very concerned about Bin Laden and meeting regularly or he just didn't think Bin Laden was that big of a deal and his intelligence folks didn't convince him otherwise.

Either way, there's a big misstep in there.

Can you paint any other picture regarding the Clinton administration's handling of Bin Laden that would make them look 100% innocent? I await your scenarios.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by Crakeur]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
you have the puzzle of an incompetent president, disgraced due to other things, had there been no war. Ah yes, this worked out beautifully.


up until 9/11 Bush was a non-factor in that he did almost nothing. He acted as if he had been handed the executive washroom key at daddy's company and was merely sitting in the "big chair" spinning it around until he got dizzy.

How can you say that he would have been disgraced due to other things? You cannot assume that any of the other areas of his term would have happened or been handled in the same manner had 9/11 not happened. Therefore, what you are saying is that, by committing the acts of 9/11 (allowing them to happen?) he has turned himself into a disgrace.


who the hell plans that? the NWO? Bush is step 3,091,086 in the million year plan for world domination?





 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join