Clinton took on bin Laden first?!

[1stFlight]

I found this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24861) to be interesting.


Then in 1998, Clinton ordered strikes on bin Laden's bases in Khost, Afghanistan, in an attempt to wipe out bin Laden and his henchmen. Clinton now says forces missed bin Laden by just an hour, confirming that he had targeted the terrorist leader for slaughter.


So my question is, if Clinton knew bin Laden to be a threat back in the late 90's....why didn't Bush pick up that ball when he came into officer and finish the job?

For those who are indulging in their short memories wondering why Clinton didn't finish the job, it was because a few Republicans wanted the juicy details of his sex life, more than they were interested in protecting our nation from terrorism.

[sytaylor]

That or the clinton administration just stopped caring since their leader had a serious threat to their presidency. Works both ways.

[vampireuk]

Don't we all know about that already?:confused:

[UDawg]

This is sad. So it is Bush's fault because Clinton lied in a grand jury. LMAO LMAO LMAO!!! This is dumb.

Clinton did not want anything to do with terrorism. People in his cabinet and staff said this them selves. He ignored this problem. He only took on issues that were high profile and one he could resolve easily. Terrorism was not a issue that could be resolved easily.

Face it Clinton did nothing to curb terrorism. Bush sr did nothing and Reagan did nothing. In fact Reagan and Clinton hurt us in the area with terrorism. First Reagan by pulling our troops out of Beruit then clinton by not responding to the first Trade Center bombings and second by pulling out of Somalia.

Bush is trying to finish a job that has not been touched until he got into office.

why didn't Bush pick up that ball when he came into officer and finish the job?

This is stupid. Why didn't Clinton have anything in place before he left office.

BTW Clinton got involved with Monica in 95. It seems he was too busy to even look at terrorism.

LOL Clinton had 8 years and did nothing. Bush is doing something in 3 years and trying to finish it.

[vampireuk]

psst you missed your trademark!

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by UDawg
This is sad. So it is Bush's fault because Clinton lied in a grand jury. LMAO LMAO LMAO!!! This is dumb.

Clinton did not want anything to do with terrorism. People in his cabinet and staff said this them selves. He ignored this problem. He only took on issues that were high profile and one he could resolve easily. Terrorism was not a issue that could be resolved easily.

Face it Clinton did nothing to curb terrorism. Bush sr did nothing and Reagan did nothing. In fact Reagan and Clinton hurt us in the area with terrorism. First Reagan by pulling our troops out of Beruit then clinton by not responding to the first Trade Center bombings and second by pulling out of Somalia.

Bush is trying to finish a job that has not been touched until he got into office.

This is stupid. Why didn't Clinton have anything in place before he left office.

BTW Clinton got involved with Monica in 95. It seems he was too busy to even look at terrorism.

LOL Clinton had 8 years and did nothing. Bush is doing something in 3 years and trying to finish it.

Umm, the part you're trying to overlook is that when Bush took office, HE dropped the ball!!!!

And you're missing the part where Clinton lobbed missles into Afghanistan, and Iraq.... of course you would probably say is was trying to distract from his trial instead of fighting terrorism.... :rolleyes2:

Face it, your boy dropped the ball for nearly a year after being handed it dead on. Try rivising that.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Umm, the part you're trying to overlook is that when Bush took office, HE dropped the ball!!!!

And you're missing the part where Clinton lobbed missles into Afghanistan, and Iraq.... of course you would probably say is was trying to distract from his trial instead of fighting terrorism.... :rolleyes2:

Face it, your boy dropped the ball for nearly a year after being handed it dead on. Try rivising that.

You did not address anything I said.

So Bush should have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq right when he was elected.... ok I agree with you. :p

You said he lobbed missles into Iraq. So you do agree Iraq is part of the war on terror. :D LOL 2 for 2. You are learning. :D

Ok Cliton launched missles into an empty camp in Afghanistan. Oh no I am sure the desert floor was prepared to surrendur after that attack. BHAHAHAHA.

The point is he did token missle attacks that did nothing. He did not do anything except blow up a asprin factory and an empty after the Cole was bombed.

I do not think he did those attacks to distract from his trial. I thought conservatives that said that were stupid. He did the right thing but did not really go after them. We need troops on the ground taking them out like we are doing now. I wanted him to do more than just a light and smoke show.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by UDawg
This is sad. So it is Bush's fault because Clinton lied in a grand jury.

Thats point im making, this can be spun. Either Bush didn't jump to the previous presidents dirty work at teh dorp of a hat (god.. imagine the protests), or he dropped the ball.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by sytaylor
Thats point im making, this can be spun. Either Bush didn't jump to the previous presidents dirty work at teh dorp of a hat (god.. imagine the protests), or he dropped the ball.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Remember what the opposition to the war said and even 1stFlight said. We should not rush to war. We should take this to the UN, we did. We should not rush into Afghanistan. We need to know why they hate us. blah blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

This problem was made over the last 20 years and involves 4 presidents. You can't pin it on one.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg
Remember what the opposition to the war said and even 1stFlight said. We should not rush to war. We should take this to the UN, we did. We should not rush into Afghanistan. We need to know why they hate us. blah blah blah. You can't have it both ways.

This problem was made over the last 20 years and involves 4 presidents. You can't pin it on one.

afghanistan is an unresolved situation with escalating numbers of antagonists udawg...

if afghanistan continues to degrade than the previous presidents and what not will have nothing to do with it... it will be solely on Bush's shoulders...

bush... with the pretext of eliminating terror is instead fueling it and eventually unresolved situations such as afghanistan will rise up to bite us in the ass...

[UDawg]

Are you saying things are going bad in Afghanistan now because we have a few attacks here and there? I'm not sure what you are trying to say SAZARRRRRR...

:p


Oh so you do want to play the blame game. I thought I was not allowed to blame Clinton of anything but it is ok for you to blame Bush for everything. LOL! ok if those are the rules you want to play by.

Somolia, Haiti (sp) I guess can be put squarly on Clinton's shoulders and Osoma who was offered to Clinton but he turned it down. I guess we can blame Clinton for those.

Do you see how useless it is to play this game? We can to on and on but I'd reather focus on the tasks at hand.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg
Are you saying things are going bad in Afghanistan now or is any terrorist attack mean we are failing? I'm sure what you are trying to say SAZARRRRRR...

:p

that makes no sense

[intercede007]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
And you're missing the part where Clinton lobbed missles into Afghanistan, and Iraq.... of course you would probably say is was trying to distract from his trial instead of fighting terrorism.... :rolleyes2:


http://members.cox.net/intercede007/saynotowar.gif

[vampireuk]

Remove that bottom line and thats me:p

Unless it is a war for doritos and beer:drooling:

[intercede007]

Originally posted by vampireuk
Remove that bottom line and thats me:p

Unless it is a war for doritos and beer:drooling:

Make it Pizza and a Corona and I'll got get my Glocks and a box of ammo :D

[Ninja Prime]

Newflash 1stflight, syria offered Bin Laden to Clinton on a silver platter in 1996 and he didn't want to spend the time/money/resources to go get him, so take that retarded line and shove it.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by intercede007
Make it Pizza and a Corona and I'll got get my Glocks and a box of ammo :D

u suck u ass licer - Mark Latham ALP

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by UDawg
You did not address anything I said.

So Bush should have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq right when he was elected.... ok I agree with you. :p

You said he lobbed missles into Iraq. So you do agree Iraq is part of the war on terror. :D LOL 2 for 2. You are learning. :D

Ok Cliton launched missles into an empty camp in Afghanistan. Oh no I am sure the desert floor was prepared to surrendur after that attack. BHAHAHAHA.

The point is he did token missle attacks that did nothing. He did not do anything except blow up a asprin factory and an empty after the Cole was bombed.

I do not think he did those attacks to distract from his trial. I thought conservatives that said that were stupid. He did the right thing but did not really go after them. We need troops on the ground taking them out like we are doing now. I wanted him to do more than just a light and smoke show.

Don't misquote, I included Iraq, because at the time there was evidence Saddam was still violating UN resolutions. Note the facts, evidence preceeded action... unlike Bush wherein the reverse is true.

As for the "asprin" factory, that's what "they" said it was....and we know how trustworthy "they" where...unless you're taking stock in what terrorists tell you now?

Btw, I agreed with the war in Afghanistan...I did not agree(and still don't) with the war in Iraq.

As for Iraq being part of the war on terror, well thanks to Bush it is now... now it's serving as a recruiting center. Creating MORE terrorists instead of fewer, to which I say, damn...that was stupid.

[DaveW]

Remember too that Clinton only missed Bin Laden by an hour because Pakistani intelligence tipped them off.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Don't misquote, I included Iraq, because at the time there was evidence Saddam was still violating UN resolutions. Note the facts, evidence preceeded action... unlike Bush wherein the reverse is true.

As for the "asprin" factory, that's what "they" said it was....and we know how trustworthy "they" where...unless you're taking stock in what terrorists tell you now?

Btw, I agreed with the war in Afghanistan...I did not agree(and still don't) with the war in Iraq.

As for Iraq being part of the war on terror, well thanks to Bush it is now... now it's serving as a recruiting center. Creating MORE terrorists instead of fewer, to which I say, damn...that was stupid.

I didn't misquot. I twisted your words for my own amusement. :p

US intelligence said it may very well have been a asprin factory. The same intelligence groups that said Saddam had WMD up until last winter.

I like how Clinton was HOLY for bombing Saddam but Bush is evil even though the same intelligece was used and even up dated. You are such a hypocrit. You see the difference is I backed Clinton. I had no problems if he blew up a asprin factory or even if he did mis Osoma. I just wish he finish or started a more serious mission to end this global terrorism.

Bush is not creating any more that was already there. Don't make claims you can't back up. You don't know who all these people or where they came from. You only have your left wing sources that claim this but have no proof. No body knows the numbers of terrorist members. They do take part in internatinal terrorism census' LOL

[Sazar]

(popcorn)

[1stFlight]

Originally posted by UDawg
I didn't misquot. I twisted your words for my own amusement. :p


Ummm, yeah, alright whatever.... :retard:


Bush is not creating any more that was already there. Don't make claims you can't back up. You don't know who all these people or where they came from. You only have your left wing sources that claim this but have no proof. No body knows the numbers of terrorist members. They do take part in internatinal terrorism census' LOL

Ummm, once again you're oblivious to the obvious... Iraq didn't have a terrorism problem until we got there... *smacks him in the back of the head* Some people I swear....

[Riptide]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Ummm, once again you're oblivious to the obvious... Iraq didn't have a terrorism problem until we got there... *smacks him in the back of the head* Some people I swear....
Unless you consider the terrorists running the place anyway. It's not that much of a stretch to consider Saddam a terrorist: mainly a terrorist towards his own population. But a terrorist of sorts, none the less.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
Ummm, yeah, alright whatever.... :retard:



Ummm, once again you're oblivious to the obvious... Iraq didn't have a terrorism problem until we got there... *smacks him in the back of the head* Some people I swear....

They did have terrorists there before this has already been established. Now the fact that there are more terrorists in Iraq now does not mean there are more terrorists. It just means they whent to Iraq to fight. This is a good thing. They are not attacking us here in the US they are attacking the best military the world has ever know and being eliminated in the process.

BTW Did you know that the military does not regularly release terrorist or baath party loyalists who have been killed or captured. Only once in a while do they release this information.

We need a doskey scripts so I can just hit the up arrow key when replying to 1stFlight and it will automaticaly put in "DOGMA"


:D

[intercede007]

Originally posted by Kruno
u suck u ass licer - Mark Latham ALP

Kruno...

Between the PM you me sent and this, I'm REALLY starting to not like you :mad: