COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

[bigmean]

Just once I would like to see RyanH post something besides 'Republicans are evil' threads. Just once! If someone could provide a link to a thread by him(?) that does not involve politics, I would really appreciate it.

 

[RyanH]

let me put this in bold to make sure you dont miss it.

WHY DIDNT THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTE GIVE THIS INFORMATION THEY HAD, FOR 8 MONTHS, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?!

what about possible future attacks? shouldnt they have warned the american public like they are criticizing bush for not doing?!

Do you recall when control of the Senate was turned over to the Democrats?

 

[p0ink]

Re: Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

you're only reiterating the spin from the White House. The facts show that President Bush did have credible information that there would be terrorists attacks. What did he do with these warnings? We need to get to the facts, and that's where Congress will assist the American people in doing.

congress already had the same fucking memos and information the president recieved. i dont recall them doing anything about it. i dont remember them bringing up extra law enforcement. where were they? here come all the democrats on tv acting all dumfounded, saying they had no idea, when in fact, they had *THE SAME* memos and information the president had.

 

[BackDoc]

RyanH one more thing:

suppose for a moment that you were President, what would you do to stop the attacks?

Also, if you were President Clinton, what would you have done to stop Osama when you had the chance? Keep in mind that true prevention would be via military operation with neutralization of targets (i.e. dead, out to lunch permanently, 86'd). According to liberal tenets, wouldn't that be a violation of his civil rights if we took military action to stop such an attack by going to the source?

I think it was Tom Clancy who put it poignantly best:

"While everyone else is trying to build bridges between real problems, liberals are more interested in building monuments."

Chillingly accurate, wouldn't you say?

 

[RyanH]

Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

No he didn't. That would mean he would have to be psychic. There were many threats made by the terrorist organizations. The article states precautions were taken.



Yes, you're right...Commander in Chief CLINTON had knowledge of the EXACT location of Bin Laden following the Embassy attacks. He did NOTHING. This all could have been prevented by Clinton.

Too bad for you and your usual debate tactics that the worst terrorist attack on American Soil DID NOT involve a single firearm.

the cumulative number of deaths from terrorists attacks under Reagan's watch was at least over a thousand; the cumulative number, thus far, from terrorist attacks under Bush's current watch is well into the thousands as well.

What did President Bush do in the 9 months after he was elected and before the 9-11 attacks to prevent terrorism? Cut trees at his ranch in Crawford, Texas? Barbecue?

 

[Lao Tzu]

Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

Please read your own article before posting foolishness. Also, please post links to your criticism of former President Clinton for the eleven or twelve times he failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

-Warik

To be fair, pretty much everyone is responsible for Bin Ladin, not just the democrats (or republicans). Under Reagan, Bin Ladin was taught to be a terrorist, and Bush Sr., Clinton & Bush jr. never took the actions necessary to remove him.

 

[RyanH]

RyanH one more thing:

suppose for a moment that you were President, what would you do to stop the attacks?

Also, if you were President Clinton, what would you have done to stop Osama when you had the chance? Keep in mind that true prevention would be via military operation with neutralization of targets (i.e. dead, out to lunch permanently, 86'd). According to liberal tenets, wouldn't that be a violation of his civil rights if we took military action to stop such an attack by going to the source?

I think it was Tom Clancy who put it poignantly best:

"While everyone else is trying to build bridges between real problems, liberals are more interested in building monuments."

Chillingly accurate, wouldn't you say?

Let's talk about President Clinton's respectable actions to prevent terrorism:

--spending on counter-terrorism doubled under his watch.
--the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught
--one of the largest counter-terrorism actions in history prevented millennium attacks.
---After teh attacks in 1998 on the embassies in Africa, President Clinton authorized missile strikes against Bin Laden.

What did President Bush do prior to September 11? Please enlighten us.

Finally, I don't recall liberals ever discouraging the pursuit of terrorism so long as it is done with our constitutional rights in check.

 

[BackDoc]

Re: Re: Re: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way

What did President Bush do in the 9 months after he was elected and before the 9-11, to prevent terrorism? Cut trees at his ranch in Crawford, Texas? Barbecue?

Don't know. But I think we all know what Clinton was doing (and with whom) when he had time to contemplate taking action against Osama and the Embassy bombings.

 

[RyanH]

I think Nordrstom has actually said it best----everyone bears some of the blame. My point is that putting the blame on President Clinton's shoulders is not only unfair it's just simply wrong--the Republicans are just as culpable.

 

[BackDoc]

Let's talk about President Clinton's respectable actions to prevent terrorism:

--spending on counter-terrorism doubled under his watch.
--the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught
--one of the largest counter-terrorism actions in history prevented millennimum attacks.
---After teh attacks in 1998 on the embassies in Africa, President Clinton authorized missile strikes against Bin Laden.

And let me guess, it all fell apart in just a few months under Bush's Presidency!?

If Clinton did SO MUCH for terrorism prevention why did it still happen so close to his being in office?