Lesson from Jimmy Carter: Weakness invites aggression

Actually they attacked us because Clinton gave them free roam to operate and did so while gutting defense. Al Qaeda operatives who were captured are on record that 9/11 took years of recruiting, training, planning, and financing. Bush was only on the job for less than 8 months and operating under Clinton's final defense-gutted budget when the attacks occured.

Oops...wrongwinger wrong once again!
Bush was handed the CIA report on the USS Cole when he took office, and did nothing about it.

bin Laden saw that weakness and exploited it.

The USS Cole happened on Clinton's watch. Just exactly what did he do other than read and pass on a report?

The incident happened right before he left office. The CIA report on who was responsible came at the very end of his term, so he did what everyone would want him to do - turn it over to the incoming president to prosecute.

So, why didn't Bush do anything? Regardless of what Clinton did/did not do?
 
The OP has a point


Bush was considered weak, that is why the terrorists attacked us on 9-11

Actually they attacked us because Clinton gave them free roam to operate and did so while gutting defense. Al Qaeda operatives who were captured are on record that 9/11 took years of recruiting, training, planning, and financing. Bush was only on the job for less than 8 months and operating under Clinton's final defense-gutted budget when the attacks occured.

Oops...wrongwinger wrong once again!

So that means Bush I was responsible for the first world trade center attack?

Dumbfuck.
 
Clinton "warned" Bush while ignoring the problem and encouraging Al Qaeda for 8 years. He gutted defense.

We suffered more terrorist attacks under Bill Clinton than all U.S. president in history combined. And you think giving Bush a "warning" is something to be proud of?!? :lmao:

Clinton gutted "defense" (laughable by the way to call it that..it's the Military) so badly, Bush was able to prosecute not one, but two full on invasions, knocking over each country in a matter of weeks.

Do you seriously think about what you post?

And you notice neither of those occurred until Bush's budget was in place which restored defense?

Furthermore, it's not called the "military". Is the CIA "military"? Is the NSA "military"? Are our defense contractors who design weapons (like Lockheed Martin) "military"?

You are reaching new levels of ineptitude and desperation this morning. Congratulations!

We were in Afghanistan in October of 2009.
Battle of Kamdesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still under Clinton's last budget.

Dumbfuck.
 
Take into consideration the fact that the consulate in Benghazi was attacked twice before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 and they still couldn't seem to figure out what they needed to stop another one. Yet you feel the need to criticize Bush when in fact he prevented another attack on our homeland up until the Boston Marathon bombing.

Yawn, guy, you are still trying to milk Benghazi for political points?

Bin Laden didn't need to attack America again after 9/11. BUsh was sending him plenty of Americans to kill in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So on Bush's watch. 3000 die on 9/11 and 4500 die in the unnecessary war in Iraq, and you guys think that wonderful.

On Obama's watch, 3 people die in Boston and 4 in Benghazi and OH MY GOD THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING, HIDE YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN.

Get a fucking grip.

How many hundreds of thousands have died during the Arab Spring?

Oh, sorry. Those are just Christians and Muslims. They aren't even Americans. They don't matter. They're invisible.

Much like all of the attacks on our consulates and embassies under Bush.
 
Take into consideration the fact that the consulate in Benghazi was attacked twice before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 and they still couldn't seem to figure out what they needed to stop another one. Yet you feel the need to criticize Bush when in fact he prevented another attack on our homeland up until the Boston Marathon bombing.

Yawn, guy, you are still trying to milk Benghazi for political points?

Bin Laden didn't need to attack America again after 9/11. BUsh was sending him plenty of Americans to kill in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So on Bush's watch. 3000 die on 9/11 and 4500 die in the unnecessary war in Iraq, and you guys think that wonderful.

On Obama's watch, 3 people die in Boston and 4 in Benghazi and OH MY GOD THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING, HIDE YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN.

Get a fucking grip.

I can't believe how Republicans brag that Bush did not give up TWO attacks

There are some honest republicans; none of them seem to be on this board though. Bush is in office; it is his fault. He did nothing to prevent the attacks and ignored his PDB quoting the attacks.

Had the chap that did it not killed himself, we may not have been satisfied that we got the Anthrax attacker...many are still not satisfied.

The Anthrax Files | FRONTLINE | PBS
 
Yawn, guy, you are still trying to milk Benghazi for political points?

Bin Laden didn't need to attack America again after 9/11. BUsh was sending him plenty of Americans to kill in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So on Bush's watch. 3000 die on 9/11 and 4500 die in the unnecessary war in Iraq, and you guys think that wonderful.

On Obama's watch, 3 people die in Boston and 4 in Benghazi and OH MY GOD THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING, HIDE YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN.

Get a fucking grip.

I can't believe how Republicans brag that Bush did not give up TWO attacks

There are some honest republicans; none of them seem to be on this board though. Bush is in office; it is his fault. He did nothing to prevent the attacks and ignored his PDB quoting the attacks.

Had the chap that did it not killed himself, we may not have been satisfied that we got the Anthrax attacker...many are still not satisfied.

The Anthrax Files | FRONTLINE | PBS

Bush is not in office. Nobody warned him about hijackers intentionally flying jets into buildings.

Epic fail
 
I can't believe how Republicans brag that Bush did not give up TWO attacks

There are some honest republicans; none of them seem to be on this board though. Bush is in office; it is his fault. He did nothing to prevent the attacks and ignored his PDB quoting the attacks.

Had the chap that did it not killed himself, we may not have been satisfied that we got the Anthrax attacker...many are still not satisfied.

The Anthrax Files | FRONTLINE | PBS

Bush is not in office. Nobody warned him about hijackers intentionally flying jets into buildings.

Epic fail
He got a direct warning of an imminent attack.

Who warned Clinton of an imminent attack on the WTC? Or the Cole? Or OK City?
 
There are some honest republicans; none of them seem to be on this board though. Bush is in office; it is his fault. He did nothing to prevent the attacks and ignored his PDB quoting the attacks.

Had the chap that did it not killed himself, we may not have been satisfied that we got the Anthrax attacker...many are still not satisfied.

The Anthrax Files | FRONTLINE | PBS

Bush is not in office. Nobody warned him about hijackers intentionally flying jets into buildings.

Epic fail
He got a direct warning of an imminent attack.

Who warned Clinton of an imminent attack on the WTC? Or the Cole? Or OK City?

tumblr_mv8943mR0a1s9smudo1_500.jpg


Did anyone try to hammer Clinton like they did Bush?


No

Clinton tried to blame everyone else for the OK City bombing except the cause of it. The murders in Waco. Everything has a cause and effect. Clinton tried to infringe on gun rights and it resulted in murder of federal employees in the Alfred P. Murry Building in Oklahoma City. Two years ago he tried blaming the Tea Party for something that happened 12 years before it was formed. Something to do with too much freedom is dangerous. He also related that critics of the administration are terrorists.




Without naming names, Clinton attacks Tea Party movement

April 20, 2010

OKLAHOMA CITY — A particularly unfortunate editorial in The New York Times this past weekend, written by former President Bill Clinton, headlined “What We Learned in Oklahoma City” is a not-so-veiled attack on patriotic Americans, while cleverly linking them to the violence seen here in Oklahoma City 15 years ago.

Indeed, this is a disgusting display on the part of the former president.

The wily Arkansan points fingers-whilst-biting-lip and effectively attacks the current Tea Party movement, writing in the Times: “(W)e should never forget what drove the bombers (McVeigh and co.), and how they justified their actions to themselves. They took to the ultimate extreme an idea advocated in the months and years before the bombing by an increasingly vocal minority: the belief that the greatest threat to American freedom is our government, and that public servants do not protect our freedoms, but abuse them.”

Another quote we might remember by former Pres. Clinton;

“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving [sic] a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly… that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare… However, now there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it”

Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995, after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City


Links

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/201...nity-and-pours-salt-on-the-wound-in-oklahoma/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19clinton.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/politics/02nichols.html?fta=y
 
Last edited:
Guess what? Raygun's chickenhawk covert bs in Iraq with his pal Saddam, with OBL, and in Central America, put the world decades back, much like his bs economics. Great job, greedy idiot shytteheads.
 
If Bush attacked Afghanistan "before 9-11" claiming he had intel that UBL was going to attack the US....scumbag liberals would've gone apeshit.

Bush didn't have intel of any specific attacks for 9-11, just the typical Islamic terrorist threats that have been around since the 1970s.....but liberals went apeshit when he didn't stop 9-11.

Either way, liberal scum would blame Bush.
 
If Bush attacked Afghanistan "before 9-11" claiming he had intel that UBL was going to attack the US....scumbag liberals would've gone apeshit.

Bush didn't have intel of any specific attacks for 9-11, just the typical Islamic terrorist threats that have been around since the 1970s.....but liberals went apeshit when he didn't stop 9-11.

Either way, liberal scum would blame Bush.

YOu based that on what?

Actually, a President DID attack UBL in Afghanistan before 9/11, and the oppossition DID go apeshit.

But it was President Clinton who attacked, and the GOP that all claimed he was doing a "Wag the Dog" attack to cover up for the Lewinsky Affair.
 
If Bush in his first few months in office lobbed bombs at Afghanistan, scum like you would've gone apeshit.

As for Clinton, everyone knows he only used the military as a distraction.

If Bush attacked Afghanistan "before 9-11" claiming he had intel that UBL was going to attack the US....scumbag liberals would've gone apeshit.

Bush didn't have intel of any specific attacks for 9-11, just the typical Islamic terrorist threats that have been around since the 1970s.....but liberals went apeshit when he didn't stop 9-11.

Either way, liberal scum would blame Bush.

YOu based that on what?

Actually, a President DID attack UBL in Afghanistan before 9/11, and the oppossition DID go apeshit.

But it was President Clinton who attacked, and the GOP that all claimed he was doing a "Wag the Dog" attack to cover up for the Lewinsky Affair.
 
But at what cost? Can't think beyond just today, can you?

Sure I can. We're better off now than we were during the Iraq War. The costs are less. This isn't difficult. C'mon. Conservatives have lost two Presidential elections in a row now , and voters' fear of an unrepentant GOP aggressive foreign policy is the number reason why.
 
But at what cost? Can't think beyond just today, can you?

Sure I can. We're better off now than we were during the Iraq War. The costs are less. This isn't difficult. C'mon. Conservatives have lost two Presidential elections in a row now , and voters' fear of an unrepentant GOP aggressive foreign policy is the number reason why.

Ummmm.....

More like today's Metrosexual Americans have come to love weakness and posturing.
 

Forum List

Back
Top