They Were Wrong Then, And They're Wrong Now

[red states rule]

You have been stuck on stupid for awhile MM

With you being a proud Dem I understand now why the symbol of your party is a jackass

 

[maineman]

You have been stuck on stupid for awhile MM

With you being a proud Dem I understand now why the symbol of your party is a jackass

how stupid do you have to be to be unable to answer four yes or no questions??????
whatg ARE you hiding from?????

Just answer them!

come on....you can do it.... no...no...no...no...and you'd be done!

here...in case you forgot:

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

 

[red states rule]

how stupid do you have to be to be unable to answer four yes or no questions??????
whatg ARE you hiding from?????

Just answer them!

come on....you can do it.... no...no...no...no...and you'd be done!

here...in case you forgot:

1. Do you still hold to your earlier statement that Clinton did not try to take out Osama while he was in Afghanistan? yes or no
2. Do you know of any evidence that America was aware of in May of 1996 concerning Osama bin Laden that would have justified us taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerate him? yes or no
3. Can you explain the moral difference between America giving weapons to radical extremist sunni muslims in Afghanistan for their fight against the soviets and Iran giving weapons to radical Iraqi shi'ite muslims in their fight against the United States? yes or no...and if yes, please provide said explanation.
4. Can you show me any quote of MINE where I slimed America or our military? yes or no..and if yes, please produce said quote(s)

really simple.... just four answers.... either yes or no.... not too tough

How long do we have to keep beating this dead horse?

Or in your case, a dead jackass?

 

[maineman]

How long do we have to keep beating this dead horse?

Or in your case, a dead jackass?

until you answer four simple questions. it really isnt that hard.
what ARE you so afraid of?

 

[Annie]

How long do we have to keep beating this dead horse?

Or in your case, a dead jackass?

I'm curious, you said you answered these, where? I missed them. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

You have been stuck on stupid for awhile MM

With you being a proud Dem I understand now why the symbol of your party is a jackass

Wow, Look what happens to BRAINWASHED NEOCONS when SLAPPED IN THE FACE WITH THE TRUTH. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[red states rule]

I'm curious, you said you answered these, where? I missed them. Wouldn't be the first time.

I have answered them, but since you asked, I will do it one more time. I wil try to expand on my previous answers and try to cover these points

Question one:

Byron York used Richard Clark's book to show what lies and spin Clinton used


Bill Clinton’s Excuses
No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism.

By Byron York

“I worked hard to try and kill him,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News Sunday. “I tried. I tried and failed.”

“Him” is Osama bin Laden. And in his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the former president based nearly his entire defense on one source: Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, the book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. “All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book,” Clinton said at one point in the interview. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror,” he said at another. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true,” he said at yet another point. In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke’s name 11 times during the Fox interview.

But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”

That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.

The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. “I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,” Clarke writes. “I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.”

Clarke hit the CIA again a few pages later, on page 210, on the issue of the CIA’s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”

The FBI proved equally frustrating. On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That fucker is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.” Clarke adds: “I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.”

So Clinton couldn’t get the job done. Why not? According to Clarke’s pro-Clinton view, the president was stymied by Republican opposition. “Weakened by continual political attack,” Clarke writes, “[Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.”

Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225:

Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.

In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton “put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.”

But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.

— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.


Question 2:

As usual. libs want to treat acts of terrorism as a criminal act and not an act of war. They think getting court judgements are a win over terrorists. If we have a chance to say, kill Adolf Ahamadineejad, we should take it. He is another Hitler who is trying to get nukes and has said Israel should be wiped off the map. The Us should kill dictators who pose a threat


Question 3


Once again the left uses examples to bash America and shift the topic. The Soviets invaded the country to conquer the country. Pres Peanut Carter was to stay home from the Olympics

The US is in Iraq to liberate the people and when they are ready to defend themselfs, we leave. Iraq has had three fair and open elections, written their own Constitution, and is starting to come around

US forces are out of three provinces, and the Iraq government is in charge of all three

Of course the kook left will always see the US as the bad guys

 

[maineman]

1. Are you actually saying that Clinton never had cruise missiles fired at a location in Afghanistan where we believed that Osama was staying?

2. You are looking at 1996 with post 9/11 hindsight. The republican party blasted Clinton for firing cruise missiles into Afghanistan.... now they bash him for not abducting a guy who we knew NOTHING about in May of '96 just because some country eager to get on our good side offered him up? what a joke.

3. Just because, from OUR perspective, we think that we are doing "good" does not mean that from an objective perspective, that our supplying Osama in Afghanistan was any more "moral" than Iran supplying Sadr in Iraq.

4. And you missed answering this one.

All in all....I asked you for four simple yes or no questions...and you tap danced around and failed to answer them chosing instead todo what you always to: cut and paste the words other write to avoid having to show how incapable of self expression you really are. But why should today be any different than any other day?

 

[Redhots]

until you answer four simple questions. it really isnt that hard.
what ARE you so afraid of?

You're wasting your time with that one, Main.

 

[sitarro]

1. Are you actually saying that Clinton never had cruise missiles fired at a location in Afghanistan where we believed that Osama was staying?

2. You are looking at 1996 with post 9/11 hindsight. The republican party blasted Clinton for firing cruise missiles into Afghanistan.... now they bash him for not abducting a guy who we knew NOTHING about in May of '96 just because some country eager to get on our good side offered him up? what a joke.

3. Just because, from OUR perspective, we think that we are doing "good" does not mean that from an objective perspective, that our supplying Osama in Afghanistan was any more "moral" than Iran supplying Sadr in Iraq.

4. And you missed answering this one.

All in all....I asked you for four simple yes or no questions...and you tap danced around and failed to answer them chosing instead todo what you always to: cut and paste the words other write to avoid having to show how incapable of self expression you really are. But why should today be any different than any other day?

I"m curious maine,

How many of those many, many years in the Navy did you spend in the brigg? Just curious, really, I'm certainly not implying that you spent years in the brigg but shit, you've got the perfect personality for it.

 

[maineman]

I"m curious maine,

How many of those many, many years in the Navy did you spend in the brigg? Just curious, really, I'm certainly not implying that you spent years in the brigg but shit, you've got the perfect personality for it.

Not one day.

I'm curious sitarro..why do you seem incapable of discussing the topic at hand? Why does your entire repertoire consist of bad jokes and ad hominem attacks?

 

[red states rule]

Not one day.

I'm curious sitarro..why do you seem incapable of discussing the topic at hand? Why does your entire repertoire consist of bad jokes and ad hominem attacks?

What goes around - comes around

 

[maineman]

What goes around - comes around

I stay on topic all the time....it is YOU that runs away from simple questions and is incapable of stringing more than five words together unless they are cut and pasted from someone else.

 

[red states rule]

I stay on topic all the time....it is YOU that runs away from simple questions and is incapable of stringing more than five words together unless they are cut and pasted from someone else.

I did answer them, and I expanded on the answers when Kathy asked me

You on the other hane spin, duck, dodge, and hide from the facts

 

[maineman]

I did answer them, and I expanded on the answers when Kathy asked me

You on the other hane spin, duck, dodge, and hide from the facts

no.... you spun more bullshit about three of the four questions.... but failed to answer them yes or no. tap dance spin duck dodge hide.... all tactics you use, not me.

 

[red states rule]

no.... you spun more bullshit about three of the four questions.... but failed to answer them yes or no. tap dance spin duck dodge hide.... all tactics you use, not me.

Facts to a liberal is always dismissed as BS

I cited examples of Clinton's failure to fight terrorism, I showed how elected Dems have slimed the troops, and since you continue to support said Dems, you are agreeing with the sliming

 

[maineman]

Facts to a liberal is always dismissed as BS

I cited examples of Clinton's failure to fight terrorism, I showed how elected Dems have slimed the troops, and since you continue to support said Dems, you are agreeing with the sliming

I never denied that Clinton failed to GET Osama... what I asked you was to retract your statement that he didn't try.

And we must agree to disagree about sliming the troops. Democrats who attack this idiotic war are NOT sliming the troops, they are sliming the commander in chief who sent them on this counterproductive mission. I applaud the troops for their bravery and devotion to duty even when faced with an impossible mission that is not even one the US military should be engaged in.... and I, personally, do many things in my daily life that support our troops in real and substantive ways. My guess is: your support consists of a yellow bumper magnet made in China.

 

[red states rule]

I never denied that Clinton failed to GET Osama... what I asked you was to retract your statement that he didn't try.

And we must agree to disagree about sliming the troops. Democrats who attack this idiotic war are NOT sliming the troops, they are sliming the commander in chief who sent them on this counterproductive mission. I applaud the troops for their bravery and devotion to duty even when faced with an impossible mission that is not even one the US military should be engaged in.... and I, personally, do many things in my daily life that support our troops in real and substantive ways. My guess is: your support consists of a yellow bumper magnet made in China.

Kerry - troops are uneducated, and terrorists

Durbin - troops are like Nazi's and Pol Pot

Kennedy - troops are operating torture chambers

Dean - troops are losing the war, and we will never win

Obama - the troops have died for nothing

Dems vote (without a single no vote) for the new Commander for the Iraq operation, now they want to deny him the troops he says he needs to complete the mission

 

[maineman]

Kerry - troops are uneducated, and terrorists

LIE! he said neither of those things

Durbin - troops are like Nazi's and Pol Pot

he did not say our troops were like Nazis or Pol Pot...another purposeful misquote from you

Kennedy - troops are operating torture chambers

no.... Kennedy said that America was operating torture chambers... and they are

Dean - troops are losing the war, and we will never win[

b]there is a distinct difference between troops losing the war, and troops fighting to perform a mission that cannot be won militarily[/b]

Obama - the troops have died for nothing

their deaths certainly accomplished little to nothing good for America.... this war has NOT made us safer, it has made us enemies faster than we can kill them... it has not dealt with the issues of islamic extremism in any substantive way.... our troops did not die for NOTHING..they died for a flawed and misconceived foreign policy that is the worst foreign policy debacle of our nation's history.

Dems vote (without a single no vote) for the new Commander for the Iraq operation, now they want to deny him the troops he says he needs to complete the mission

congress has a right to participate in foreign policy. deal with it

 

[red states rule]

Kerry - troops are uneducated, and terrorists

LIE! he said neither of those things

Durbin - troops are like Nazi's and Pol Pot

he did not say our troops were like Nazis or Pol Pot...another purposeful misquote from you

Kennedy - troops are operating torture chambers

no.... Kennedy said that America was operating torture chambers... and they are

Dean - troops are losing the war, and we will never win[

b]there is a distinct difference between troops losing the war, and troops fighting to perform a mission that cannot be won militarily[/b]

Obama - the troops have died for nothing

their deaths certainly accomplished little to nothing good for America.... this war has NOT made us safer, it has made us enemies faster than we can kill them... it has not dealt with the issues of islamic extremism in any substantive way.... our troops did not die for NOTHING..they died for a flawed and misconceived foreign policy that is the worst foreign policy debacle of our nation's history.

Dems vote (without a single no vote) for the new Commander for the Iraq operation, now they want to deny him the troops he says he needs to complete the mission

congress has a right to participate in foreign policy. deal with it

libs keep denying the truth, and they continue to back the Dems who continue to give a one finger salute to the troops. The statements are true, they said them, and all your spin will not change the facts

Of course, the troops will respond sometime to the liberal love they get

This was a group of troops who expressed their thought to Kerry's "botched joke"