red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #21
I know that is what libs keep wishing for, but it is not nearly as bad as you hope
NY Times Hits New Low
- Thread starter red states rule
- Start date
I know that is what libs keep wishing for, but it is not nearly as bad as you hope
- Banned
- #22
34 THOUSAND dead Iraqi civilians in 2006 due to sectarian violence..... in a county of 28million people. If carnage on that scale were happening in America, that would be over 350 THOUSAND dead Americans in one year.... would you call THAT a civil war?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #23
I call it terrorist attacks. Of course to the kook left, the ONLY terrosists in the world is Pres Bush and his administration
To the kook left, we can melt the terrorists bullets and bombs with love and compassion
Clinton tried that and we got 9-11
- Banned
- #24
actually, Clinton tried to kill Osama with cruise missile strikes and the republicans attacked him for it...Clinton had predator flights continually scouring the afghan countryside looking for Osama...Bush decided to stop that well before 9/11.
you can call it terrorist attacks if you want.... the fact of the matter is, the country is sliding into civil war.... sunnis are killing shiites and vice versa at a bloody rate that we would certainly call civil war if we experienced it here.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #25
Clinton tried to kill OBL??? LOL!!!!!
he was told more versions of his "war on terror" then I can count. Sandy Burgler hung up on the intel people when they had OBL in their sights!
- Banned
- #26
so you are saying that Clinton did NOT launch a cruise missile attack against Osama's hideout in Afghanistan? really?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #27
I know he took out an aspirin factory, and he shot a missile at a building in Iraq in the middle of the night (killing a janitor)
Besides that the five attacks that killed alot of Americans went unanswered and his ruuning out of Samalia led to 9-11
- Banned
- #28
you you are, in fact, claiming ignorance about the cruise missile attack on the afghan HQ of Osama on 8/20/98?
why didn't you just say you were ignorant? I would have understood.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #29
is that where Bill shrugs how he missed him by an hour? or was it because he was distracted by those damn Republicans?
- Banned
- #30
I am not your teacher....go study the facts and come on back when you have a clue
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #31
so, what did Bill do after the first WTC attack, or after the attack of US Marines in Yemen in 92';or after the Khobar Towers in 93; or the embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania in 1999; or the USS Cole in 2000?
He used alot of harsh lauguage but nothing else
I guess he wanted to fight a more sensitive war like John "I served in Viet Nam" Kerry wanted to fight
- Banned
- #32
look...you were the one who claimed that Clinton did not try to have Osama killed. That was either a willful lie or an ignorant misstatement.
YOu really should own up to your mistakes like a big boy... because I really don't want to waste my time with little babies. OK?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #33
Clinton did very little to take on the terrorists. Only Clinton apologists continue to defend him and rewrite history
- Banned
- #34
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #35
you change your tune in the very same thread!
that aspirin factory was a huge threat to the US's national security
and the janitor in Iraq may have been a future terrorist
thanks Bill
- Banned
- #36
still touting your ignorance of the cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan I see.
you really like to revisit your own stupidity.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #37
just preventing one more bonehead lib from rewriting history to give credit to Clinton where none is due
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #38
Bill ClintonÂ’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 ****** 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 ClintonÂ’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the presidentÂ’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.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM4N2E1MzU5ZjQ0YTA3YmJiYzEyYjQ2ZDBiNWJlYjE=
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 ****** 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 ClintonÂ’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the presidentÂ’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.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM4N2E1MzU5ZjQ0YTA3YmJiYzEyYjQ2ZDBiNWJlYjE=
Hagbard Celine
Senior Member
Don't you guys think that it's prudent for Americans to see the effect of war first hand? The reason the government restricts the media from showing images like these is to avoid domestic disturbances like the ones that occurred during the Vietnam era. Instead of being "outraged" at the MSM for bringing us these images you should be outraged at the government for keeping these images hidden so that they can broadcast their propaganda about how rosey everything is in Iraq while keeping us docile and bovine here at home. 
Don't shoot the messenger!
Don't shoot the messenger!
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #40
Don't you guys think that it's prudent for Americans to see the effect of war first hand? The reason the government restricts the media from showing images like these is to avoid domestic disturbances like the ones that occurred during the Vietnam era. Instead of being "outraged" at the MSM for bringing us these images you should be outraged at the government for keeping these images hidden so that they can broadcast their propaganda about how rosey everything is in Iraq while keeping us docile and bovine here at home.
You are right. Lets not have anymore 9-11 in our country and kill the enemy where they are in the Middle East
Now if the Dems and the liberal media would only join the fight, terrorists would see a united country
I wonder how the family of the US arine would answer your distorted liberal talking points?
With their declining numbers the NY Times is no offering bulk rates to terrorists training camps. Since they publish classified documents and anti military coverage, they have to find someone to read their garbage
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Assault weapons ban in VA passes both houses and will be signed by the governor...stock up before 7.1.2026- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Are there here users of John Deere equipment. You may have a problem- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 5
