On 5/26/2012 2:21 AM, Juris Diction wrote:

Never forget that Bush failed to protect the US from the greatest
terrorist strike of all time ... he failed big time.

Bush was in office for less 8 months on 9/11/2001.

What had Clinton done about bin Ladin in the previous 8 years?

David

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2012 2:21 AM, Juris Diction wrote:

Never forget that Bush failed to protect the US from the greatest
terrorist strike of all time ... he failed big time.

Bush was in office for less 8 months on 9/11/2001.

What had Clinton done about bin Ladin in the previous 8 years?

David

Quite a bit, actually...

--unfortunately, the vast majority of intelligence was basically trash
canned

On 5/27/2012 12:54 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"David R. wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2012 2:21 AM, Juris Diction wrote:

Never forget that Bush failed to protect the US from the greatest
terrorist strike of all time ... he failed big time.

Bush was in office for less 8 months on 9/11/2001.

What had Clinton done about bin Ladin in the previous 8 years?

David

Quite a bit, actually...

--unfortunately, the vast majority of intelligence was basically trash
canned

Why bother to reply if you have nothing to show us?

David

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 5/27/2012 12:54 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"David R. wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2012 2:21 AM, Juris Diction wrote:

Never forget that Bush failed to protect the US from the greatest
terrorist strike of all time ... he failed big time.

Bush was in office for less 8 months on 9/11/2001.

What had Clinton done about bin Ladin in the previous 8 years?

David

Quite a bit, actually...

--unfortunately, the vast majority of intelligence was basically trash
canned

Why bother to reply if you have nothing to show us?


Because it's a VERY well known fact that the Clinton administration had tons
of intelligence on Bin Laden and that in 1998, he had in fact ordered
missile strikes in Afganistan in an attempt to kill Bin Laden and that he
was widely criticized by his detracters at the time who claimed that the
bombing was an attempt to draw attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.

It's also widely known ( or at least it should be ) that under Clinton, the
Federal budget on anti-terrorist activities tripled, to nearly 7 billion.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Got any other stupid questions ?

On 5/27/2012 9:53 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"David R. wrote in message
...
On 5/27/2012 12:54 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
"David R. wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2012 2:21 AM, Juris Diction wrote:

Never forget that Bush failed to protect the US from the greatest
terrorist strike of all time ... he failed big time.

Bush was in office for less 8 months on 9/11/2001.

What had Clinton done about bin Ladin in the previous 8 years?

David

Quite a bit, actually...

--unfortunately, the vast majority of intelligence was basically trash
canned

Why bother to reply if you have nothing to show us?


Because it's a VERY well known fact that the Clinton administration had tons
of intelligence on Bin Laden and that in 1998, he had in fact ordered
missile strikes in Afganistan in an attempt to kill Bin Laden and that he
was widely criticized by his detracters at the time who claimed that the
bombing was an attempt to draw attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.

It's also widely known ( or at least it should be ) that under Clinton, the
Federal budget on anti-terrorist activities tripled, to nearly 7 billion.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Got any other stupid questions ?


Not only that, when leaving the White House Clinton's people tried to
warn the incoming Bush administration about the threat of Middle Eastern
terrorism. Richard Clark, Clinton's head of security tried to tell the
Bush team that their main focus for security needed to be on Middle East
fundamentalists like bin Laden. But they wouldn't listen.

The Bush administration totally ignored the warnings and instead
insisted the biggest problem was going to come from loose nukes in
eastern Europe and Russia. They basically paid no heed to the warnings
they got from the Clinton administration regarding Islamic terrorists.
They also did the same thing right before the 9/11 attack when Bush
ignored the memo saying bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S.

So the truth is Bush had nearly nine months and the warnings from the
previous administration to do something to prepare for attacks from
terrorists. But did nothing, which is exactly what you would expect from
people that had no business being in a position of authority. They
proved their incompetence over and over again during the eight years
they were in office. It is not surprising that an incompetent
administration would show how inept it was in its first year. After all,
they showed how bad they were at running things for eight straight
years. That they started off on the wrong foot and failed to stop the
worst attack ever on this country take place was just the beginning of
the worst regime in U.S. history. Funny thing is how quickly some people
have forgotten that.

Hawke

On 5/27/2012 11:53 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

Quite a bit, actually...

--unfortunately, the vast majority of intelligence was basically trash
canned

Why bother to reply if you have nothing to show us?


Because it's a VERY well known fact that the Clinton administration had tons
of intelligence on Bin Laden and that in 1998, he had in fact ordered
missile strikes in Afganistan in an attempt to kill Bin Laden and that he
was widely criticized by his detracters at the time who claimed that the
bombing was an attempt to draw attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.

It's also widely known ( or at least it should be ) that under Clinton, the
Federal budget on anti-terrorist activities tripled, to nearly 7 billion.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Got any other stupid questions ?

Not a stupid question, you still have not shown us why Clinton didn't do
something effective about bin Ladin.

Are you saying it was just Clinton's general incompetence?

7 billion dollars to accomplish nothing against bin Ladin? I realize
that our current POTUS has spent far, far more to accomplish nothing,
does that justify in your mind Clinton's failure to deal with bin Ladin?

David

On 5/27/2012 2:37 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 5/27/2012 11:53 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

Quite a bit, actually...

--unfortunately, the vast majority of intelligence was basically trash
canned

Why bother to reply if you have nothing to show us?


Because it's a VERY well known fact that the Clinton administration
had tons
of intelligence on Bin Laden and that in 1998, he had in fact ordered
missile strikes in Afganistan in an attempt to kill Bin Laden and that he
was widely criticized by his detracters at the time who claimed that the
bombing was an attempt to draw attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.

It's also widely known ( or at least it should be ) that under
Clinton, the
Federal budget on anti-terrorist activities tripled, to nearly 7 billion.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

Got any other stupid questions ?

Not a stupid question, you still have not shown us why Clinton didn't do
something effective about bin Ladin.

Are you saying it was just Clinton's general incompetence?

7 billion dollars to accomplish nothing against bin Ladin? I realize
that our current POTUS has spent far, far more to accomplish nothing,
does that justify in your mind Clinton's failure to deal with bin Ladin?

David

so tell us David, which do you think is true - that Bush was warned and
did nothing because he didn't believe the warnings, or that he was
warned and did nothing because he felt that if they were true it would
give him a just war to go fight and prove that he and his neocon buddies
were "real men".


--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On 5/27/2012 7:37 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a
group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a
collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of
dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others
the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species
marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some
want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a
culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of
political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way
I view the competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the
core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives."
--Ron Marr



Isn't it funny how so many worried about Iraqi WMDs until we got there
and found them either gone or nonexistent?

And suddenly, no one had believed in them except GWB?

David


Except for one thing. All the above quotes are just rhetoric from
politicians that had little information about Iraq and were basing their
opinions on what they got from the Bush administration. When you look at
what the actual weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq had to say
about WMDs you got an entirely different picture from what was being
painted by American politicians.

I remember what a big rush the Bush people were in to get the war
started. They couldn't wait even though the weapons inspectors could
find nothing and were saying there were no WMDs. So even though the
weapons inspectors were saying not to move and to allow them to keep
looking, the Bush people would not let them because they were in such a
hurry to start a war with Iraq.

Another president, without a war agenda, and that based decisions on the
facts would not have launched a war in the Middle East based on the
false claims that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Many experts said Iraq
did not pose any threat to America, and the truth is it never did. It
was obvious to some of us that our leaders were intent on pushing
forward with their plans for war with Iraq and nothing was going to get
in their way. They got their way and now we're living with it. One cost
is the unprecedented amount of war veterans that are committing suicide.
And you have the costs in money and casualties we paid. In sum it was a
bad decision made by lying, corrupt, and incompetent leaders. It was
just what I expected from them and they didn't let me down.

Hawke

On 5/28/2012 9:34 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 5/27/2012 7:37 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a
group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a
collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of
dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others
the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species
marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some
want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a
culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of
political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way
I view the competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the
core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives."
--Ron Marr



Isn't it funny how so many worried about Iraqi WMDs until we got there
and found them either gone or nonexistent?

And suddenly, no one had believed in them except GWB?

David


Except for one thing. All the above quotes are just rhetoric from
politicians that had little information about Iraq and were basing their
opinions on what they got from the Bush administration. When you look at
what the actual weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq had to say
about WMDs you got an entirely different picture from what was being
painted by American politicians.

I remember what a big rush the Bush people were in to get the war
started. They couldn't wait even though the weapons inspectors could
find nothing and were saying there were no WMDs. So even though the
weapons inspectors were saying not to move and to allow them to keep
looking, the Bush people would not let them because they were in such a
hurry to start a war with Iraq.

Another president, without a war agenda, and that based decisions on the
facts would not have launched a war in the Middle East based on the
false claims that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Many experts said Iraq
did not pose any threat to America, and the truth is it never did. It
was obvious to some of us that our leaders were intent on pushing
forward with their plans for war with Iraq and nothing was going to get
in their way. They got their way and now we're living with it. One cost
is the unprecedented amount of war veterans that are committing suicide.
And you have the costs in money and casualties we paid. In sum it was a
bad decision made by lying, corrupt, and incompetent leaders. It was
just what I expected from them and they didn't let me down.

Hawke


furthermore, I have heard several interviews with Colin Powell who says
he was personally deceived by the administration, that he now
understands that there was systematic suppression of the intelligence
that supported anything but the war agenda, and that this was carried
out by the highest levels of the administration. As a military officer
(retired), he sounds quite angry about being used this way. Why don't
the american people listen to him?

--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On 5/28/2012 11:34 AM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 5/27/2012 7:37 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to
do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive.
Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of
regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn
well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for
so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of
their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups,
all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist,
secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave
care and complete subservience to the government nanny state,
others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with
intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals
in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only
join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves
to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and
conservatives." --Ron Marr



Isn't it funny how so many worried about Iraqi WMDs until we got
there and found them either gone or nonexistent?

And suddenly, no one had believed in them except GWB?

David


Except for one thing. All the above quotes are just rhetoric from
politicians that had little information about Iraq and were basing
their opinions on what they got from the Bush administration.

Did you notice that many of the quotes were from before Bush II was in
office?

When you look at what the actual weapons inspectors on the ground in
Iraq had to say about WMDs you got an entirely different picture from
what was being painted by American politicians.

Yes, both the left and right politicians believed Saddam had WMDs.


I remember what a big rush the Bush people were in to get the war
started. They couldn't wait even though the weapons inspectors could
find nothing and were saying there were no WMDs. So even though the
weapons inspectors were saying not to move and to allow them to keep
looking, the Bush people would not let them because they were in
such a hurry to start a war with Iraq.

As I recall, the inspectors didn't say there were none, they were
complaining about Saddam's successful efforts to keep them from doing an
effective search.


Another president, without a war agenda, and that based decisions on
the facts would not have launched a war in the Middle East based on
the false claims that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Many experts said
Iraq did not pose any threat to America, and the truth is it never
did.

I guess you didn't read the long list of politicians, left and right,
who did believe there was a threat.

OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if GWB's main grudge was that Saddam
wanted to assassinate his Dad.

It was obvious to some of us that our leaders were intent on pushing
forward with their plans for war with Iraq and nothing was going to
get in their way. They got their way and now we're living with it.

Yes, dismantling the Baathist govt without having a replacement ready to
go was poorly thought out. IIRC, the State Dept had some good ideas
about how to proceed, but the Pentagon ignored their advice.

One cost is the unprecedented amount of war veterans that are
committing suicide. And you have the costs in money and casualties we
paid. In sum it was a bad decision made by lying, corrupt, and
incompetent leaders.

That's all we've had for the last few decades.

It was just what I expected from them and they
didn't let me down.

Hawwke-ptooey

Yes, left or right, we keep electing the same type of nitwit.

David

On 5/28/2012 5:32 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 5/28/2012 11:34 AM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 5/27/2012 7:37 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

"[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to
do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive.
Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of
regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn
well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for
so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of
their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups,
all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist,
secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment.
Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave
care and complete subservience to the government nanny state,
others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with
intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals
in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only
join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves
to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and
conservatives." --Ron Marr



Isn't it funny how so many worried about Iraqi WMDs until we got
there and found them either gone or nonexistent?

And suddenly, no one had believed in them except GWB?

David


Except for one thing. All the above quotes are just rhetoric from
politicians that had little information about Iraq and were basing
their opinions on what they got from the Bush administration.

Did you notice that many of the quotes were from before Bush II was in
office?

When you look at what the actual weapons inspectors on the ground in
Iraq had to say about WMDs you got an entirely different picture from
what was being painted by American politicians.

Yes, both the left and right politicians believed Saddam had WMDs.


I remember what a big rush the Bush people were in to get the war
started. They couldn't wait even though the weapons inspectors could
find nothing and were saying there were no WMDs. So even though the
weapons inspectors were saying not to move and to allow them to keep
looking, the Bush people would not let them because they were in
such a hurry to start a war with Iraq.

As I recall, the inspectors didn't say there were none, they were
complaining about Saddam's successful efforts to keep them from doing an
effective search.


Another president, without a war agenda, and that based decisions on
the facts would not have launched a war in the Middle East based on
the false claims that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Many experts said
Iraq did not pose any threat to America, and the truth is it never
did.

I guess you didn't read the long list of politicians, left and right,
who did believe there was a threat.

OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if GWB's main grudge was that Saddam
wanted to assassinate his Dad.

It was obvious to some of us that our leaders were intent on pushing
forward with their plans for war with Iraq and nothing was going to
get in their way. They got their way and now we're living with it.

Yes, dismantling the Baathist govt without having a replacement ready to
go was poorly thought out. IIRC, the State Dept had some good ideas
about how to proceed, but the Pentagon ignored their advice.

One cost is the unprecedented amount of war veterans that are
committing suicide. And you have the costs in money and casualties we
paid. In sum it was a bad decision made by lying, corrupt, and
incompetent leaders.

That's all we've had for the last few decades.

It was just what I expected from them and they
didn't let me down.

Hawwke-ptooey

Yes, left or right, we keep electing the same type of nitwit.

David




If that is the problem then we can put the blame squarely on the
shoulders of the American people for putting idiots in office. If you go
further you can blame democracy itself. If in a democracy, for one
reason or another, you can't get a populace that elects quality people
to office and instead elects the worst kind then why have democracy at
all? If the wrong people keep getting to be in charge it seems like a
bad system.

It reminds me of the story of Jesus and Barabbas. When given the choice
of who to let go from crucifixion I seem to remember the crowd saying
"give us Barabbas". The people spoke, wrongly I would say. They seem to
be doing the same thing a couple thousand years later. Who was it that
said we haven't made any progress? Looks like he was right.

Hawke