Print

[Maximumbeing]

QUOTE

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

Actually, the Clinton administration was never made an actual offer from the Sudan govt. but a middle man that claimed to have been sent from there, they followed through with an inquiry to the Sudan, and they said they had no idea about that offer.


The Clinton administration has thwarted many more attacks than Bush has.

As far as I can tell, Bush hasnt thwarted any.

How many times was Bush and his cabinet briefed about the dangers of air-hijacking before 9/11?

More than they need to be for them to give a shit.

Thanks Bush.

[rocky_2197]

Yes This was a copy and past, from an email from my wife.  I prsonaly verified the facts first befor posting it.

Clinton administration was offers Osma three times, as in the book "Derlection of Duty" and using the intenet and other resources You would have known that.

To me it is better that we go to war and prevent future attacts on Americans and other civilians.  To oust a cruel dictator and free a nation is worth any military life.  That is what they Voluntaired to do.  

Back ground info on me:  I am an Arab American.   A US NAvy Sailor.  A husband of a US Sailor.  A Father of one.  A Republican.

This is my third war I have proudly served in to protect the fredoms of my country and to keep the US safe for my child and future children to live in.  

War is a nasty thing but a neccery evil that we must pertake in to protect the right and fredoms of any nation and people.

[Maximumbeing]

QUOTE

Clinton administration was offers Osma three times, as in the book "Derlection of Duty" and using the intenet and other resources You would have known that.

And if you weren't a complete moron you'd know that that was total bullshit, it was a story propagated to sell that very book.

[rocky_2197]

QUOTE

And if you weren't a complete moron you'd know that that was total bullshit, it was a story propagated to sell that very book.

That was just one place that I have found proof on the Clinton administration failor to get Osma.  

May be if you did a little more reading to educate yourself, rather than call names like a 13 year old child you might make a valid point.

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

As far as I can tell, Bush hasnt thwarted any.

tell me what happens when a plan is thwarted... yeah... that's right... you never hear about it.

[nemt]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 10 2004, 05:55 PM)

Iraqis had medical care, electricity, and water before the war.

Do you know anyone who's lived in Iraq before and after the war?  Because I do, and life is better for everyone without Saddam, except of course, his loyalists.  You're blinded by the liberal media, and it's made you into a mindless clone.  Nothing you say has value because of this.

[gcskate27]

[Maximumbeing]

Even if I were a 13 year old, I wouldn't believe some disgusting piece of trash such as, "Our President was offered a leading terrorists head 3 times for nothing, and he refused JUST BECAUSE!"

If you cannot tell that that statement is bullshit, than you obviously aren't fit to walk the streets.

[MrWizdumb]

if u agree this is a "war on terrorism" what about the other national terrorist groups? taliban (if u consider that a terrorist group) and al-qaeda are 2 of many.

[nemt]

QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 11 2004, 01:44 PM)

Even if I were a 13 year old, I wouldn't believe some disgusting piece of trash such as, "Our President was offered a leading terrorists head 3 times for nothing, and he refused JUST BECAUSE!"

No, he refused because he didn't want to appear as though he was softening up US foreign policy regarding the Sudan.

..and he was wrong, and 3,000 people died for it.

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

if u agree this is a "war on terrorism" what about the other national terrorist groups? taliban (if u consider that a terrorist group) and al-qaeda are 2 of many.

People complain that we're spending too much money on the "war on terrorism" (maybe we are).  But they got wrong when they then ask why we're not simultaneously attacking every bad guy on the planet.  Can't have it both ways, folks.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (Spency234 @ Sep 10 2004, 10:35 PM)

I'm pretty sure that's his point. His point is when Saddam was in power people weren't getting shot in the streets, because they weren't at war. Sorry pug_ster had to jump in.

Thank you for clarifying this.  Nemt, I think you have to read the whole message and not read one of my sentences to take it out of context.

As for Clinton getting rid of Bin Laden.  Of course you will get this information when you read an anti-Clinton book.  On an Clinton interview a few months back about his book, he said that he tried to get rid Bin Laden many times.  From the information from a 'reliable source', Clinton tried to get rid of Bin Laden using Special Forces.

[DOS4GW]

Bosnia was a nato engagement. Us never went to war on Bosnia.

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

I think what the American people deserve is Osama bin Laden being held for his crimes

Damn straight  

Your question is better substantiated.  So often I see the question as to why we're only after saddam.  Perhaps the reason we're after saddam is because he's a relatively weak adversary.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 12 2004, 09:18 AM)

Perhaps the reason we're after saddam is because he's a relatively weak adversary.

Well, don't forget about the oil.  Those bastards from Halliburton are in charge of operating oil wells in Iraq.  Those insurgents would be more than happy to blow up the oil pipelines there.