In article <kqo9t1dqhf9vfc0h7uva5meil2ascjlej5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, trudogg says...
>>But oddly enough, when we won economically in Afghanistan by using
Special
>>Forces, we were told that Bin Laden got away because we didn't have
enough
>>troops...
>
>..because Bush was ramping up for Iraq and needed another excuse to
>put together more forces. C'mon...
But either there were enough troops with Special Forces, Delta and SEALs
or
there WEREN'T. Pick ONE.
>>Hey, I'm just repeating what you say. I think the problem is that
you're so
>>emotionally invested in dislike for Bush, you just say whatever comes to
mind
>>without examining the logical implications.
>
>..I don't deny that I dislike Bush intensely. He lied and cheated his
>way into office and has done damage to this country that will take
>years (many) to make right...if ever. But the fact remains that Iraq
>had little or nothing to do with the terrorists.
What you're doing is mimicking the Republicans' least credible conspiracy
theories about Clinton. It didn't win them any credibility, and it's not
winning you any either.
Bush no more "cheated" than Clinton did when he profited from P*****'s
dilution
of Bush Sr.'s voter base. Clinton won and the Republicans had to get over
it.
W won and you have to get over it. Well actually you don't HAVE to, but
he's
there regardless.
>>The argument that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein COULDN'T have ties (which
they
>>did) is simply fatuous. That would imply either that Stalin was really
a
>>capitalist, or that FDR was a communist, because they assisted each
other in
>>WWII.
>
>..prove the ties. I'm semi-kidding because there weren't any. It's
>like the WMD...just another lie to get us into Iraq.
We know that there were al Qaeda people there, and that there was
cooperation.
Saddam didn't CONTROL bin Laden, but then FDR, Stalin and Churchill didn't
control each other either.
>>Of course that supposes that THEY lied too... which few people are
claiming.
>
>..Clinton is a proven liar, what more do you need? The other two,
He's a proven liar in a civil suit regarding ***ual harassment. I'd
really like
to see your evidence that he lied about Saddam Hussein. NOBODY seems to
be
claiming THAT.
>Chiraq in particularly are chicken**** nothings. We've been bailing
>the French out of problems since before WWII, they have strained the
Before WWI, actually.
>"Allie" thing to the max. You can't expect much from a garbage society
>such as they have. The Germans? I don't even want to get into
>that...they have enough of their own problems to settle before they
>start giving advice...
But the guy you presumably wanted to win the last presidential election
sets
GREAT store by BOTH their opinions.
>>I have to ask you what you expected Bush to do. Should he have put on
BDUs,
>>picked up an M60 and gone after Bin Laden himself? It's pretty
hilarious to see
>>people who spend half their waking days *****ing that Bush is a
"cowboy", then
>>*****ing the other half that he ISN'T. Pick one...
>
>..I expected him to lead. It's what he's being paid to do. He isn't a
Which is exactly what he did. Should he have just started running around
screaming "It's a cookbook, it's a cookbook!"?
What exactly did Clinton do immediately following ALL of the terrorist
attacks
during HIS presidency? Hell, in Somalia, he wouldn't even provide the
troops
with the armored sup****t they needed. The result was of course "Blackhawk
Down".
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with
210lb.
rapists.
|
