TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Semi-Annual Ann Coulter Article.
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 For this particular instance, the Commission I believe answered your question. There was simply insufficient evidence to believe Clinton was somehow responsible for this affair. If, however, you're referring to Clinton's overall performance on going after al Qaeda, then I would agree that he should not get a free pass on it in general. He had some bright moments, but overall there's no doubt he could have stepped up to the plate better. Then again, so could have Bush I. So could have the GOP-controlled Congress throughout the 90's. And so could have Bush II for the first 8 months. I give no one free passes. What I will NOT support, however, is dipshit shills like Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the Noise Machine who purport the fault being all and entirely Clinton and the libruls, just as I will not excuse folks on the extreme left believing 9/11 was entirely Bush's fault (or even worse, Bush planned the whole damn thing).

Exactly, I agree with what you've said here. Someone should NOT use Ann Coulter as a credible source. Even some people in her own party think she's got zero credibility. It doesn't matter your a conservative, Ann Coulter is just trash, plain and simple. She is what you would call radical or reactionary.

Everyone is at fault, but Bush II was warned and had ample time to do something so that 9/11 could have potentionally been prevented, but instead....he goes on vacation. To completely disregard Bush and his Administrations failings is just blind allegiance to a President or a Party and not truly thinking what is best for our country. Who cares if Bush is a republican, that doesn't mean he is somehow immune to criticizm even if your a republican. Disregard party for a while and think country....what is best for your country?. That is what more people should do...

There are plenty of republicans out there who would disagree on Bush with many things, not all of his actions are aligned with what republicans believe about the role of government. I thought republicans believed in small governemnt with limited powers, why has this president created one of the largest governments with "almost" unlimited powers..thinks he can do whatever he wants without any checks or balances...

And spending, I thought republicans believed in fiscal responsibility, where is that with the republicans in control? Oh wait...most of our money has been spent on the wars, and not enough for security at home or other domestic things that need to get done (Education, Healthcare, Katrina). Whatever happened to a balanced budget? Why doesn't this president seem concerned about doing this?

We need to stop this blind allegiance crap, where Bush II can do no wrong, and instead deflecting the blame on Clinton, who...hello...wasn't even in office when 9/11 happened. And from testimony from Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Bush etc...doesn't seem like they were too concerned prior to 9/11. And I think it's funny that all of a sudden, days or weeks after 9/11...we have photographs and information on the hijackers and knew they were in Florida training to fly airplanes. Fighting terrorism isn't just going out there and killing terrorists, it's much more complex than that, and frankly...this administration isn't doing a very good job, domestically or abroad.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the Clinton Justice Dept. issued an indictment in '98 and sent some missles into the desert once. whattaya want? if anything was done, that was it. everything else is bullshit to be completely honest.

didnt the CIA haVE numerous plans to capture him, and they chased him for a lot of the late 90s, but he was a bit too clever for them. of course, this is all based on the doco i saw last week, but hearing from CIA brass etc it sounded like there was plenty of activity to get bin laden, and a lot of activity ruled out due to logistics (requiring invasions of countries to get the job done) or not bombing civilian centres.

at least bush isnt weak enough to repeat that mistake.

again, im not defending clinton so much as saying i dont think he's responsible for everything, like bitchface seems to think.

Couple more here:

quote:

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

I do believe we can now go about our merrily way and dismiss this cute little connection between the two, unless we wish to go against nearly everything the intelligence community has shown us. This connection has been known to be false for quite some time, has it not?

Regardless, I must admit I do often find this claim and blame game on Clinton and the '93 attacks rather interesting, especially in lieu of the EIGHT MONTHS period after Bush II was elected and 9/11 attack. Considering folks like yourself and Ann wish so badly to blame Clinton and only Clinton for 9/11 since it was building up on his watch, despite all those darn meetings that Bush and Cheney turned down and told Clark to more or less fuck off with his warnings, despite Clinton himself telling Bush that al Qaeda will be his #1 priority, despite that cute little memo that said something along those lines of "bin Laden determined to strike the United States" (yeah, that was pretty damn obscure, I understand)......

ummm, I guess it also makes sense to say that the '93 bombing was Clinton's fault too despite him being in the WH for only a month. Who on earth would EVER want to point a similar little finger at Bush Sr. for his utter failures prior to Clinton's inauguration in the same manner that it was Clinton's utter failures prior to little Bush Jr.'s entry.

We couldn't possibly consider that idea, because that would be just too darn fair, now, wouldn't it?

Some other thoughts have also occurred to me. Help me out with the history lesson here - how many perps were captured from the '93 WTC bombing?

How about the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia?

How 'bout the 1996 Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia?

How 'bout the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings?

Now let's discuss a few more things.

What was that little proposal that Clinton attempted to pass to his GOP-led Congress about tightening up airport security? Wanna take a guess at what our GOP Congress did with it?

Or how about increasing terrorist tracking that got shot down by the GOP because of opposition from banking interests?

Speaking of our traitorous skirt chaser, I'm sure glad the GOP senate saw just how evil and conniving his plans were to desire passing anti-terror legislation like this:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

Bob Dole and the gang were sure one step ahead of him on this one, weren't they?

What else did Billy boy do?:

-Stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
-Stopped the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
-Stopped the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-Stopped the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
-Stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
-Stopped the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
-Stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
-Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
-Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.). Remember that?

What else? How about tripling the budget for FBI unit on counterterrorism, and overall doubled the funding for counterterrorism, and STILL had a smaller budget than any of the last 3 REPUBLICAN presidents. Neat how that fiscal spending thingy works, ain't it?

Didn't Clinton also create a national stockpile of vaccines including over 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine? Was that Billy that did that?

And who said this?:

quote:

"Overall, I give them very high marks" ....."The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"

Must have been another traitorous antiAmerican like Billy. Yep, it was Robert Oakley, Ronnie Reagan's counterterrorism czar.

And who said Billy Boy "correctly focused on bin Laden?" Why that was another antiAmerican, Paul Bremer.

Didn't Clinton also name the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism? Wanna take a guess as to what Bush did with it for that 8 months he was in office prior to 9/11?

And what did Cheney do with his new appointment as the new boss in charge of the anti-terrorist task force? Why silly me, he didn't seem to hold one darn meeting prior to 9/11, that's what!

Finally, in regards to the Cole bombings, help me out here - when exactly did we know who was behind the attacks? I have read somewhere (that I lost the source, sorry) that nothing was definitive on who was behind them until February or March AFTER Bush took office. If this was indeed the case, how exactly was Clinton supposed to handle that situation differently? If the evidence was not sufficient, how could he have gone after anyone given the time frame? Again I find the blame game very cute, very old, and very common by the likes of Coulter. But then again, we really can't expect anything less from her. Bush has NEVER done anything wrong according to her or you, and any difficulties that have arisen has always and will continue to be the fault of a librul or two.

It's seriously an argument that 10 years olds have surpassed.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1

ouch.

opus 1 Q5 0

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.