Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 60
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I am? lol, wow your crazy
    ????your crazy what?
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    how's this ... wow, you're juvenile
    lol
    Much better.
  3.    #23  
    Former president Clinton bests Bush in honesty poll

    RAW STORY
    Published: Friday May 12, 2006


    A new poll being reported by CNN's Wolf Blitzer has found that more Americans rate impeached former President Bill Clinton to be honest than would say the same of current President George W. Bush, RAW STORY can report.

    Clinton, who admitted to perjuring himself about an extramarital affair, was rated as honest and trustworthy by 46% of Americans. Bush, whose popularity continues to decline, was rated honest by just 41% of Americans. Clinton also bested Bush by much wider margins on overall favorability, the economy and national security...
  4. #24  
    It would be interesting to see what the poll would look like if done for/by Fox News. Ben
  5. #25  
    Yes. Quite interesting.
    Bb
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Arguably prosperous.

    But peaceful? Only by ignoring or missing many growing threats... Al Qaeda was continuing attacks on US interests while growing and training. The Taliban was supporting them overtly, while other nations were permitting them to stay active. AQ Khan was spreading nuclear technology. Iran, North Korea, and Libya, perhaps among others, were working on nuclear programs.

    It's not all Clinton's fault, but let's be real. The world was a more dangerous place by the time he left. With perfect hindsight, we know that we'd be safer today if he had taken action back then.
    After losing the '92 election, daddy decided to send our soldiers to Somalia as a "parting" gift for Clinton.

    18 of them would die in that place they should never have been sent.

    In Clinton's 8 years he sent troops to Kosovo & Haiti, intervened in Bosnia, and withdrew the soldiers sent by daddy to Somalia.

    In all those operations initiated by Clinton, how americans died ??

    How many american soldiers died bringing a war to end in Bosnia, bringing peace to Kosovo, establishing at least a respite of stability and democracy in Haiti ???

    None.

    Not one american died in any of the combat operations he initiated. None died because he had the intelligence to apply american power in ways that did not sacrifice needlessly young american lives.

    Nearly 2500 have so far died in iraq -- and thousands more have been incurably maimed. Unknown thousands of the 500,000+ who have served there have come back invisibly scarred with psychic injuries too deep to heal.

    The dead ender right deludes themselves with the fiction that Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden when he was president. That his covert and cruise missile attempts were follies.

    junior on the other hand had bin Laden surrounded in Bora Bora -- and let him slip away.

    Though we own Afghanistan and Iraq and have hundreds of thousands of troops deployed there, (and we have considerable sway in Pakistan), junior has yet to capture or kill either Zarqawi or Bin Laden.

    Clinton and his staff lectured junior that his most important responsibility as prez was to guard against Bin Laden and terrorism.

    junior knew better, ignored this advice, and went on vacation.

    Instead of Bin Laden and terrorism, junior devoted himself before 9/11 to the longest single vacation in Presidential history.

    He managed to break this record during the summer of 2005 -- despite the rude intrusions of 2 ladies: one named Cindy Sheehan, and the other named Katrina.
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/14/2006 at 03:39 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    Cinton's poll outperformed Lewinsky's Bush. 63% got on her blue dress.
    as someone who is obviously very obsessed with jism, you may be interested in learning that my laundry tells me that jism stains are easier to remove than those that come from blood...

    (no matter the color of the dress)
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/14/2006 at 04:15 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    It would be interesting to see what the poll would look like if done for/by Fox News. Ben
    Why not just ask President Bush if he feels he's more trustworthy, lol.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    as someone who is obviously very obsessed with jism, you may be interested in learning that my laundry tells me that jism stains are easier to remove than those that come from blood...

    (no matter the color of the dress)
    Yes, but FREEDOM is won not with ***** but with the blood of Americans.
  10. #30  
    Do you care nothing of the blood of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraquis murdered and tortured under Hussein? It looks to me like you are one of these people that wants a nice view out of your front window and doesn't care whats going on across town so long as you don't see it.

    If you had been born somewhere else you might feel differently.
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    Do you care nothing of the blood of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraquis murdered and tortured under Hussein? It looks to me like you are one of these people that wants a nice view out of your front window and doesn't care whats going on across town so long as you don't see it.

    If you had been born somewhere else you might feel differently.
    Somewhere like Darfur? Somewhere like Somalia? The Congo? Rwanda?

    The idea that the majority of Americans who do not support this President's actions in Iraq have no compassion for human life is repugnant.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Somewhere like Darfur? Somewhere like Somalia? The Congo? Rwanda?

    The idea that the majority of Americans who do not support this President's actions in Iraq have no compassion for human life is repugnant.
    The feeling is mutual
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The dead ender right deludes themselves with the fiction that Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden when he was president. That his covert and cruise missile attempts were follies.
    Nice strawman argument. I didn't say he did nothing.

    Clinton's actions against bin Laden are well documented by the 9/11 Commission. If you're going to call it fiction, please provide evidence.

    Thank you.

    9/11 Commission Report
    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
    Thus,while Clarke might prod or push agencies to act,what actually happened was usually decided at the State Department, the Pentagon,the CIA,or the Justice Department.The efforts of these agencies were sometimes energetic and sometimes effective.Terrorist plots were disrupted and individual terrorists were captured. But the United States did not, before 9/11, adopt as a clear strategic objective the elimination of al Qaeda.
    Not one american died in any of the combat operations he initiated.
    That was exactly the problem. He was reluctant to risk the lives of soldiers to eliminate the growing threats in the world. Millions of Americans may die one day due to the threats that emerged in the 90s because, given his history with the military, Clinton never felt comfortable making the tough decisions in his role as commander in chief. (Btw, this was the reason he chose not to bomb the training camps in response to the USS Cole bombing. He didn't want to risk the lives of a couple soldiers to merely send a strong message since it would have no significant impact on al Qaeda.)

    A more aggressive President might have tried to eliminate al Qaeda and the AQ Khan network before they became an overt threat to civilization. As I said, it's not all Clinton's fault. We know all this in hindsight. Perhaps Bush would have been just as wimpy without the shock of 9/11.


    Clinton and his staff lectured junior that his most important responsibility as prez was to guard against Bin Laden and terrorism.
    Read the 9/11 Commission Report. Clinton's staff had very mixed views about the importance of bin Laden.
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    As I said, it's not all Clinton's fault. We know all this in hindsight. Perhaps Bush would have been just as wimpy without the shock of 9/11.
    Perhaps!?!

    W was president for 9 months during which time the US terrorism zhar attempted to arrange a cabinet level meeting to discuss the threat. W was given a report outlining how Al Quiada was planning to use hijacked planes as bombs entitled "Bin Ladeen Determined to Attack Within the United States".

    He did nothing, and the meeting was not granted until after the trade center was a heap of bricks. Can you honestly brag about attacking afghanistan after that? If he hadn't, he would have been impeached!

    We know now from Paul Oneal, Bob Woodward, Tommy Franks and others that during that 9 months, W, Cheney and Wolfowitz were planning their invasion of Iraq. Not only a few have said that prior to 9/11 the Bush administration was convinced that the Clinton administration had been obsessed with terrorism. And that the focus belonged on state sponsorship of terrorism. On Iraq.
  15.    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    The feeling is mutual
    Your response to my point is "I know you are but what am I"? You are silly.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Perhaps!?!

    W was president for 9 months during which time the US terrorism zhar attempted to arrange a cabinet level meeting to discuss the threat.
    7 1/2 months.

    W was given a report outlining how Al Quiada was planning to use hijacked planes as bombs entitled "Bin Ladeen Determined to Attack Within the United States".
    No. Please stop making stuff up. The PDB said nothing about using planes as bombs. It described how bin Laden has wanted to attack in the US since 1997, and that the FBI had many active investigations of possible al Qaeda presence in the US. Read the 9/11 Commission Report. It's in there. The contents of the PDB aren't as alarming as the title implies.

    Can you honestly brag about attacking afghanistan after that?
    Who's bragging? I described the things that we know in hindsight might have been done in the 90s to make us safer today.

    We know now from Paul Oneal, Bob Woodward, Tommy Franks and others that during that 9 months, W, Cheney and Wolfowitz were planning their invasion of Iraq.
    This isn't and wasn't news. They along with many Democrats wanted to remove Saddam since 1997 or 1998.
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The contents of the PDB aren't as alarming as the title implies....This isn't and wasn't news. They along with many Democrats wanted to remove Saddam since 1997 or 1998.
    Quote Originally Posted by President's Daily Briefing August 6, 2001
    For the President Only
    Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US


    "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York"
    America will decide and has decided what is alarming, perhaps you need to ask yourself why there is such a disconnect between yourself and the rest of us.

    Oh that's right, the rest of us lemmings are brainwashed by the liberal media.
  18. #38  
    Most lemmings do it well enough without much help from the liberal media. Just a little nudge here and there is enough. That's more than enough to keep all the li'l ones in line.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    America will decide and has decided what is alarming
    You said: "W was given a report outlining how Al Quiada was planning to use hijacked planes as bombs..."

    That was an outright lie. The PDB does not go that far. The title might lead some to believe that the PDB contains that type of information, but it doesn't. As I said, "The contents of the PDB aren't as alarming as the title implies."

    It doesn't describe an imminent attack. It doesn't "outline" any specific plans. It discusses threats from as far back as 1997. It describes 70 FBI investigations related to Bin Laden. It mentions that they have not been able to corroborate "sensational threat reporting" about bin Laden having an interest in 1998 of hijacking a plane to gain the release of the blind sheik.

    The reason the liberal media repeats only the title of the PDB without ever quoting the text is that the text is not as alarming as the title. Just mention the title, and people will assume, as you did, that the memo contains damning info. Yes, you're a lemming.

    perhaps you need to ask yourself why there is such a disconnect between yourself and the rest of us.
    The difference between me and you is that I research before I draw conclusions. I don't make things up to support my pre-established beliefs, as you have demonstrated multiple times. As I said in the other thread, you never let ignorance stop you from forming strong opinions or from sharing those ill-formed opinions.

    Oh that's right, the rest of us lemmings are brainwashed by the liberal media.
    Either that, or you make up the lies yourself.

    If you're going to respond, please first explain why you lied.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You said: "W was given a report outlining how Al Quiada was planning to use hijacked planes as bombs..."

    That was an outright lie. The PDB does not go that far. The title might lead some to believe that the PDB contains that type of information, but it doesn't. As I said, "The contents of the PDB aren't as alarming as the title implies."

    It doesn't describe an imminent attack. It doesn't "outline" any specific plans. It discusses threats from as far back as 1997. It describes 70 FBI investigations related to Bin Laden. It mentions that they have not been able to corroborate "sensational threat reporting" about bin Laden having an interest in 1998 of hijacking a plane to gain the release of the blind sheik.

    The reason the liberal media repeats only the title of the PDB without ever quoting the text is that the text is not as alarming as the title. Just mention the title, and people will assume, as you did, that the memo contains damning info. Yes, you're a lemming.

    The difference between me and you is that I research before I draw conclusions. I don't make things up to support my pre-established beliefs, as you have demonstrated multiple times. As I said in the other thread, you never let ignorance stop you from forming strong opinions or from sharing those ill-formed opinions.

    Either that, or you make up the lies yourself.

    If you're going to respond, please first explain why you lied.
    your own rigorous research did not, it seems, include reading the sworn testimony of the FBI agent who investigated Moussaoui -- and who sent more than 70 messages that warned his supervisors of the probability of terrorists intending to hijack a plane and use it as a weapon.

    His warnings -- together with similar memos and warnings from an Arizona FBI agent -- reached Attorney General Ashcoft, and were briefed to the White House.

    Now you and I may realize why its perfectly understandable why those memos -- and the ambiguously titled ones like: “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States" -- did not raise an alarm in junior. The man was on vacation. If these terrorists were not such savages they would have let him get his rest unperturbed.

    For junior and his junta to have understood the peril that we as a nation were in, they would have been required to add 2 + 2.

    As we both know, junior never pretended to know higher level math.

    Oh, if only Moussaoui had not lied ...

    FBI Was Warned About Moussaoui
    Agent Tells Court Of Repeated Efforts Before 9/11 Attacks

    By Jerry Markon and Timothy Dwyer Washington Post
    March 21, 2006; Page A01

    An FBI agent who interrogated Zacarias Moussaoui before Sept. 11, 2001, warned his supervisors more than 70 times that Moussaoui was a terrorist and spelled out his suspicions that the al-Qaeda operative was plotting to hijack an airplane, according to federal court testimony yesterday.

    Agent Harry Samit told jurors at Moussaoui's death penalty trial that his efforts to secure a warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings were frustrated at every turn by FBI officials he accused of "criminal negligence." Samit said he had sought help from a colleague, writing that he was "so desperate to get into Moussaoui's computer I'll take anything."...

    ...on increasingly urgent warnings Samit issued to his FBI supervisors after he interviewed Moussaoui at a Minnesota jail in mid-August 2001. Moussaoui had raised Samit's suspicions because he was training on a 747 simulator with limited flying experience and could not explain his foreign sources of income.

    By Aug. 18, 2001, Samit was telling FBI headquarters that he believed Moussaoui intended to hijack a plane "for the purpose of seizing control of the aircraft." A few days later, he learned from FBI agents in France that Moussaoui had been a recruiter for a Muslim group in Chechnya linked to Osama bin Laden.

    But when Samit tried to use the French intelligence in his draft application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings, he said, Maltbie edited out the connection with bin Laden because it did not show that a foreign government was involved.

    "How are you supposed to establish a connection with a foreign power if it's deleted from the document?" MacMahon asked.

    "Well, sir, you can't," Samit replied...

    ..."You thought a terrorist attack was coming, and you were being obstructed, right?" MacMahon asked.

    "Yes, sir," Samit answered.

    Samit said he kept trying to persuade his bosses to authorize the surveillance warrant or a criminal search warrant right up until the day before the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

    "You never stopped trying, did you?" MacMahon said.

    "No, sir," Samit replied.


    ...[Moussaoui was] arrested on August 16, 2001, after raising suspicions at a flight school.
    Samit said after questioning Moussaoui he knew the Frenchman of Moroccan descent had "radical Islamic fundamentalist beliefs" and thought he was part of a bigger plot to attack the United States. In an message to his superiors on August 18, 2001, Samit said he believed Moussaoui was "conspiring to commit a terrorist act."

    Samit also warned that Moussaoui, who did not have a pilot's license, had been taking simulator lessons to learn the basics of flying a jumbo jet. Samit expressed his concerns that Moussaoui was plotting a possible hijacking.

    WARNINGS GO UNHEEDED

    "You thought you had a terrorist who was planning a terrorist attack. And you wanted everyone in the government to know," MacMahon asked Samit.

    "Yes," he replied...

    ...God help us all if the next terrorist incident involves the same type of plane."

    Samit also drafted a memo to the Federal Aviation Administration warning that Moussaoui might have been part of a plot to seize a jumbo jet ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/15/2006 at 03:15 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions