carlsbadd Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 The issue of 9/11 is touchy. We can't go back dnd change history or point fingers about who did or didn't do what. Congressional hearings about the subject in 1994 warranted further study and didn't get funded. The leaders of this country are to busy cutting side deals to get pork money to thier districts and get re-elected ,instead of taking care of serious issues. It's time to put some focus on making sure the war on terror and the security of our country comes first. I don't care who you vote for or what your political beliefs are,the most important thing you can do is get involved,vote and take the time to speak out on the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Mad Mike. Are the Democrats' protests keeping us from bombing anyone? I would agree with you IF the Democrats controlled Congress and could therefore veto whatever Bush tried. They cannot, so the comparison doesn't exactly fit. Here is an article from CNN / Time's ALL POLITICS from 1996. Seems more like trying to pander to the NRA than to get something done. If they were intent on making America safer, the priority would have been to work together. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/news/time.daily/0731.shtml GOP Stalls Anti-Terror Bill WASHINGTON, D.C.: The chances of an anti-terrorism package getting through Congress by week's end seem to be fading, as some GOP lawmakers maintain a combative stance. Republicans met with Administration officials again Wednesday to discuss the President's anti-terrorism proposals, but already the roadblocks are becoming clear: Rep. Harold Rogers, chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department's budget, said he was distressed to learn that some FBI funds already earmarked for fighting terrorism haven't been spent. And in a letter Tuesday, Republican leaders Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott told Clinton they were disappointed with "the narrow approach your Administration is taking to this long-festering menace." The terrorist threat "does not lend itself to a series of off-the-shelf, recycled proposals," Gingrich and Lott told the President. In yet another barrier that could delay congressional action: on Wednesday, Gingrich and Lott proposed that a blue-ribbon commission be named to revieew the government's anti-terrorism policy. TIME'S James Carney reports that the Republicans may be stalling, knowing that if no bill before their month-long break begins next week, it will become much harder to get one through later. By then, the National Rifle Association and the ACLU will have turned up the pressure, and the heat surrounding the Olympic park bombing is sure to have cooled off. And as the general Presidential campaign rolls rapidly toward November, Republicans worried about offending the NRA with an anti-terrorism policy that is tough on some forms of gun control would then be free to score political points, criticizing President Clinton for doing too little to protect America against terrorism. -- Jenifer Mattos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Mad Mike See above. This isn't just about Al Qaeda. It's about all terrorists. And it is not up for debate that Saddam cooperated with and helped a number of terrorist organisations. He did. There is a ton of proof. No reasonable person can deny this. I don't care how inept Bush is at getting the message across. The logic is rock solid. Saddam had to go. Please provide some of this ton of evidence. And please, nothing from Ahmed Chalabi. He and his paid dissidents have already been discredited. Please name an act of terrorism on the US that was paid for by Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Hooper Considering he was tougher on terrorism than Bush (before 9/11 at least) Ummm....how long was Bush in office before 9/11? How can you possibly judge him to be softer on terror than Clinton BEFORE 9/11 when he had barely even gotten his feet wet in the job yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtahSkinsFanatic Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by VT Shockoe Joe Do you really see what you are typing? 1. We are in the process of "getting some facts straight" right now in the Congressional Hearings about 9-11. To claim that you know the outcome already is just foolish. I know the old habit of blaming everything on Clinton is a hard habit to break. Just quit cold turkey. It might hurt the first few days, but you'll be better off in the long run. 2. Clinton chose a bad policy in the Balkans? Did you protest the use of US forces in Liberia? I thought Clinton-haters liked the policy of military intervention of countries that had nothing to do with 9-11 or modern terrorism. In case you missed it, that was a reference to Iraq, which makes you a hypocrit. You still believe there are WMDs, I'm sure. How many soldiers did we commit in the Balkans? Did they take away from the overall fight against terrorism? How many died? That was too easy. NEXT! Answering you retorts: 1) If you really think that this 9-11 Commission is going to come out with a real reason why it happened. YOU ARE SMOKING CRACK!! Everyone of them is trying to cover there asses. Plain and Simple! 2) Your statement in two is a joke!! You can't compare sending 200 Marines into Liberia and compare that with sending over 10,000 ground troops and several thousand Naval and Air Force personal into the Balkans area. Nice try. Answer these Questions: 1) Why did Somalia go wrong? 2) What did we do after the first WTC attack in 1993? 3) Why did Clinton say several times in 1996 and 1997 that WMD's existed in Iraq? 4) Why didn't we attack Iran, full scale, after the Khorbar attacks? We now know that the Iranian government was behind it? 5) What did we do after the attacks on the American Embassys in Africa? 6) What did we do after the USS Cole attack? 7) Why did the Clinton Administration use a judicial process to deal with Al Qaeda instead of a military process? (Don't give the garbage of using a couple of Cruise Missels strikes as an example.) 8. Why did Clinton only meet with Tenet twice from 1997-2001? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Not only is Kerry said to fear being overshadowed in any Kerry-Hillary paring, but he doesn't relish the prospect of spending the next eight years watching Mrs. Clinton in his rear view mirror. Well, if he wins that's going to happen anyway - especially if Bill is a part of his Cabinet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtahSkinsFanatic Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by VT Shockoe Joe Please provide some of this ton of evidence. And please, nothing from Ahmed Chalabi. He and his paid dissidents have already been discredited. Please name an act of terrorism on the US that was paid for by Saddam. OMG!! Are you telling us that Saddam has never been involved in terrorist organizations. You statement has to be the dumbest I have heard in awhile. It is known fact that Saddam financied the families of homicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank after an attack on Israelis. Go to any search engine and look it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Utah, read the quote man.... -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtahSkinsFanatic Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer Utah, read the quote man.... -DB Son, here is the quote from Mad Mike, "See above. This isn't just about Al Qaeda. It's about all terrorists. And it is not up for debate that Saddam cooperated with and helped a number of terrorist organisations. He did. There is a ton of proof. No reasonable person can deny this. I don't care how inept Bush is at getting the message across. The logic is rock solid. Saddam had to go." Here is VT Joe's response, "Please provide some of this ton of evidence. And please, nothing from Ahmed Chalabi. He and his paid dissidents have already been discredited. Please name an act of terrorism on the US that was paid for by Saddam." I am only supplying info that VT Joe wanted. Also his tone of the message suggests to me he doesn't believe Saddam had ever been involved in terrorist organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsSB2005 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 It will be hard work to undo the damage your man Bush has done to our reputation. Do you not understand that the world cannot stand Bush for his lack of creativitiy and lack of vision outside of his inner circle of oil-men? Clinton has the respect of the world Sarge......maybe not in your small world of Hannity and Gingrich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 And once again the original justification, aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, has mysteriously morphed into "involved in terrorist organizations." It's just like "tons of" WMDs morphing into "intent to have WMD related program activities." I refuse to be lied to. You may continue to believe what you want or whatever the excuse of the week is. Like I said before, re: Orwell, the original reasons given are down the memory hole. The Republican party justification seems to change weekly and no one minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.