The Obama Disaster -- I hope you are effing proud of yourselves

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • obama our lord
    SBR Wise Guy
    • 12-24-08
    • 562

    #106
    Originally posted by daggerkobe
    Clinton did nothing for 8 years.

    Clinton: [Clarke] said we took vigorous action after the African embassies.
    Factcheck: Clarke did give Clinton administration credit for being vigorous in responding to the embassy bombings.

    Clinton: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill [bin Laden].
    Factcheck: indeed, CIA worked with tribal groups to try to get bin Laden.

    Clinton: After the [attack on the USS] Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.
    Factcheck: Clinton did draw up plans as he described and was indeed frustrated by the reluctance of the CIA & FBI to pin blame for the attack squarely on bin Laden.

    Clinton: I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.
    Factcheck: Clinton probably came within hours of killing bin Laden on Aug 20, 1998 when the US attacked training camps in Afghanistan near Khost.



    "Clinton did nothing for 8 years"

    You're a fvcking moron raiders72001. Stick to whining about blacks not tipping and posting blogs about women carving themselves and blaming it on Obama.
    Under Clinton, at least three opportunities to have Bin Laden handed over to the U.S. were rejected inexplicably.
    According to the Sunday Times of London, Clinton himself said his refusal to accept the offer to hand over Bin Laden was the "Biggest Mistake" of his presidency.
    According to anonymous sources in the CIA, Clinton did not want Bin Laden arrested.
    The intelligence officials, both of whom were involved in secret negotiations between Washington and Khartoum to take bin Laden into custody, offered the damning accounts to New York's Village Voice.
    A U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, this week called the Clinton administration's decision to pass up a chance to arrest Osama bin Laden in 1996 a "disgrace," saying "somebody didn't want this to happen."
    A second intelligence official, also speaking anonymously, corroborated the charge that there was a deliberate effort to let bin Laden escape from the Sudan to Afghanistan, saying "somebody let this slip up."
    The second official lamented that the U.S. lost a treasure trove of intelligence on the elusive al-Qaeda chief when it let him slip away. "It was not a matter of arresting bin Laden but of access to information," he told the Voice.
    The first instance they cite was Sudans offer to extradite bin Laden in 1996. The Clinton administration turned them down, saying there wasnt enough evidence to convict him in an American court. Originally this was denied by administration officials, but according to the Times, senior sources from within the administration now confirm it was true. In the January issue of Vanity Fair magazine, former ambassador to Sudan, Timothy Carney, confirmed it, saying it had serious implications regarding the U.S. embassy bombings in 1998, and that "the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization."
    The second offer the Times article details involved Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who contributed to Clintons presidential campaign and served as a go-between for the administration and various powers in the Middle East. Ijaz presented an exchange of e-mails as evidence to prove that he had in fact met with Clinton officials and intelligence officers from the United Arab Emirates, who were offering to help to deliver bin Laden to the U.S. Ijaz says the deal was blown when Clinton sent his top counterterrorism adviser to meet the Arab leaders directly rather than continue to go through back channels.
    The third offer, described as mysterious, was said to come from Saudi Arabian intelligence agencies. It was said to involve putting a tracking device in the luggage of bin Ladens mother during a visit to her son in Afghanistan, but it too was turned down. Richard Shelby, the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence committee, said he was aware of a Saudi offer to help, but was not able to talk about the specifics.
    Under Clinton, there were several opportunities to take out Bin Laden, but her refused to authorize them.
    Shortly after September 11th, articles by the AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer charged that the Clinton administration had chances to take out bin Laden, but refused to authorize it.
    In the waning days of the Clinton presidency, senior officials received specific intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and weighed a military plan to strike the suspected terrorist mastermind's location. The administration ultimately opted against an attack.
    The information spurred a high-level debate inside the White House in December 2000 about whether the classified information provided the last best chance for President Clinton to punish bin Laden before he left office, the officials said.
    "There were a couple of points, including in December, where there was intelligence indicative of bin Laden's whereabouts. But I can categorically tell you that at no point was it ripe enough to act," former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told The Associated Press.
    In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
    Another golden opportunity to eliminate Bin Laden was after he had been expelled from Sudan. He flew in a plane to Afghanistan and his plane could have easily been taken out.
    Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic told the U.N. tribunal Tuesday that Osama bin Laden was in Albania in 2000 and that the Clinton Administration had discussed it with him.


    And still, Clinton lies and says his 1998 'Wag the Dog' move firing cruise misiles at an aspirin factory and 14 dollar tents, was the "best chance" we had to get Bin Laden.
    On Aug. 20, 1998, three days after half-confessing to lying about Monica Lewinsky and the day she testified before a federal grand jury, former President Clinton declared bin Laden the world's most dangerous terrorist.

    Bill Clinton has made a series of public statements claiming his administration came close to killing bin Laden during a cruise-missile raid in 1998.
    Touring the rubble of lower Manhattan on September 13, Clinton said, "The best shot we had at him was when I bombed his training camps in 1998. We just missed him by a matter of hours, maybe even less than an hour."
    A few days later, on NBC, Clinton said, "We had quite good intelligence that he and his top lieutenants would be in his training camp. So I ordered the cruise-missile attacks, and we didn't tell anybody, including the Pakistanis, whose airspace we had to travel over, until the last minute. And unfortunately we missed them, apparently not by very long....We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action."
    But one of Clinton's top military commanders, who was deeply involved in the Afghanistan operation, has a different recollection. In an interview with National Review Online, retired general Anthony Zinni, commander of U.S. forces in the region at the time, described the 1998 cruise-missile raid as a "million-to-one-shot."
    "There was a possibility [bin Laden] could have been there," Zinni recalls. "My intelligence people did not put a lot of faith in that....As I was given this mission to do, I did not see that anyone had any degree of assurance or reliability that that was going to happen."
    George W. Bush has made it clear he sees the action as a model of how not to strike back at terrorism. "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt," Bush reportedly told a group of senators. "It's going to be decisive."
    Refer to above for even more damaging facts that Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a platter silver platter at least three times and had several opportunities to take out Bin Laden and refused to do so.
    Also, Clinton ordered the military to pump as many as 20 Tomahawk missiles into what he said was a chemical-weapons plant in Sudan financed by bin Laden. It turned out to be a pill plant owned by a Saudi businessman to whom the administration later had to pay $1 million in interest for seizing his plant.
    Intelligence officials at the time expressed reservations about including the plant on the target list. Clinton picked the target himself.
    "Clinton knew it wouldn't work in Afghanistan. It was a public-affairs move," the Pentagon official said, arguing that bombing is an extremely unreliable way to destroy a terrorist cell or assassinate its leader. "If he hit him [bin Laden], he would have been lucky."
    The mission, which used some 80 missiles at a price of about $750,000 apiece.


    Under Clinton, we found that he supported Bin Laden and his network.
    Bill Clinton's IRS pursued his personal enemies with great enthusiasm - auditing Billy Dale, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and dozens more - America's enemies, it seems, got a free pass from the same agency.
    At least 16 U.S.-based non-profit entities have been linked financially to bin Laden.
    The Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), has been directly linked to earlier attacks on U.S. interests by bin Laden.
    IARA reportedly transferred money to Mercy International, another non-profit Muslim organization that purchased vehicles used by Osama bin Laden to bomb the U.S. embassies in both Kenya and Tanzania on August 8, 1998.
    The Clinton State Department showered the IARA with $4.2 million in grants.
    The Clinton administration shut down a 1995 investigation of Islamic charities, concerned that a public probe would expose Saudi Arabia's suspected ties to a global money-laundering operation that raised millions for anti-Israel terrorists, federal officials told The Washington Times.
    Bill Clinton's abuse of the military that included bombing Yugoslavia to distract from the scandals, China-gate and the rape of Juanita Broaddrick, strengthened Bin Ladens terrorist movement and its position in the Balkans and actually involved the U.S. allying itself with Bin Laden's KLA, which is a faction of Al Qaeda.
    A story by Jerry Seper in the Washington Times on May 4, 1999, reported, "Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Ladenwho is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans."
    Seper said that newly obtained intelligence reports showed that the KLA had enlisted Islamic terrorists in its conflict with Serbia and that bin Laden's organization, known as al-Qaeda, had both trained and financially supported the KLA, which had been labeled a terrorist group by a Clinton State Department official.
    President Clinton incubated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan for at least three years, despite the fact that it was harboring Osama bin Laden, was responsible for growing 60 percent of the world's heroin and denied basic human rights to the nation.
    Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., says he was belittled, stonewalled and ridiculed for three years for asserting the congressional oversight role in the formulation of foreign policy toward Afghanistan during the last term of the Clinton administration.
    Using his seat on the House International Affairs Committee, Rohrabacher attempted, he says, for several years to secure communiqués, cables and other State Department documents that would reveal what was behind U.S. policy toward Kabul. He says he and his committee were "stonewalled" and "belittled" in all their attempts.
    According to Rohrabacher, the Clinton administration played a role in creating the Taliban by giving a 'green light' to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states to fund, direct, and organize the Taliban.
    Rohrabacher said at one point on the house floor in a Sept. 17th [1999] speech that the Clinton administration promised Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that it wouldnt overthrow the Taliban according to the UPI.
    Robin Raphel, Clinton's assistant secretary of state for south Asia affairs until mid-1997, is believed to be instrumental in the rise of the Taliban.
    One report suggested that several Islamic states expressed the belief that Raphel and other U.S. officials along with Afghans in the U.S. were on the payroll of Unocal's payroll. They cite that she provided a fiery defense of Unocal and especially the Taliban in negotiations with the Afghanistan government.
    During such an encounter, Raphel's words -- in effect asking the government to 'give it up."
    Read more about Clinton being Pro-Taliban here.
    A secret deal between the Clinton administration and terrorists linked with Osama bin Laden led directly to the senseless slaughter of some 70 West European tourists and the wounding of hundreds, according to a book written by a former congressional terrorism expert.
    According to Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," a Central Intelligence Agency operative dealing with Islamic terrorists on matters of security for the U.S. forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina led them to believe President Clinton would look the other way at attempts to overthrow Egypt's Hosni Mubarak.
    "If senior Islamicist terrorist leaders are to be believed, the Clinton administration was willing to tolerate the overthrow of the Mubarak government in Egypt and the establishment of an Islamist state in its stead as an acceptable price for reducing the terrorist threat to U.S. forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina," states the 1999 book, which has been rushed into a new printing.
    The tradeoff was reportedly raised in discussions between Egyptian terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahiri Osama bin Laden's right-hand man and an Arab-American, Abu-Umar al-Amriki, known as a CIA emissary.
    In that attack, terrorists wielding machine guns and knives massacred nearly 70 tourists, most of them Swiss. For about 45 minutes, the attackers mowed down unarmed, unsuspecting tourists in an attempt to show the world that visitors were not safe in Mubarak's Egypt.
    In addition to leading to the attack on the tourists, Bodansky writes, the secret deal between the Clinton administration and the bin Laden terrorist cell drove Mubarak into de facto cooperation with the Islamist terror-sponsoring states against the United States. Shortly afterwards, early in 1998, Egypt withheld support for the use of force by the U.S. against Iraq.
    The Clinton-Reno Justice Department refused to allow two veteran FBI agents assigned to the anti-terrorist probe to investigate a key figure tied to Osama bin Laden.
    According to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross today, the two agents told him they were ordered to stop investigations into a suspected terror cell linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and the Sept. 11 attacks.
    FBI special agents Robert Wright and John Vincent told Ross they were called off criminal investigations of suspected terrorists linked to the deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. U.S. officials say al-Qaeda was responsible for the embassy attacks and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.
    "September the 11th is a direct result of the incompetence of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit. No doubt about that. Absolutely no doubt about that," Wright said. "You can't know the things I know and not go public."
    Noting that, with growing terrorism in the Middle East in the mid-1990s, Wright and Vincent, then based in Chicago, were assigned to track a connection to a suspected terrorist cell that would later lead them to a link with Osama bin Laden. Wright told Ross that when he pressed for authorization to open a criminal investigation into the money trail, his supervisor stopped him.
    Represented by Judicial Watch and former lead House impeachment counsel David Schippers, agents Wright and Vincent have filed suit against the Justice Department over the episode.

    Under Clinton, Warnings about terrorist attacks were ignored.
    CIA Director George Tenet refused on Wednesday to permit the House-Senate Select Committee probe into the 9/11 attacks to release information about intelligence briefings to the White House on terrorist activities, including whether the president was briefed on plots to use hijacked airliners as weapons.
    Tenet's directive would cover whatever President Clinton was told about a 1998 plan to load an airliner with explosives and crash it into the World Trade Center.
    "The director of central intelligence has declined to declassify two issues of particular importance to this inquiry," Eleanor Hill, staff director for the committee, told the panel.
    "References to the intelligence community providing information to the president or White House" would remain classified, Hill testified during Wednesday's open hearing.
    "According to [Tenet], the president's knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this inquiry remains classified even when the substance of intelligence information has been declassified," she explained.
    The identity of and information on a key al-Qaeda leader involved in the Sept. 11 attacks would also stay classified, the committee director said.
    The classified information would include news of whether then-President Clinton was tipped off about the 1998 plot involving what Hill said was a "group of unidentified Arabs [who] planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center."
    The hijacking tip was given to the Federal Aviation Administration and FBI. Neither agency acted on it. The mysterious Arab group may now be linked to bin Laden, Hill said.
    The 1998 terrorist plot to use airliners as flying bombs was one of 12 similar plans outlined by Hill that were uncovered by investigators from 1994 through 2001.
    Comment
    • obama our lord
      SBR Wise Guy
      • 12-24-08
      • 562

      #107
      Originally posted by daggerkobe
      Clinton did nothing for 8 years.

      Clinton: [Clarke] said we took vigorous action after the African embassies.
      Factcheck: Clarke did give Clinton administration credit for being vigorous in responding to the embassy bombings.

      Clinton: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill [bin Laden].
      Factcheck: indeed, CIA worked with tribal groups to try to get bin Laden.

      Clinton: After the [attack on the USS] Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.
      Factcheck: Clinton did draw up plans as he described and was indeed frustrated by the reluctance of the CIA & FBI to pin blame for the attack squarely on bin Laden.

      Clinton: I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.
      Factcheck: Clinton probably came within hours of killing bin Laden on Aug 20, 1998 when the US attacked training camps in Afghanistan near Khost.



      "Clinton did nothing for 8 years"

      You're a fvcking moron raiders72001. Stick to whining about blacks not tipping and posting blogs about women carving themselves and blaming it on Obama.
      Clinton admits he was offered bin Laden but refuses



      Comment
      • Data
        SBR MVP
        • 11-27-07
        • 2236

        #108
        Originally posted by Tunes
        very intelligent response
        I really tried to dumb it down but you must be right, the illustration was still too intelligent for people (a number of posters in this thread, you included) who make the argument which was illustrated. Even looking at the obvious disproof of the validity of their logical construction they fail to realize how faulty their argument is.

        A few posts later, the same argument is heard again:

        Originally posted by Bradyd
        Less than 60 days in office is not enough time for anyone to be judged.
        Comment
        • Data
          SBR MVP
          • 11-27-07
          • 2236

          #109
          Originally posted by tacomax
          Keynesians despise and oppose the free market? Come on.

          Keynes may have held the argument that a depressed economy can be conquered by a reduction in interest rates and/or an increase in Government spending (or reduction in taxes) but it has nothing to do with the free-ness of the market. Generally economists always agree that the free market is best; it is the intricacies of how it works in practice which is the major area of concern/disagreement.
          I wished everyone was pro free market but that is just too far from reality.

          If we look at the modern societies, there are two paths of developing for a given society to choose from:
          it can move toward laissez-faire, free market, less government and personal freedom all of which are interrelated;
          or
          it can move away from laissez-faire, away from free market, more government, closer to totalitarian society all of which are interrelated as well.

          Keynesian economics is an integral part of the latter. It was/is an economic platform of social-democrats. By Keynes' own account, his theory is better suited for a totalitarian state. It is his ideas put in action in Stimulus Bill.
          Comment
          • daggerkobe
            SBR Posting Legend
            • 03-25-08
            • 10744

            #110
            "Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton."

            "The false claim originated in an August 11, 2002 article on right-wing news website Newsmax.com. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the US, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else."



            Try again, neonitwit.

            And why did u not include a link to ur right wing blogger BS? Too embarrassed?
            Comment
            • curious
              Restricted User
              • 07-20-07
              • 9093

              #111
              Originally posted by Data
              I wished everyone was pro free market but that is just too far from reality.

              If we look at the modern societies, there are two paths of developing for a given society to choose from:
              it can move toward laissez-faire, free market, less government and personal freedom all of which are interrelated;
              or
              it can move away from laissez-faire, away from free market, more government, closer to totalitarian society all of which are interrelated as well.

              Keynesian economics is an integral part of the latter. It was/is an economic platform of social-democrats. By Keynes' own account, his theory is better suited for a totalitarian state. It is his ideas put in action in Stimulus Bill.
              Keynesian economics has been so thoroughly discredited by reality (actual case studies) that I can only come to one of two conclusions about anyone who continues to support Keynesian economics in the face of this evidence: 1) they are a complete and total ignoramus, or, 2) they know that Keynesian economics is a failure but do not care because their real aim is totalitarianism and Keynesian economics helps push that agenda.
              Comment
              • curious
                Restricted User
                • 07-20-07
                • 9093

                #112
                Originally posted by soli
                I voted for Obama and feel good about it. I'm gonna vote for him again for the next term too.
                He won't be running next time. One of two things will happen after the impending total collapse of the US because of the far left wing ideology being rammed down our throats. Either, there will be a revolution and Obama will be toast, or the DemoCong will wake up to the fact that Americans are mostly centrists and any continuing to promote left wing fantasies will make the DemoCong a footnote in a chapter in a history book and they will dump Obama themselves.
                Comment
                • curious
                  Restricted User
                  • 07-20-07
                  • 9093

                  #113
                  Originally posted by DwightShrute
                  who isn't Anti-War? Peace has to be defended sometimes! news flash - "there are some bad people out there"

                  Government should do 4 things: Help their sick, educate their children, Protect their citizens and build and fix roads (bridges, airports etc) , other than that.. very few exceptions! Conservatives have a better platform if they stick to it but they don't which is too bad and while I would never ever vote Democrat, President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. When Obama talks about past economies, he somehow always leaves out the recession of the '80s as worst than this one.

                  I wish him luck.
                  He also sort of omits the Carter depression.
                  Comment
                  • curious
                    Restricted User
                    • 07-20-07
                    • 9093

                    #114
                    Originally posted by Bradyd
                    Less than 60 days in office is not enough time for anyone to be judged. How about let the man figure out a way to fix this mess. It won't happen overnight, which he has said time and time again. If the economy was getting better, than Obama would have fixed this huge problem faster than the Washington Wizards playoff hopes. It's just not possible for anyone to do it that fast. How about stop critizicing him at every turn, and give him time to work.
                    The problem is, Obama isn't even talking to anyone about how to fix the problems the country faces. There is no discussion going on. The DemoCong come up with leftwing spending program after spending program and say "the debate is over". Where are the policy options that are being analyzed and weighed? Where are the real experts in all the fields that need to be addressed that are being called upon? Nowhere. Obama filled his administration with Clintonista thugs. His treasury secretary is running around acting like today is the first day he heard about this crisis and he has to put together a "team" to help him figure out a way out. Excuse me but this imbecile helped CREATE the crisis. He has been directly involved for at least 2 years. Why does he not already have advisors who are experts?

                    Left wing ideologues are incapable of turning to real experts for advice because they value their ideology over facts and real experts won't tolerate that kind of nonsense.

                    In the meantime while The Messiah is trying to figure out a way to fix the mess they are wasting trillions of dollars. So, if and when they do figure out a way to fix the mess, where will the money come from to implement the fix?

                    If they were truly trying to find answers and knew that they did not have them they would stop all government spending until the answers were found in order to build up the funds needed to implement the fix. That is what ANY prudent person would do.

                    ....and give him time to work
                    IF he was working on fixing the problems you would have a point. But he is not doing that. Instead he is ramming his socialist agenda down our throats. What in the flying **** does nationalized health care have to do with fixing the banking system? Or securing our borders against illegal immigration and the threat posed by the 200,000 soldier strong drug cartels just over the border in Mexico? Or, giving us an energy policy that eliminates importation of Middle East oil? Or, creating a fiscal and regulatory climate that encourages and rewards manufacturers to bring jobs back to the United States?

                    Do a little reading and actually read the "stimulus" bill and tell us what ANY of the money being spent has to do with fixing ANY of the tough problems facing us?

                    Then come back here and lecture us about how Obama is going to save us.
                    Comment
                    • obama our lord
                      SBR Wise Guy
                      • 12-24-08
                      • 562

                      #115
                      Originally posted by daggerkobe
                      "Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton."

                      "The false claim originated in an August 11, 2002 article on right-wing news website Newsmax.com. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the US, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else."



                      Try again, neonitwit.

                      And why did u not include a link to ur right wing blogger BS? Too embarrassed?
                      LOL, who am I going to believe, George Soros Media Matters or my on lying ears?


                      CLINTON: Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.
                      And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.


                      They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.


                      So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

                      So sink boy admits he could have taken bin Laden but didn't. So go ahead and put your pathetic spin on it, sink boy worshiper.
                      Comment
                      • losturmarbles
                        SBR MVP
                        • 07-01-08
                        • 4604

                        #116
                        curious, havent you heard?

                        government is always the answer to all our problems.

                        sure these problems couldnt have happened without governments help, and sure every other economic problem ever faced has been overcome by outside forces in spite of government.

                        i think obama looking for government solutions instead of private sector solutions makes perfect sense.
                        Comment
                        • curious
                          Restricted User
                          • 07-20-07
                          • 9093

                          #117
                          Originally posted by obama our lord
                          LOL, who am I going to believe, George Soros Media Matters or my on lying ears?


                          CLINTON: Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.
                          And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.


                          They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.


                          So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.

                          So sink boy admits he could have taken bin Laden but didn't. So go ahead and put your pathetic spin on it, sink boy worshiper.
                          This is too funny. The Clintonistas murdered 55 people to cover up their illegal financial dealings, but couldn't bring a hit on the leader of the most dangerous terrorist organization in modern times because they "had no evidence". Lying hypocrites.
                          Comment
                          • obama our lord
                            SBR Wise Guy
                            • 12-24-08
                            • 562

                            #118
                            Originally posted by daggerkobe
                            Clinton did nothing for 8 years.

                            Clinton: [Clarke] said we took vigorous action after the African embassies.
                            Factcheck: Clarke did give Clinton administration credit for being vigorous in responding to the embassy bombings.

                            Clinton: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill [bin Laden].
                            Factcheck: indeed, CIA worked with tribal groups to try to get bin Laden.

                            Clinton: After the [attack on the USS] Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.
                            Factcheck: Clinton did draw up plans as he described and was indeed frustrated by the reluctance of the CIA & FBI to pin blame for the attack squarely on bin Laden.

                            Clinton: I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.
                            Factcheck: Clinton probably came within hours of killing bin Laden on Aug 20, 1998 when the US attacked training camps in Afghanistan near Khost.



                            "Clinton did nothing for 8 years"

                            You're a fvcking moron raiders72001. Stick to whining about blacks not tipping and posting blogs about women carving themselves and blaming it on Obama.
                            Geez, we even had Sandy Burglar stuffing top secret documents in his underwear to hide Clinton's incompetence and malfeasance.

                            Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from FOXNews.com. Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U.S., World, Entertainment, Health, Business, Technology, Politics, Sports.
                            Comment
                            • daggerkobe
                              SBR Posting Legend
                              • 03-25-08
                              • 10744

                              #119
                              Where does he say Sudan offered bin Laden to the US? He doesnt. He merely said he had no legal basis to jail him in the US which is true. Remember even after the Cole bombings in 2000 the FBI & CIA refused to pin the blame on bin Laden. Plus Sudan NEVER offered him to the US. They offered him to Saudi Arabia granted that they pardon him. Keep beliving the lies of neonitwit blogs u moron.

                              Again, where is the link to ur BS drivel?
                              Last edited by daggerkobe; 03-14-09, 03:00 PM.
                              Comment
                              • daggerkobe
                                SBR Posting Legend
                                • 03-25-08
                                • 10744

                                #120
                                Pizzaboy claimed "Clinton did nothing in 8 years to catch bin Laden"

                                Wrong Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                Pizzaboy claimed "Recession began under Clinton"

                                Wrong again Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                Pizzaboy claimed "The innocent girl was attacked by an Obama supporter and had backwards B carved into her cheek"

                                Wrong again dumbfvck. EPIC FAIL.

                                Do u ever get tired of losing every single argument?
                                Comment
                                • obama our lord
                                  SBR Wise Guy
                                  • 12-24-08
                                  • 562

                                  #121
                                  Originally posted by daggerkobe
                                  Pizzaboy claimed "Clinton did nothing in 8 years to catch bin Laden"

                                  Wrong Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                  Pizzaboy claimed "Recession began under Clinton"

                                  Wrong again Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                  Pizzaboy claimed "The innocent girl was attacked by an Obama supporter and had backwards B carved into her cheek"

                                  Wrong again dumbfvck. EPIC FAIL.

                                  Do u ever get tired of losing every single argument?
                                  so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him

                                  Clearly says to those who understand English that he had the opportunity to bring bin laden here but didn't do it.

                                  But I understand "men" like you worship those who jack off in sinks, so keep on with your retarded spin.
                                  And what I said was Bush inherited an economy in decline, and he did.

                                  Comment
                                  • obama our lord
                                    SBR Wise Guy
                                    • 12-24-08
                                    • 562

                                    #122
                                    Originally posted by daggerkobe
                                    Pizzaboy claimed "Clinton did nothing in 8 years to catch bin Laden"

                                    Wrong Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                    Pizzaboy claimed "Recession began under Clinton"

                                    Wrong again Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                    Pizzaboy claimed "The innocent girl was attacked by an Obama supporter and had backwards B carved into her cheek"

                                    Wrong again dumbfvck. EPIC FAIL.

                                    Do u ever get tired of losing every single argument?

                                    Under Clinton, Warnings about terrorist attacks were ignored.

                                    CIA Director George Tenet refused on Wednesday to permit the House-Senate Select Committee probe into the 9/11 attacks to release information about intelligence briefings to the White House on terrorist activities, including whether the president was briefed on plots to use hijacked airliners as weapons.
                                    Tenet's directive would cover whatever President Clinton was told about a 1998 plan to load an airliner with explosives and crash it into the World Trade Center.

                                    "The director of central intelligence has declined to declassify two issues of particular importance to this inquiry," Eleanor Hill, staff director for the committee, told the panel.

                                    "References to the intelligence community providing information to the president or White House" would remain classified, Hill testified during Wednesday's open hearing.

                                    "According to [Tenet], the president's knowledge of intelligence information relevant to this inquiry remains classified even when the substance of intelligence information has been declassified," she explained.

                                    The identity of and information on a key al-Qaeda leader involved in the Sept. 11 attacks would also stay classified, the committee director said.

                                    The classified information would include news of whether then-President Clinton was tipped off about the 1998 plot involving what Hill said was a "group of unidentified Arabs [who] planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center."

                                    The hijacking tip was given to the Federal Aviation Administration and FBI. Neither agency acted on it. The mysterious Arab group may now be linked to bin Laden, Hill said.


                                    The 1998 terrorist plot to use airliners as flying bombs was one of 12 similar plans outlined by Hill that were uncovered by investigators from 1994 through 2001.
                                    Comment
                                    • obama our lord
                                      SBR Wise Guy
                                      • 12-24-08
                                      • 562

                                      #123
                                      Originally posted by daggerkobe
                                      Pizzaboy claimed "Clinton did nothing in 8 years to catch bin Laden"

                                      Wrong Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                      Pizzaboy claimed "Recession began under Clinton"

                                      Wrong again Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                      Pizzaboy claimed "The innocent girl was attacked by an Obama supporter and had backwards B carved into her cheek"

                                      Wrong again dumbfvck. EPIC FAIL.

                                      Do u ever get tired of losing every single argument?
                                      Under Clinton, we found that he supported Bin Laden and his network.

                                      Bill Clinton's IRS pursued his personal enemies with great enthusiasm - auditing Billy Dale, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and dozens more - America's enemies, it seems, got a free pass from the same agency.
                                      At least 16 U.S.-based non-profit entities have been linked financially to bin Laden.

                                      The Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), has been directly linked to earlier attacks on U.S. interests by bin Laden.

                                      IARA reportedly transferred money to Mercy International, another non-profit Muslim organization that purchased vehicles used by Osama bin Laden to bomb the U.S. embassies in both Kenya and Tanzania on August 8, 1998.

                                      The Clinton State Department showered the IARA with $4.2 million in grants.

                                      The Clinton administration shut down a 1995 investigation of Islamic charities, concerned that a public probe would expose Saudi Arabia's suspected ties to a global money-laundering operation that raised millions for anti-Israel terrorists, federal officials told The Washington Times.
                                      Comment
                                      • obama our lord
                                        SBR Wise Guy
                                        • 12-24-08
                                        • 562

                                        #124
                                        Originally posted by daggerkobe
                                        Pizzaboy claimed "Clinton did nothing in 8 years to catch bin Laden"

                                        Wrong Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                        Pizzaboy claimed "Recession began under Clinton"

                                        Wrong again Bozo. EPIC FAIL.

                                        Pizzaboy claimed "The innocent girl was attacked by an Obama supporter and had backwards B carved into her cheek"

                                        Wrong again dumbfvck. EPIC FAIL.

                                        Do u ever get tired of losing every single argument?
                                        Clinton did nothing to prevent an attack and is a liar



                                        Saxby Chambliss is a little perplexed. The Republican congressman from Georgia is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security and a key player in the congressional investigation into the roots of the September 11 attacks. He knows a lot about the subject. Yet it was not until he read a recent issue of Time magazine that he learned that in late 2000 the Clinton administration came up with a new, aggressive, wide-ranging plan to topple the al Qaeda terrorist network. In an article headlined "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" Time reported that top Clinton officials handed the plan to the incoming Bush administration, but, tragically, the Bush team chose not to act until it was too late. The heroes of the article were Richard Clarke, a top antiterrorism aide who is said to have put together the plan, and Samuel Berger, President Clinton's national-security adviser, who is portrayed as a tough-talking hardliner on terrorism.

                                        And that's what has Chambliss perplexed. "I've had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we've invited Samuel Berger several times," Chambliss says, "and this is the first I've ever heard of that plan." If it was such a big deal, Chambliss wonders, why didn't anyone mention it? Sources at the White House are just as baffled. In public, they've been careful not to pick fights with the previous administration over the terrorism issue. But privately, they say the Time report was way off base. "There was no new plan to topple al Qaeda," one source says flatly. "No new plan." When asked if there was, perhaps, an old plan to topple al Qaeda, which might have been confused in the story, the source says simply, "No."
                                        The Time article, which was the work of a team of 15 reporters, said that after the October 12, 2000, attack that killed 17 American sailors on board the USS Cole, Clarke began work on "an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda." Clarke reportedly wanted to break up al Qaeda cells, cut off their funding, destroy their sanctuaries, and give major support to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. In addition, Time reported, "the U.S. military would start planning for air strikes on the camps and for the introduction of special-operations forces into Afghanistan." It was, in the words of a senior Bush administration official quoted by Time, "everything we've done since 9/11."
                                        According to the magazine, Clarke presented the plan to Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it. "We would be handing [the Bush administration] a war when they took office," an unnamed former Clinton aide told Time. "That wasn't going to happen." Instead, Berger urged his successor, Condoleezza Rice, to take action. To the Clinton team's dismay, the Bush White House did not come up with its own finished plan against al Qaeda until September 4, 2001.
                                        On its face, the story was a sensational indictment of the Bush administration's response to terrorism. But if the president's critics hoped it would inflict political damage on the Bush White House, it has instead had the opposite effect, backfiring on Clinton's defenders and causing them to back away from the story's main conclusion.
                                        Indeed, even a cursory look at the Clinton administration's record on terrorism raises questions about the article's premise. For example: If there was indeed such a plan, why did the Clinton team wait so long to come up with it?
                                        In the past, former Clinton officials have said that they moved into fully engaged anti-terrorism mode after the August 7, 1998, bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. More than 200 people, including twelve Americans, were killed, and an investigation quickly showed the attack to be the work of Osama bin Laden. In an interview with National Review last year, Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council official, said the Africa bombings were a turning point in the administration's response to terrorism. "I and a whole lot of people basically did very little else other than Osama bin Laden for the next year and a half," Benjamin said.
                                        At the time, top Clinton officials vowed a long, tough campaign. "This is, unfortunately, the war of the future," Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told reporters on August 21, shortly after the U.S. fired cruise missiles at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. "This is going to be a long-term battle against terrorists who have declared war on the United States." Other officials, including President Clinton, said similar things.
                                        So why, when by their own account the war unquestionably began in August 1998, did Clinton administration officials wait until December 2000, a few weeks before leaving office, to come up with a plan to fight it? Why was the plan created so late that it could not be implemented but was instead presented to the incoming Bush administration with the admonition, "Here — do this"? There's no answer in the Time story.
                                        In addition, the Clinton defenders' account is plagued by some internal contradictions. For example, Time says the Clinton administration was constrained from taking action in the aftermath of the Cole bombing because "the CIA and FBI had not officially concluded [that bin Laden was behind the attack] and would be unable to do so before Clinton left office." But the article also documents the frustrations of John O'Neill, a top FBI official who had "run afoul of Barbara Bodine, then the U.S. ambassador to Yemen, who believed the FBI's large presence was causing political problems for the Yemeni regime." Time says that "when O'Neill left Yemen on a trip home for Thanksgiving, Bodine barred his return." It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Clinton administration, for whatever reason, made the investigation more difficult and then claimed it could not act against al Qaeda because the investigation had not yielded conclusive results.
                                        It didn't quite make sense, and indeed, after the Bush White House denied the Time story, some former Clinton officials began to pull back on some of its claims. Now, one of them — who asks not to be named — says Time didn't have it quite right. "There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism," the official says. "It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn't have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration's ongoing efforts and threat assessments."
                                        That's pretty much what the Bush White House says happened. So why make all the headline-grabbing charges in the first place? More than anything, the article's appearance is evidence of the dogged determination of former Clinton officials to portray their administration as tough on terrorism. Sometimes that public-relations campaign has involved positive defenses of Clinton's record, and sometimes it has involved attacks on the Bush White House. The Time piece was the most spectacular example yet of the latter; it was, in Saxby Chambliss's words, "a full-bore shotgun blast at the Bush administration." And even though it missed, there will no doubt be more. For their part, Bush officials say they don't want to "get into this game." But they'd better get used to it.
                                        Comment
                                        • daggerkobe
                                          SBR Posting Legend
                                          • 03-25-08
                                          • 10744

                                          #125
                                          I, and the 9-11 Commission must be hard of hearing then:

                                          "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel bin Ladin to the US. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

                                          -9/11 Commission

                                          I guess we should trust the Sudanese what with them being our close allies..... oh no wait they have been named as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993!!!!

                                          Not to mention Clinton couldve meant anything such as sending in the special forces to abduct him.

                                          Again, wheres that link douchebag?
                                          Comment
                                          • obama our lord
                                            SBR Wise Guy
                                            • 12-24-08
                                            • 562

                                            #126
                                            Originally posted by daggerkobe
                                            I, and the 9-11 Commission must be hard of hearing then:

                                            "[F]ormer Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel bin Ladin to the US. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

                                            -9/11 Commission

                                            I guess we should trust the Sudanese what with them being our close allies..... oh no wait they have been named as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993!!!!

                                            Not to mention Clinton couldve meant anything such as sending in the special forces to abduct him.

                                            Again, wheres that link douchebag?
                                            Better tell Clinton because he didn't say he never had the opportunity. He said he didn't BECAUSE he had no criminal basis to hold him.

                                            That commission was bipartisan and after the slip up, Clinton was agiain denying the matter, so I guess it was just a matter of the commission not going there.

                                            From the right wing LA Times:



                                            Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

                                            President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

                                            I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

                                            From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

                                            Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

                                            The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

                                            As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

                                            Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

                                            The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

                                            But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

                                            In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

                                            Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

                                            Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

                                            The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

                                            Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

                                            But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

                                            Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

                                            And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

                                            The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

                                            Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
                                            Comment
                                            • soli
                                              SBR MVP
                                              • 09-10-06
                                              • 2503

                                              #127
                                              Originally posted by curious
                                              He won't be running next time. One of two things will happen after the impending total collapse of the US because of the far left wing ideology being rammed down our throats. Either, there will be a revolution and Obama will be toast, or the DemoCong will wake up to the fact that Americans are mostly centrists and any continuing to promote left wing fantasies will make the DemoCong a footnote in a chapter in a history book and they will dump Obama themselves.
                                              The only thing that will be going on is that Obama will still be your President and you somewhere still preaching to your folks(relatives) if they will listen to you..
                                              Comment
                                              • daggerkobe
                                                SBR Posting Legend
                                                • 03-25-08
                                                • 10744

                                                #128
                                                Its an opinion piece dumbass, meaning he could write or makeup anything he wished without the burden of proof..... in other words, a BLOG.

                                                This has already been covered by the 9-11 Commission as not being reliable. All it does is validate Clintons assertions that Osama was never offered to the US! Thanks moron!!!!!

                                                Btw wheres that link??????
                                                Comment
                                                • obama our lord
                                                  SBR Wise Guy
                                                  • 12-24-08
                                                  • 562

                                                  #129
                                                  Originally posted by daggerkobe
                                                  Its an opinion piece dumbass, meaning he could write or makeup anything he wished without the burden of proof..... in other words, a BLOG.
                                                  The LA Times is a blog? Who knew?

                                                  Does this sound like an opinion?

                                                  President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.


                                                  I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
                                                  Comment
                                                  • robmpink
                                                    SBR Posting Legend
                                                    • 01-09-07
                                                    • 13205

                                                    #130
                                                    Originally posted by THEGREAT30
                                                    Rather u belive the first president was John Hanson or George Washington, it is sure that Obama is the most inspirational president since. Unless you are a pure cracker/KKK.
                                                    Sour grapes? You didn't qualify for a grant from the united negro college fund? Boo hoo! You missed the bus.
                                                    Comment
                                                    • obama our lord
                                                      SBR Wise Guy
                                                      • 12-24-08
                                                      • 562

                                                      #131
                                                      Democrats tell Americans they were safer under President Clinton than they have been under President Bush. The record, however, shows that the Clinton years coincided with al Qaeda's golden age.
                                                      Whether as a result of wrongheaded policies, the lack of policy or simple carelessness, William Jefferson Clinton passively presided over more successful terrorist attacks against America than any other President in the history of the Republic. And the attacks were carried out with impunity; President Clinton failed to order effective reprisals. The following is a list of the terrorist attacks planned and/or executed during the Clinton years:


                                                      * February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center: 6 deaths and 1,042 injured



                                                      * April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing: 168 deaths and over 800 injured



                                                      * June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: 20 deaths and 372 injured



                                                      * August 7, 1998, attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: 12 U.S. deaths out of a total of 223 deaths; 12 U.S. injured out of a total of over 4,000 injured



                                                      * October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen: 17 deaths; 39 injured



                                                      * September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington (occurred during Bush presidency but planned during Clinton administration): 2,975 deaths and 24 missing.



                                                      Except for the Oklahoma City bombing, all these terrorist attacks were the work of al Qaeda. Regarding 9/11, it is well established that al Qaeda planned, rehearsed and financed these attacks while Clinton was in office. Therefore, 9/11 was President Clinton's final national security failure.


                                                      Despite eight years of al Qaeda attacks, the Clinton administration was so clueless about al Qaeda that it was unable to provide the incoming Bush administration with material intelligence on al Qaeda activities. During the transition, President Clinton's focus was on pardons while his staffers were concerned with removing the letter "W" from the keyboards of the White House computers. So oblivious were Democrats to the imminence of al Qaeda attacks that their focus was on juvenile pranks.



                                                      While 9/11 was President Clinton's most spectacular national security failure, it was neither the most significant nor the most far-reaching. This dubious honor goes to his 1996 decision to refuse Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to American authorities. Apparently, the Clinton administration did not think it had enough evidence to indict bin Laden. More likely, it saw no immediate political advantage in bin Laden's capture.



                                                      Thus, instead of locking up bin Laden at Gitmo, President Clinton gave him free passage to Afghanistan where bin Laden became a warlord and trained thousands of terrorists. The world is still living with the consequences of President Clinton's negligence.
                                                      Two years before Sudan offered bin Laden to President Clinton, Sudan offered Carlos the Jackal to the French. The French took the famous Carlos and we have not heard a peep from him since; it appears that Carlos is rotting in a French jail. How different would the world be if bin Laden was rotting in a U.S. jail?



                                                      At the time, France's policy towards terrorists was to nab them whenever possible. In striking contrast, President Clinton's policy was to ignore terrorists as long as possible in the foolish hope that they would be someone else's problem. We now know the consequences of this reckless policy. It is clear the Clinton administration was more inept than the Socialist government of French President Francois Mitterrand. In fact, that very comparison underscores the magnitude of the incompetence!


                                                      Now Democrats want Americans to forget those serious failures. From the pulpits of presidential "wannabees," Democrats tell Americans they know how to deal with national security. But Democrats will deal with national security the same way they have dealt with illegal immigration. They will subordinate it to political calculations.


                                                      They already have. During the Spanish-language debate, Democrats traded border security for the Latino vote. In the words of Sen. Hillary Clinton, vigorous border enforcement is contrary to "...the Scriptures..." and "...would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself." This statement emanates from the same camp which constantly accuses President Bush of ignoring the separation of Church and State!



                                                      America cannot afford to subordinate national security to any other issue. This is why America cannot afford another Democrat presidency. We know that President Clinton, the most celebrated Democrat president of the past 50 years, permitted more terrorist attacks than any other president. What, then, can we expect from another Democratic administration? Perhaps even more worrisome, what can we expect from another Clinton administration?
                                                      When Democrats tell Americans to remember how glorious the Clinton years were for our nation, it is wise to also remember that, perhaps not coincidentally, the Clinton years were even more glorious for al Qaeda.
                                                      Comment
                                                      • tacomax
                                                        SBR Hall of Famer
                                                        • 08-10-05
                                                        • 9619

                                                        #132
                                                        Had never fished a NC pier before, so I played hooky from work and went to Surf City Pier.

                                                        Got there about 7AM. Fished until around noon, bottom fishing using fresh shrimp. Caught one pinfish, one small whiting, one small bluefish, and oh yeah, one crab (this one really did hang on till he was all the way up to the pier). Not a productive day.

                                                        About the crabs. I started out fishing close to the pier, and evidently that's where the crabs hang out. With in a minute of my line being in the water, I find they have taken all my bait. I finally solved my crab problem by casting away from the pier out into the surf, where the crabs didn't seem to be.

                                                        I had a problem with keeping the shrimp on the hook in general, though. I was constantly having to rebait due to the soft shrimp becoming dislodged in the surf, or snatched away by bait stealers. Next time I go, I think I will use squid or cut bait.

                                                        All in all, it was still better than going to work.
                                                        Sounds like a shit day. Your job must really suck.
                                                        Originally posted by pags11
                                                        SBR would never get rid of me...ever...
                                                        Originally posted by BuddyBear
                                                        I'd probably most likely chose Pags to jack off too.
                                                        Originally posted by curious
                                                        taco is not a troll, he is a bubonic plague bacteria.
                                                        Comment
                                                        • andywend
                                                          SBR MVP
                                                          • 05-20-07
                                                          • 4805

                                                          #133
                                                          Its a waste of time trying to have any kind of political discussion with left-wing lunatics like DaggerKobe or RyanXL.

                                                          You can confront them with all the evidence in the world which backs up your claim and they will either change the subject completely or reply back with name-calling and various insults.

                                                          If Obama said the moon was made of green cheese, they would rush to Obama's defense and make up all sorts of ridiculous claims why what Obama said is actually true. They would then trash anyone who had the nerve to disagree with him.

                                                          Bush and the republican controlled congress had 6 full years to show the American people why the republicans were the better choice than democrats and they severely underperformed by turning away from true conservative values and alienating their support base. They had every chance to do what republicans used to do which is reduce the size of government and transfer power from the federal government back to the people.

                                                          Unfortunately, Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the result of those 6 years and we all have to pay the price now.

                                                          The only silver lining is that Obama and the liberal democrat congress simply can't help themselves and have managed to push through 15 years worth of pent-up liberal pork in Obama's first 50 days. If our country can survive until the 2010 mid-term elections and the democrats keep up their current wasteful spending shopping spree, the voters will quickly realize what a horrible mistake they made handing over total control of the country to the useless democratic party and will quickly rectify their mistake at the voting booth.

                                                          The republican party screwed up for 6 years and should be thankful that the democrats are so INEPT, they can recover from their mistakes in only 2. However, they need to return to the republican party of old including smaller government, strong defense and transferring the majority of power back to the states.
                                                          Comment
                                                          SBR Contests
                                                          Collapse
                                                          Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                                                          Collapse
                                                          Working...