Props to Bill Clinton re: terrorism

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:55 pm

After determining that the Iranians were behind the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton decides to send a letter to the Iranians asking them for their assistance in tracking down who was responsible.

The letter outted Saudi Arabia as the source of the American intelligence that implicated Iran.

Add to that the letter was drafted without the FBI's involvement, the lead investigating agency, but it was mis-delivered.

Way to go, asshat. Now that's prosecuting the war on terror how it should be done.

How Clinton or anyone connected to that administration can now discuss the war on terror with any authority is absolutely ridiculous and the media should know better.

RACK Louis Freeh for bringing this to our attention.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:21 pm

This just in, sometimes bureaucracies make ill informed decisions.

sin

FEMA

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:01 pm

Poor deflection, B.

Can't refute what I posted so I guess you accept it and agree with the assessment....props.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:04 pm

DrDetroit wrote:Poor deflection, B.

Can't refute what I posted so I guess you accept it and agree with the assessment....props.

Your assesment is faulty. You don't know, nor can you possibly ever know the motives behind that letter. Therefore, you cannot possibly use the circumstances behind that letter to debunk Clinton.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:47 pm

"Debunk" Clinton? No need to do that. The action he took speaks for itself. It was stupid. Much like his overall anti-terror policy.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:12 pm

To be fair Doc, I always though Clinton's terror policy was basically a "status quo" policy passed down from previous administrations.

Unless of course it dealt with wacky yet non-violent cults, loners living in the mountains, and little cuban children. Then the guns started firing and ZERO tolerance was in order.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:59 pm

Tom In VA wrote:To be fair Doc, I always though Clinton's terror policy was basically a "status quo" policy passed down from previous administrations.

Unless of course it dealt with wacky cults led by sex abusers, weapons dealers living in the mountains. Then the guns started firing and ZERO tolerance was in order.

FTFY

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:19 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:To be fair Doc, I always though Clinton's terror policy was basically a "status quo" policy passed down from previous administrations.

Unless of course it dealt with wacky cults led by sex abusers, weapons dealers living in the mountains. Then the guns started firing and ZERO tolerance was in order.
FTFY

Good point. Can you link me to where the allegations of "sex abuse" were substantiated, I forgot. When did Texas drop the ball on that ?

And you're right, it's so much more important to kill the wife and child of a redneck living in the hills and happens to own a few automatic weapons than it is to make sure North Korea doesn't get the technology they need to develop nukes and missiles.

Wake up. Terrorists with nukes and North Korea with nukes is a hell of a lot more important than a state issue in Texas and a hillbilly with a few automatic rifles.

upstart · Post by **upstart** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:25 pm

Waco, was part of Clintons campain to pass the Brady bill.If it took
the gassing and rosting alive of 95 men,woman and children so be it.
The liberal agenda must go on,if Waco happend with Bush in office
would the press have white washed it like thay did for Clinton?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:55 am

upstart wrote:Waco, was part of Clintons campain to pass the Brady bill.If it took
the gassing and rosting alive of 95 men,woman and children so be it.
The liberal agenda must go on,if Waco happend with Bush in office
would the press have white washed it like thay did for Clinton?

Bush would never kill 95 of his base voters without oil being involved.

These people were given ample opportunity to surrender and be tried. They chose not to and suffered the consequences.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:52 am

BSmack wrote: Bush would never kill 95 of his base voters without oil being involved.

Well oil is a life or death commodity for the time being. Don't like it, go live in the woods with JiFR and live off the land.

BSmack wrote: These people were given ample opportunity to surrender and be tried. They chose not to and suffered the consequences

I can relate.

Sincerely,
Saddam

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:59 am

Tom In VA wrote:Well oil is a life or death commodity for the time being. Don't like it, go live in the woods with JiFR and live off the land.

The answer is not to "live off the land" or to invade countries we have no business invading. The answer is to make our economy self sustaining. If we can't, we are bound to follow in the footsteps of the Japanese.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:02 am

Well the "invasion" quite frankly was the result of an invitation from a substantial number of Iraqi citizens. Sort of like how the French helped us out.

But. I cannot argue with your statement about becoming more self sustaining. While it's ideal, I wonder if it's too late.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:22 am

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:The answer is to make our economy self sustaining.
No problem as long as you don't mind paying $4.00 a gallon while we drill offshore and in Alaska before switching over to coal.

Spare us the pie in the sky fantasies of some vague "alternative energy source" or conservation as the answer to the problem.

You could have put solar panels on every house in America for what it cost to invade and occupy Iraq.

But no, just pie in the sky...

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:34 am

mvscal wrote:Feel free to put your own solar panels on your house. Nobody is going to stop you.

I'm not really sure how that will get you to work or the goods you purchase to the stores you buy them from...but keep dreaming.

Getting you to see that the road to a self sustaining economy is many faceted is not something I care to do tonight. Read a book or something. Better yet, ask Mikey to explain it to you YET AGAIN.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:06 am

Sorry, I'm watching baseball and then Lost tonight.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:08 am

Mikey wrote:Sorry, I'm watching baseball and then Lost tonight.

:twisted:

Proof that MLB and ABC are in the pockets of BIG oil barons.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:10 am

No doubt, but what can you do?

After Lost I'm starting "The Constant Gardener".

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:35 am

Mikey wrote:After Lost I'm starting "The Constant Gardener".

Cheech and Chong did another movie ?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:42 am

Yeah they move to Canada and start a year round "grow house". They get outed by a meddling electric company employee who notices that they're using a lot of electricity. Hilarous from start to finish from what I've heard.