Kelzie said:
First of all, he tried. Which is more than I can say for Bush the Second before 9/11. And we've been hunting OBL for how many decades now? And you're blaming Clinton for failure because his bombs didn't hit him? Nobody can hit him, nobody has, and he did something. Which is more than a lot of righties give him credit for.
Second. His ONLY mission in Afghanistan was to get OBL. There was no intention of covering up the whole Lewinsky idiot-fest or trying to detract attention from it. The bombings had been in the works long before the Republicans in office got that irrelevant issue to latch their teeth in.
I must respectfully say that this is hogwash & poppycock...
For "He whom shall not be blamed" to send missiles into, as some here love saying, a "sovereign nation", for blowing up two embassies but NOT do that when American soil is attacked in '93 is BS...I declare "shenanigans!"...
If he would've attacked in '93, instead of throwing out criminal charges and treating this like a trial instead of a war(which was declared on us years ago), then maybe the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, the Double Embassy Bombings, and 911 doesn't happen...
Yes, the other Presidents could have done so, too...but here's the diff...
If Bush41 said that we are going to attack because some German disco got bombed and it might be us next, the American people would've laughed him out of Washington and gone back to watching "Cheers"...
But it DID happen...the time to strike AND get the people behind you was when WTC93 occured...What did he do?...eat some french fries and talk to lawyers...:roll:
And then he attacks 5 years later when terrorists hit 9000 miles away and he's in the midst of controversy...
Sorry Cutie...ain't buyin' it...
Kelzie said:
What is this whole rant about? None of this has ANYTHING to do with covering up a domestic scandal by creating an international diversion. Which is what I was talking about. Which is what I specifically said actually. Don't put words into my mouth. Everything there isn't legit, but not only is that not what I said, it is also irrelevent to the subject at hand.
The "whole rant" is EXACTLY written to your response about "covering up a domestic scandal by creating an international diversion"...
You sit there and say(not literally, but you get the point)...
"
Nononononono....He would NEVER do something as absurd as THAT."...I believe your actual quote that I DID reply to was, "that international affairs don't really operate like that"...
Well I believe that is EXACTLY what happened...and to prove that international affairs do operate as absurdly as that, I gave you my little list...
"
Nononononono...They would NEVER take oil certificates from a dictator and put cash in his pockets instead of having those certificates go for food & medicine."...Equally absurd...found to be equally truthful...
"
Nononononono...North Korea would NEVER do something like sign a Treaty and then go against it and make nuclear weapons!"...Equally absurd...found to be equally truthful...
"
Nononononono...The United Nations would NEVER let millions of people get slaughtered in Rwanda & Sudan and not even make a serious attempt to thwart it!"...Equally absurd...found to be equally truthful...
So don't think that "He whom shall not be blamed" would NEVER do something like bomb a country to get the press off of his back, I say, "Oh yes he would."...At the time, I didn't think too much about it...but right after 911, I realized that every President since Carter has a hand in this...But the one who had the best chances to do something about it was also the one who let the chances slip away...but for some right here in this very forum, it is "He whom shall not be blamed"...
If I were Bush, I'd be calling him up everyday and saying "Thanks for leaving me this crap...prick."
