- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
yes, I did.
you can handwave away all the evidence you like, but that doesn't mean its not there.
You're dishonestly comparing an attack by a relatively unknown terrorism group 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency with an attack by a very well known terrorist group almost 33 weeks into Bush's term. You're dishonestly comparing an attack in 1993 where there were no known warnings with an attack in 2001 where the head of the CIA described in incredible influx of warnings as "the system was blinkig red."
I've already debunked your link back in post #520. Try again. :roll:my evidence has a link, the link has citations. go read them if you doubt the integrity of my evidence.
You have NEVER EVER PROVIDED substantive proof to your ultimate conclusions.
Wikipedia? Really? As your irrefutable evidence? I went to the link, this particular Wiki article, cited CNN and other "news" reports as the majority of its "sources." :lol:...
Well inform us then ... list what Bush did to protect the country from an attack by al-qaeda ....far lefties vouching for each other based on bogus and thin proof hardly is convincing.
You have no idea what Bush did and it is undeniable that OBL started the WTCII plans due to CLinton's weak response to WTCI. But the main problem was the wall between our intelligence agencies that was erected under clinton
and I doubt you have the sort of clearance to have any clue what was going on at the relevant time
That's so obvious it doesn't even merit a response. :lol:interesting. and by what logical reasoning do you disregard CNN and other news agencies?
.
That's so obvious it doesn't even merit a response. :lol:
that's really stupid to ask. Most of that is still classified. i doubt you have that sort of security clearanceWell inform us then ... list what Bush did to protect the country from an attack by al-qaeda ....
G'head ...
1. _______________________________
translation: I have no response
that's really stupid to ask. Most of that is still classified. i doubt you have that sort of security clearance
wrong as usual, he is correct,
The only thing that I will admit is that based on your posts you are one of the biggest Clinton apologists I've seen around here in quite awhile. :lol:Thank you for admitting that I am correct.
that's pathetic.in other words, such information does not exist.
how many weeks after Clinton was sworn in, did the first WTC attack take place?
if anything, this was the responsibility for Bush 1 to discover, but I respect Bush 1 so I won't go down that road.
I was only correct in that you, in rather immature fashion, quickly cited a Wiki article as your "credible" evidence and I pointed out that the majority of the "sources" for the article appear to be news articles - many from CNN. The few primary sources that it DID cite, were strewn with OPINIONS and provided NO credible evidence tosupport your claims that the Bush Admin. was more at fault than Clinton's in lack of preparation regarding the terrorist attacks. If this were your PoliSci 101 Research Paper, I'd have to give you an "F" for lack of primary source citation and overuse of non-credible and opinionated secondary source data. :shrug:he "debunked" my evidence by hand waving away the sources.
he can't be correct, as he is provided no argument to be correct or incorrect.
...I don't blame Clinton ... For nearly all of Clinton's time a President, this threat was known. He had nearly eight years to act on it, and he did nothing of any use.
...He had nearly eight years to act on it, and he did nothing of any use.
I was only correct in that you, in rather immature fashion, quickly cited a Wiki article as your "credible" evidence and I pointed out that the majority of the "sources" for the article appear to be news articles - many from CNN....
so what? what's wrong with CNN?
my evidence shows that Clinto did indeed try hard to fight Al Qaeda.
Now, during Bush's first 8 months, what EXACTLY did he do to fight Al Qaeda?
The Cole was on Clinton's watch. I hold him accountable for that. Clinton's response to WTC93 was to capture most of the terrorists involved, triple counter terrorism, create a division within the CIA deticated to tracking al-qaeda, create a homeland security team to prevent attacks inside the U.S., and thwart attacks, which he was successful at inside the U.S.what happened with the Cole? and why did Clinton's response to WTCI encourage OBL to launch WTCII
CRA's represented only 6% of the meltdown. Anyone pointing a guilty finger at them is only exposing their own ignorance on what brought the real-estate and credit markets to their knees.what about Carter and mortgages? what about Dodd and Frank
Yes and the al-qaeda "tracking division" was obviously so effective........... :roll:Clinton's response to WTC93 was to capture most of the terrorists involved, triple counter terrorism, create a division within the CIA deticated to tracking al-qaeda, create a homeland security team to prevent attacks inside the U.S., and thwart attacks, which he was successful at inside the U.S.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?