• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More Voters Blame Bush For Failure to Catch Bin Laden

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
everyone say it with me......

P O L L S A R E C R A P ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html

though I kinda agree with this one in one sense. Its hard to blame Clinton for not catching him, when he wasnt really trying to in the first place.

It makes more sense to blame the president that is ACTUALLY PERSUING him for not catching him.
 
woops. feel free to move this to "Breaking news"
 
Me? I blame not only Clinton and Bush for not catching him, but Reagan for installing him. It's an impotent circle jerk of blame though, let's just get the job done.
 
shuamort said:
Me? I blame not only Clinton and Bush for not catching him, but Reagan for installing him. It's an impotent circle jerk of blame though, let's just get the job done.


Installing him where? Are you talking about us giving stinger missiles to the Afghanis during the Soviet invasion?

If so, that's a pretty weak claim. Bin Laden came into that conflict halfway through and funded it, but I've never heard anything indicating he was involved with Reagan.
 

You know, every time I start thinking you are moving a little more into the rational/reasonable column like the last post you wrote in response to Aquapub, you write something like this.

Clinton "wasn't trying" but Bush is "ACTUALLY PERSUING" him. You mean with all the 8500 guys the Bush Admin had in Afghanistan the first two years? Or the 1/7 of the guys we have there compared to Iraq now?

Back into the rabid partisan column you go for me.
 
Follow the link I had in my post. I'll snip out the relevent quotes, go to the link for the full story (and so my snipping isn't construed as cherry-picking):
 
And from the US Gov't directly: Installation was underwritten by the US vis-a-vis the ISI.
 
I personally believe that Bin Laden has become a non factor..........He is cowering in some cave on the Pakistan border.............He has not made a video since prior to the 2004 presidential elections......We will get him sooner or later but then the left will say it makes no differnece that someone else will just take his place.............That is exactly what they did with Zaquawi....
 
Exactly. I wouldn't doubt if he were dead. We've got troops all over there and a bounty on his head big enough for someone over there to give in for the cash. It'd be good to find him/his body for peace of mind but it would mostly be a symbolic gesture at this point as he's been stripped of any power he's had.
 

Bin laden is a threat if he is still alive. Just because he's in a cave doesn't mean he can't plan and orchestrate an attack.

IMO it is not Bin Laden himself that is dangerous, it is any person with his power, money, and agenda. Bin Laden is not the last terrorist America will see. So killing him or capturing is a short-term resolution if it is a resolution at all. The mob (America) just wants someone to hang and burn so they feel better.
 


so how many soldiers did Clinton send in persuit of him?

anyway.......I blame the terrorists for the problem, and the entire federal government equally for what happened on 9-11.

and hey, at least you have had reason to thin I might move more to the rational/reasonable column. I certainly cant say the same about you.

well, other than the same thread you are talking about.
 
Never underestimate a cornered tiger.
 

Sure they are when everyone votes against you. Think of the coming election. hehehee

Clinton never tried to catch him, at least publically not publically. he did fire Cruise Missiles to try to kill him. Remember we had not started Bush War or invaded Afghanistan.

Bush's problem is that Bin Laden gave him leverage with the people, why would he want to kill him, when Bush can keep him alive and manipulate America. Thing have gone from bad to worse under Bush.
 

I can remember prior to our invasion of Afghanistan OBL was publishing a video every other week spewing his hate.............It is obvious he is having a much harder time doing that now..........If he is not dead we will get him sooner or later like we did Saddam and Zaquawi.....Its just a matter of time..........
 


What about it? I hope a lot of liberals keep their promise this time and move to Canada if they lose but sadly I don't see that happening.....
 

heh heh yeah, I'm sure you'd be telling us what a "non-factor" bin Laden is if they actually got him.
 
ProudAmerican said:
so how many soldiers did Clinton send in persuit of him?

Same number Bush sent before 3000 died on 9-11.

anyway.......I blame the terrorists for the problem, and the entire federal government equally for what happened on 9-11.

Fair enough

and hey, at least you have had reason to thin I might move more to the rational/reasonable column. I certainly cant say the same about you.

Thanks!
 
Iriemon said:
heh heh yeah, I'm sure you'd be telling us what a "non-factor" bin Laden is if they actually got him.

No I just remember how you liberals said it was so important to get Saddam and Zaquawi and when we got them you said its no big deal someone else will just take their place............

You will do the same when we get OBL so what is the point..........
 
Iriemon said:
heh heh yeah, I'm sure you'd be telling us what a "non-factor" bin Laden is if they actually got him.


actually its probably YOU that would be doing that.
 
Same number Bush sent before 3000 died on 9-11.

difference is Clinton had multiple attacks. you whould have thought At SOME POINT he may have done something.
 
ProudAmerican said:
difference is Clinton had multiple attacks. you whould have thought At SOME POINT he may have done something.
Aren't we still under multiple attacks today?
 
jfuh said:
Aren't we still under multiple attacks today?


this would be where you want to claim a guerilla war is the same thing as terrorist attacks on specific American targets.

the answer is NO....as long as you are comparing apples to apples.

we are definate NOT under multiple attacks.

unless I missed the last suicide bomb on a warship, or plane flown into a building, or bomp placed in a business basement.

soldiers being attacked IN A WAR is hardly the same as AMerican civilians being attacked at will in country, or at specific targets.

as a matter of fact, more of those types of attacks have been thwarted than during Clintons term. Unless he just chose not to tell us when he stopped one because he didnt want the publicity....LMAO.

ALSO......

Bush decided to do something after the first one. Clinton NEVER DID.
 
ProudAmerican said:
Bush decided to do something after the first one. Clinton NEVER DID.

What was that about comparing apples to apples? Are you equating the other attacks with 9/11? I am sure the families of those who lost their life that day are proud of how you are politicizing their tragedy. You may be the Dems best campaigner.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
What was that about comparing apples to apples? Are you equating the other attacks with 9/11? I am sure the families of those who lost their life that day are proud of how you are politicizing their tragedy. You may be the Dems best campaigner.


so you dont think the USS COle, WTC I, Kobar Towers and WTC II are the same type of attacks?

sure the magnatude is different.......the the type of attacks are exactly the same.

its pretty clear im apples to apples here.

ok, I will conced the Cole and take it out since that was an attack against a Military vessel and not aimed at civilians.

the others are fair game.

and I will concede I am politicizing those deaths if the left concedes to all the Soldiers faimilies that have died in combat that they are politicizing theirs.
 
Partisan slave, not even going to bother re-debunking you over and over.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…