Jump to content

Clinton and Terrorism


Guest Loki
 Share

Recommended Posts

All we really need to know about Clinton and terrorism can be revealed in his last minute pardons.

In addition to the lack of response in the 90's, in his last days of office Clinton pardoned members of the FALN. They only killed Americans, right???

I have argued that the blame for terrorism lies exclusively with the terrorists. In my mind, you cannot justify the TARGETING of civilians (specifically women and children); this is what they do.

But, please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that Clinton acted forcefully and swiftly, that dog won't hunt.

P.S. Before the "blame America first" crowd gets started with bashing the military; civilians were killed in Iraq, but they were not targeted as a strategic objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
All we really need to know about Clinton and terrorism can be revealed in his last minute pardons.

In addition to the lack of response in the 90's, in his last days of office Clinton pardoned members of the FALN.  They only killed Americans, right???

I have argued that the blame for terrorism lies exclusively with the terrorists.  In my mind, you cannot justify the TARGETING of civilians (specifically women and children); this is what they do.

But, please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that Clinton acted forcefully and swiftly, that dog won't hunt.

P.S.  Before the "blame America first" crowd gets started with bashing the military; civilians were killed in Iraq, but they were not targeted as a strategic objective.

That's not fair, Loki !! You're using facts and intelligence. You know the Kool-aid crowd can't understand those concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
All we really need to know about Clinton and terrorism can be revealed in his last minute pardons.

In addition to the lack of response in the 90's, in his last days of office Clinton pardoned members of the FALN.  They only killed Americans, right???

I have argued that the blame for terrorism lies exclusively with the terrorists.  In my mind, you cannot justify the TARGETING of civilians (specifically women and children); this is what they do.

But, please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that Clinton acted forcefully and swiftly, that dog won't hunt.

P.S.  Before the "blame America first" crowd gets started with bashing the military; civilians were killed in Iraq, but they were not targeted as a strategic objective.

I would have to agree with most of what you said except the the part about acting forcefully and swiftly. The one disadvantage we have is that in most cases we don't really know in the beginning who is responsible when an attack occurs. It's usually either an admission by the attacker or intelligence that determines the responsibility. And when we do find out and locate the ones who did it we should respond in kind regardless of country of origin. However, in Clinton's defense he did act several times. Now the amount of response can be questioned and his motives can be questioned but you would have to admit that it's not always easy and the information isn't always accurate.

I can only speak for myself, but I have never and will never blame america first. When attacked we should respond and respond with as much force necessary to send the message to the ones who attack us. This is what's so frustrating about Iraq. If we had gone after Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban with the same amount of forces we have in Iraq, then we might have gotten him and we would have had the world on our side. Instead our Leaders took us to a place we didn't need to go and thats the problem. When the decision to go to war is made it isn't made by you or me. Its made by our President. Now all people can do is criticise each other when we disagree. Instead, I hope this thread can become one that people can use to have a rational discussion. The Iraq today is far different than when we first went in. And you're right when confronting an enemy civilians are always going to be killed. But if you look at the situation today, in Iraq you have the Shiites and Sunnis killing each other with our troops stuck in the middle. The only constant is that both of them view us as the enemy. Throw in the terrorists and you have a coctail of disaster. Now the question is how do we get out and still keep some respect around the world. If you look at the plan being discussed by Senator Biden, one way might be to divide up the country into three autonimous regions with one Central Government. The vast revenues that Iraq can produce would have to be adjusted and shared as equally as they can. By placing an artificial time frame for withdrawl might serve two purposes. 1. It will force the Iraqis to stop the fighting and come up with their own plans. Or 2. We pull our troops out and let them settle it for themselves. While this may not be the best option as long as they believe we are staying then there is no incentive for them to get serious. I hope we can continue to discuss this rationally and I look froward to your response. You seem to be the only person on these threads who can disagree and not act like a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we really need to know about Clinton and terrorism can be revealed in his last minute pardons.

In addition to the lack of response in the 90's, in his last days of office Clinton pardoned members of the FALN.  They only killed Americans, right???

I have argued that the blame for terrorism lies exclusively with the terrorists.  In my mind, you cannot justify the TARGETING of civilians (specifically women and children); this is what they do.

But, please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that Clinton acted forcefully and swiftly, that dog won't hunt.

P.S.  Before the "blame America first" crowd gets started with bashing the military; civilians were killed in Iraq, but they were not targeted as a strategic objective.

Yeah, let's all bash Clinton and kiss Bush's ass. Of course you might have trouble explaining why the Bush administration refuses to aid in the prosecution of former CIA operative Posada who wa ONLY involved with blowing up a CIVILIAN airplane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we really need to know about Clinton and terrorism can be revealed in his last minute pardons.

In addition to the lack of response in the 90's, in his last days of office Clinton pardoned members of the FALN.  They only killed Americans, right???

Here's what I found:

Why don't you tell the WHOLE story of the FALN pardon? Here's what I found: None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico.

Why don't you compare that with the fact that Bush's actions have allowed a former member of the terror party responsible for bombing a US Embassy annex in Beirut to become PM of Iraq? Seems like that guy's not only been given a de facto pardon but ushered into a position that will allow him to S**K up US $$$ for years to come. Nice work cowboy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we really need to know about Clinton and terrorism can be revealed in his last minute pardons.

And all we really need to know about Bush and terrorism can be revealed by the fact that his reponse to the 9/11 attacks is to invade a country with NO TIES to 9/11, a country whose ddeposed leader he holds a personal grudge against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all we really need to know about Bush and terrorism can be revealed by the fact that his reponse to the 9/11 attacks is to invade a country with NO TIES to 9/11, a country whose ddeposed leader he holds a personal grudge against.

There was NEVER a claim connecting 9/11 to Iraq.

There WAS, however, a claim that Iraq had connections with terrorism. I've been chided about my abilities with regards to reading comprehension, just thought I'd clarify the misnomer. Do you doubt Iraq had terrorist ties??? Go ahead, you can admit it, everyone reading already knows the answer.

I'm about to be called a . . . . . . OH NO . . . . . . . wanker. Oh well, can't make everyone happy. Glad I don't try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
And all we really need to know about Bush and terrorism can be revealed by the fact that his reponse to the 9/11 attacks is to invade a country with NO TIES to 9/11, a country whose ddeposed leader he holds a personal grudge against.

Sorry for the negatives Loki, but perhaps you and I can continue a positive thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was NEVER a claim connecting 9/11 to Iraq. 

There have certainly been many attempts to insinuate a connection including the following from the 2003 State of the Union address:"Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. "

There were also CLAIMS of WMDs in Iraq--------Unfounded!

There were also CLAIMS of Saddam seeking uranium in Niger----Unfounded!

There were also CLAIMS of a Saddam/al Qaeda connection-----Unfounded!

Spin all you want, there is just too much evidence to ignore the fact that this administration has done its best to distort the facts and establish a connection between Saddam and 9/11 in the public conciousness even though none exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we really need to know about Clinton and terrorism can be revealed in his last minute pardons.

In addition to the lack of response in the 90's, in his last days of office Clinton pardoned members of the FALN.  They only killed Americans, right???

They only killed Americans? NONE of the FALN members pardoned by Clinton was convicted of harming another person so what's your point?

Just typical neo-Nazi-com blather and innuendo with NO FACTUAL BASIS.

Just like the cowboy's many attempts to imply a Saddam-9/11 connection to justify his pursuit of a personal vendetta.

Why don't you explain the cowboy's refusal to aid in bringing Posada to justice, a man implicated in the bombing of a civilian airliner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was NEVER a claim connecting 9/11 to Iraq. 

There WAS, however, a claim that Iraq had connections with terrorism.  I've been chided about my abilities with regards to reading comprehension, just thought I'd clarify the misnomer.  Do you doubt Iraq had terrorist ties???  Go ahead, you can admit it, everyone reading already knows the answer.

Connections to terror? What about Syria? Yemen? Saudi Arabia? And any number of other countries? The point is that Iraq presented NO IMMINENT threat to the US yet Bush & Company repeatedly attempted to insinuate a connection between Iraq and 9/11. WHY?

There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that Iraq was on the Bush agenda long before 9/11, the attacks just provided a handy excuse for his misadventure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was NEVER a claim connecting 9/11 to Iraq. 

There's an awful lot of evidence that Cheney did his best to imply Iraqi connections to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. NONE of which have ever been substantiated. If anything the available evudence suggests that Saddam viewed al Qaeda as a threat to his position.

Your statement "there was NEVER a claim" is akin to Clinton's claim of "I did not have sexual relations"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Sorry for the negatives Loki, but perhaps you and I can continue a positive thread.

Wow ! Listen to our "proud" american. Wouldn't you rather have a "positive thread" with the Taliban or Al Quida. You could all talk about how much you hate Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow !  Listen to our "proud" american. Wouldn't you rather have a "positive thread" with the Taliban or Al Quida. You could all talk about how much you hate Bush.

I POSITIVELY think that Bush is an arrogant, incompetent, misguided president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
Wow !  Listen to our "proud" american. Wouldn't you rather have a "positive thread" with the Taliban or Al Quida. You could all talk about how much you hate Bush.

No you would rather defend an indefensable position and keep on dreaming that maybe someday you might actually be right. My comment to Loki was an attempt to open up a discussion on ways of having a rational discussion about a situation that has no other ending but a tragic one if we continue on this course. Fortunately, there are now people within the administration who realize that it's time for a new strategy. You and your ilk are simply to stupid to understand that.

You call yourself a patriot. Some Patriot. You ought to change your name to better suit your intelligence. Nitwit or simpleminded might actually be a better name for you. As for Loki, while he may not agreee with me at-least he can and does respond with facts and doesn't have to resortto name calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
There was NEVER a claim connecting 9/11 to Iraq. 

There WAS, however, a claim that Iraq had connections with terrorism.  I've been chided about my abilities with regards to reading comprehension, just thought I'd clarify the misnomer.  Do you doubt Iraq had terrorist ties???  Go ahead, you can admit it, everyone reading already knows the answer.

I'm about to be called a . . . . . . OH NO . . . . . . . wanker.  Oh well, can't make everyone happy.  Glad I don't try.

No you're not a wanker. We know that Sadaam had no ties to Bin Laden, because Bin Laden hated Sadaam more than he hated us. And Iraq had no ties to Iran under Sadaam because they hated each other, but I don't know about Syria or Yeman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
No you would rather defend an indefensable position and keep on dreaming that maybe someday you might actually be right. My comment to Loki was an attempt to open up a discussion on ways of having a rational discussion about a situation that has no other ending but a tragic one if we continue on this course. Fortunately, there are now people within the administration who realize that it's time for a new strategy. You and your ilk are simply to stupid to understand that.

You call yourself a patriot. Some Patriot. You ought to change your name to better suit your intelligence. Nitwit or simpleminded might actually be a better name for you. As for Loki, while he may not agreee with me at-least he can and does respond with facts and doesn't have to resortto name calling.

LOL !! You crack me up !! You don't like name calling yet you use terms like nitwit and simpleminded. You're displaying typical defeatocrat behavior; lie and deny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...