Billboards in Florida Link Democrats to Burning World Trade Center - Page 3

shuamort · 07-18-08, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

You are a liar and you are trying your best to pick a fight. I'm not going to let that happen. Now move along and harass someone else. I have no interest in anything you have to say. Stop hijacking the thread and making it about me and so as not to ruin the thread for everyone else going forward. Thanks.

Reported. I've moved on.

Hatuey · 07-18-08, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

What Meehan has done comes close to what Ann Coulter busted the Jersey Girls for.

Except the Jersey Girls had husbands who died in 9/11 and wanted answers. This man is a disgrace and part of the 'if you disagree with us you're a terrorist!' culture.

bhkad · 07-18-08, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Except the Jersey Girls had husbands who died in 9/11 and wanted answers. This man is a disgrace and part of the 'if you disagree with us you're a terrorist!' culture.

You have instantly given the average, well informed reader the means by which he/she can invalidate your opinion of Meehan.

Your assessment of Ann Coulter's criticism of the Jersey Girls is incorrect.

The Jersey Girls used their tragically earned celebrity to become social divas. Most importantly, Ann slammed them for crossing the line in trying to use their celebrity to gain an advantage when campaigning for partisan political causes.

If you couldn't figure it out on your own and you still didn't get it after all the explaining I did on these pages, then how can anyone take your criticism of Meehan seriously?

bhkad · 07-18-08, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P/N

I take it you didn't see the guy interviewed then. He is nothing short of a buffoon. He couldn't even make his point in a complete sentence. He fits the profile of what a "dumb southern republican" would look like to a 't'.

Do you practice "elitism" much?

There is a place for intelligence and, generally speaking, intellect is a highly desirable trait in a public servant.

But as many smart elected officials as there are out there in Washington, how many of them weren't smart enough to stop the repeated acts of war against us throughout the 1990's which led to the attacks of 9/11?

Intelligence isn't the end-all, be-all standard of measurement for an elected representative.

I'd take someone like Meehan, who won't stand for this nation being attacked or crapped on instead of a brainiac who can figure out a dozen reasons why we should allow these attacks to go unanswered.

In the Civil War Pres. Lincoln went through a series of Generals, each one either brilliant or beloved by their men or spit n' polish presentable before he found one who would just engage the enemy. And General U. S. Grant won the war for the North.

bhkad · 07-18-08, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

I don't see anything wrong with the ad. Democrats did nothing to make us safe and prevent the attacks on 9-11 so why not link them to the bombing? Plus, Clinton had Bin Laden dead to rights and did nothing about it. Seems like a pretty strong tie to me.

Osama Bin Laden: Missed Opportunities

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away

bhkad · 07-18-08, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

Smells like BS to me:
When exactly was Clinton handed Bin Laden? Even the 9/11 Commission report refuted that and I highly doubt you're privy to a higher source.

Quote:

...it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the **** do they think attacked the Cole, ****in’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”

That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.

The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at...

Byron York on Bill Clinton & Terrorism on National Review Online

shuamort · 07-18-08, 11:06 PM

and that showed that Clinton was offered bin laden where?

bhkad · 07-18-08, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

and that showed that Clinton was offered bin laden where?

Quote:

In one year under his watch, from May 1998 to May 1999, Scheuer reckons the US had up to a dozen serious chances to kill or capture Bin Laden. Only one was taken - a missile attack on an Afghan training camp in August 1998 - but either the al-Qaida leader was not there, or he had left before the missiles landed.

Months earlier, however, Scheuer believes there was a far better opportunity to grab Bin Laden. The CIA had made a deal with a group of Afghan tribesmen to raid Bin Laden's headquarters near Kandahar and then take him to a desert landing strip, where a US plane would take him either to America or another country for trial. The plan, rehearsed several times over many months, was in Scheuer's view "almost a perfect operation in the sense that there was no US hand visible". But on May 29 1998, according to the narrative in the September 11 Commission's report, Scheuer was informed that the operation had been cancelled because of the risk of civilian casualties.

The pattern was repeated on December 20 the same year, when Scheuer's agents were virtually certain that Bin Laden would be staying the night at a guest house in the Kandahar governor's compound. President Clinton's principal national security advisers once more decided that the danger of collateral damage was too high. Afterwards Scheuer wrote to the top CIA agent in the region, Gary Schroen, saying that he had been unable to sleep after this decision. "I'm sure we'll regret not acting last night," he predicted. Yet another opportunity, in Afghanistan, was missed in 1999.

We could have stopped him | Special reports | guardian.co.uk

Now, do you want me to prove something else that is common knowledge to the rest of the world?

The Earth is round, maybe?

Maybe I should charge you tuition?

winston53660 · 07-18-08, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Now, do you want me to prove something else that is common knowledge to the rest of the world?

The Earth is round, maybe?

Maybe I should charge you tuition?

Quote:

Scheuer reckons

Reckoning ain't a fact.

Kernel Sanders · 07-19-08, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

I don't see anything wrong with the ad. Democrats did nothing to make us safe and prevent the attacks on 9-11 so why not link them to the bombing? Plus, Clinton had Bin Laden dead to rights and did nothing about it. Seems like a pretty strong tie to me.

Osama Bin Laden: Missed Opportunities

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away

Good point. Thank god we elected a Republican who committed the full force of the United States to hunting Bin Laden down and capturing him. Wait...