• 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!

White House Promises to Bomb Ramadi Until City Retaken From ISIS

Yes, the ideology was around before the US was ever a concept. But nothing has empowered the ideology or the extremists intent on advancing it like the biggest USFP blunder in a century has.
You clearly know nothing about the Muslim Brotherhood, its history, its record, its goals or its progress. Instead you have your beliefs and try to substitute them for facts, a sorry symbol of leftists everywhere..
 
So then what is your solution? People like you always blame your govt. for doing what was going on without our involvement. Radical Islam flew planes into the Twin Towers killing thousands of Americans. how many more have to die before people like you wake up? How long before Saddam Hussein got that nuclear weapon and then what? it was inevitable and with people you a done deal.

What is inevitable is that the Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest blunder in a century. The fact that it made us less safe and empowered the very people that we wanted to weaken will not be lost to history. Nether will the fact that the worst terror attack in most of our lives happened on GW Bush's and the Republicans watch. I'm surprised you want to keep being that up.
 
Last edited:
What is inevitable is that the Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest blunder in a century. The fact that it made us less safe and empowered the very people that we wanted to weaken will not be lost to history.
Yes, the Obama retreat from Iraq when it was a "stable, self reliant and sovereign" democracy not only ranks among the worst blunders in American history but in world history as well. Millions have lives have been lost because of this JayVee buffoon, and it's likely millions more will be lost before some stability returns. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...e-re-leaving-behind-sovereign-stable-and-self
 
What is inevitable is that the Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest blunder in a century. The fact that it made us less safe and empowered the very people that we wanted to weaken will not be lost to history. Nether will the fact that the worst terror attack in most of our lives happened on GW Bush's and the Republicans watch. I'm surprised you want to keep being that up.

That certainly is your opinion but as we have seen many times here you don't have a lot of credibility. There isn't a reasonable person in the world who believes we would be better off today with saddam Hussein in power but then again it is all about reacting never being proactive with you. Like so many other liberals here I am glad you aren't involved in our national security. If Bush was wrong so was world intelligence, so were most of the Democrat Party.
 
What is inevitable is that the Iraq war will go down in history as the biggest blunder in a century. The fact that it made us less safe and empowered the very people that we wanted to weaken will not be lost to history. Nether will the fact that the worst terror attack in most of our lives happened on GW Bush's and the Republicans watch. I'm surprised you want to keep being that up.

I would suggest the blitzkrieg terror attacks that resulted in ISIS annexing large portions of Iraq and Syria under Obama's watch is a bit more historically significant.
 
I would suggest the blitzkrieg terror attacks that resulted in ISIS annexing large portions of Iraq and Syria under Obama's watch is a bit more historically significant.

Its all the same thing. History will put it all in the same chapter. Once we put it in motion it has a life of its own.
 
That certainly is your opinion but as we have seen many times here you don't have a lot of credibility. There isn't a reasonable person in the world who believes we would be better off today with saddam Hussein in power but then again it is all about reacting never being proactive with you. Like so many other liberals here I am glad you aren't involved in our national security. If Bush was wrong so was world intelligence, so were most of the Democrat Party.

You have missed the boat apparently. Except for Jeb, ALL of the current GOP candidates have said that Iraq was a mistake. You are being left behind.
 
You have missed the boat apparently. Except for Jeb, ALL of the current GOP candidates have said that Iraq was a mistake. You are being left behind.

So now you are a Republican or could it be that they learned that politicians win elections not principles? Hindsight is always 20-20 and it is quite amazing how many Democrats were in the boat authorizing the war based upon intelligence they got from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I am not left behind and stand by the decision. Unlike you leaders do what is right even when unpopular. Not having Saddam Hussein in power was the right thing to do. History isn't a friend of yours nor is basic civics
 
Its all the same thing. History will put it all in the same chapter. Once we put it in motion it has a life of its own.

Considering the planning for 9/11 began under the Clinton Administration, I'm not sure the chapter will be written to your satisfaction.
 
Considering the planning for 9/11 began under the Clinton Administration, I'm not sure the chapter will be written to your satisfaction.

The problem is when the WARNINGS for 911 were issued....and ignored.
 
There were lots of problems, hence the reason your chapter can't go as you hope.

I'm not worried. There is practically no one left who thinks the Iraq war was not a mistake. Or that Republicans have not lost their "edge" on defense because of 9/11 happening on their watch.
 
The problem is when the WARNINGS for 911 were issued....and ignored.

You mean like this one??

PDB 12/4/1998, Subject: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks The 9/11 Commission Report | 7/22/04 | CIA

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.

SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
1. Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon

You really have a very short selective memory
 
I'm not worried. There is practically no one left who thinks the Iraq war was not a mistake.

You are going to be spending decades defending Obama and the mistakes he has made in foreign and domestic policies. He is a Democrat though with such low expectations and thus very low results.
 
You mean like this one??

PDB 12/4/1998, Subject: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks The 9/11 Commission Report | 7/22/04 | CIA

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.



You really have a very short selective memory

Except that Clinton knew that Bin Laden was a danger, unlike his successor who was obsessed with Saddam. The results speak for themselves.
 
I'm not worried. There is practically no one left who thinks the Iraq war was not a mistake. Or that Republicans have not lost their "edge" on defense because of 9/11 happening on their watch.

The first attack on the WTC happened on Clintons watch. Having failed to achieve their objective, they continued with further planning, unchecked by the Clinton Administration, until they were able to follow through on 9-11. You can't re-write that history. Your chapter will only be accurate to those who are told to accept it.
 
The first attack on the WTC happened on Clintons watch. Having failed to achieve their objective, they continued with further planning, unchecked by the Clinton Administration, until they were able to follow through on 9-11. You can't re-write that history. Your chapter will only be accurate to those who are told to accept it.

Clinton did attempt to kill Bin Laden, Bush told his advisors that he did not want to hear his name mentioned. That is the difference between the 2.
 
Except that Clinton knew that Bin Laden was a danger, unlike his successor who was obsessed with Saddam. The results speak for themselves.

Really? Is that why he didn't take him prisoner when he had a chance? The results do speak for themselves but since when to actual results matter to you?
 
Clinton did attempt to kill Bin Laden, Bush told his advisors that he did not want to hear his name mentioned. That is the difference between the 2.

LOL, Clinton shot a multi million dollar missile into a tent and hit a camel in the ass. That is your idea of taking action? What exactly should Bush have done in 8 months that Clinton didn't do in over 2 years? Stop reading leftwing blogs, they are making you look and sound foolish
 
Clinton did attempt to kill Bin Laden, Bush told his advisors that he did not want to hear his name mentioned. That is the difference between the 2.

I repeat:

The first attack on the WTC happened on Clintons watch. Having failed to achieve their objective, they continued with further planning, unchecked by the Clinton Administration, until they were able to follow through on 9-11.

Is there anything about the above that is not accurate?

Further, to your claim about Clinton's "attempt" to kill Bin Laden.

Bill Clinton: 'I could have killed' Osama bin Laden in 1998 - LA Times

“I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden ... He’s a very smart guy. I spent a lot of time thinking about him. And I nearly got him once,” Clinton said in the audio recording from the meeting, according to a Sky News Australia report this week.

“I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him.”

“And so I didn’t do it,” the former commander in chief says.

Hours after Clinton spoke of his role in the 1998 decision to not attempt to kill Bin Laden, the 2001 terror attack was underway in the United States.​

From Clinton's own mouth, there was no attempt.

The Chapter you want to see written is proving to be nothing but a work of fiction.
 
You mean like this one??

PDB 12/4/1998, Subject: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks The 9/11 Commission Report | 7/22/04 | CIA

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.

You really have a very short selective memory.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks
1. Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon
Leftists apparently, and sincerely, believe that the threats against the US began with George Bush and that he ignored them, thereby resulting in 9/11. This sort of widespread ignorance is very dangerous for the country and its security. It's just as well they come here to the debate boards were they'll finally be exposed to some historical truths.
 
Clinton did attempt to kill Bin Laden, Bush told his advisors that he did not want to hear his name mentioned. That is the difference between the 2.
Do you have a link to Bush saying he didn't want OBL's name mentioned?
 
Leftists apparently, and sincerely, believe that the threats against the US began with George Bush and that he ignored them, thereby resulting in 9/11. This sort of widespread ignorance is very dangerous for the country and its security. It's just as well they come here to the debate boards were they'll finally be exposed to some historical truths.

Yes and what is also rather disturbing is that when proven wrong over and over again they continue to spout the same old lies and distortions. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty
 
Do you have a link to Bush saying he didn't want OBL's name mentioned?

Of course not but we do remember the "wanted Dead or Alive" comments and how evil that was for Bush to say. Wonder who he was talking about.
 
Yes and what is also rather disturbing is that when proven wrong over and over again they continue to spout the same old lies and distortions. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty
This appeared on another link but is incredible in its candor and the effects of brainwashing, propaganda and the inability to change ones mind once that conditioning has had its effects. This is leftism revealed and why, to the frustration of many, they stick to the script long after the facts belie their beliefs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk
 
Back
Top Bottom