Replies

Its very interesting this article came out at a time when Clinton claims he would take up arms to defend Israel if he had to. Maybe coincidence, maybe not.

As for the article, the big deal is made out to be that the Bush administration was given a plan to deal with Al Qaeda, which I think is highly questionable. What is glossed over is the excerpt from the article that states the Clinton administration was supposedly ready to move against Al Qaeda, but did not want to seem like they were aiding algore in his quest for the White House. If anybody actually believes this bunch would not have used a conflict to prop up the deadwood, they are deluding themselves. However, lets assume this is all completely true. What this means then is that Clinton was unwilling to move against a group that was and is a clear threat to our country for politics sake. Essentially, if you believe the story, Clinton displayed the cowardice that was a centerpiece of his eight year soiling of the White House. Indeed, if they in fact new the attack on the Cole was an Al Qaeda attack, I think the Clinton could have presented the evidence to the American people and Congress and moved on with this imaginary plan. The Republican leadership likely would not have stood in his way and the press would have spun the issue in his favor.

I think this plan never really existed, but if it did, then Clinton just confirmed once again what a gutless individual he really is.

Total fraud, from the mimeograph machine in Hillary's basement.

Its very interesting this article came out at a time when Clinton claims he would take up arms to defend Israel if he had to. Maybe coincidence, maybe not.

As somebody posted on another thread HIS OWN COUNTRY has been attacked and we are at war
Haven't seen him at the recruiting office