To: LibWhacker
Clinton had eight years and did squat
2 posted on
08/07/2002 6:33:33 AM PDT by
2banana
To: LibWhacker
TIME Magazine is still in print? Go on!! Surely, you jest.
To: LibWhacker
First off, the idea that the Clinton administration was ready to go to war against Afghanistan is laughable. Beyond a limited number of arrests and a suspiciously timed attack on an aspirin factory in Sudan and a terrorist camp in Afghanistan, Clinton did very little to combat terrorism in his eight years in office. The Clinton administration also crippled our human intelligence with new rules that didn't allow the CIA to hire "shady" characters and refused an offer in 1996 by Sudan to hand a gift wrapped Osama Bin Laden over to the United States. This is despite the fact that the Clinton administration was provoked several times by al-Queda before the USS Cole attack. There was the 1st WTC Bombing (1993), Somalia (1993), The Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1997), & the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (1998). Don't forget Oklahoma City and TWA 800. In these instances, the US Gov actually covered up for the terrorists.
To: LibWhacker
Here's a thought to brighten your day (not):
Klinton is about as low as it gets, and has compromised our country for political gain in more way than we'll probably ever know. What if he knew that OBL was going to hit us hard and left the door open for him to do so.
As a political timebomb for GWB.
Sinkmaster knew OBL was planning something large, this much is true. Perhaps he didn't care what it was, as long as it happened on GWB's watch. Then it would be a simple matter to claim faux-righteously that "We tried to warn Dubya, but he wouldn't do anything. It's his fault!"
If you think about this for a minute, you may need almost no tinfoil at all.
To: LibWhacker
The deleted portions of the article from the original draft:
"And the world would be perfect, the sun would shine every day, the birds would be chirping and everyone would be living in brotherhood and harmony if only Bill Clinton were still in office.
"And then I woke up."
To: LibWhacker
Bubba wasn't going to declare war on anyone...and the terrorists knew it.
More to the point, from his first year as "president" to his last moment in office ---from ignoring the first attack on the WTC and running away from Somalia to wringing his hands over the attack on the USS Cole---this POS gave the terrorists the green light to attack us .
Words cannot describe the shameful behavior of this man both during his presidency and now.
To: LibWhacker
(Once Upon a)Time. Nothing but fairytales and swashbuckling adventures of pathetic heroes and tired old whore damsels. This is one kingdom whose end is near. And it won't be happily ever after.
To: LibWhacker
I think we need to aggressively fight political smears like this, but not by joining in Clintonian wag-the-dog battle plans. It is pretty clear from this article that (1) Clinton had a plan to fight terrorism and didn't and (2) Bush continued with Clintonian half-measures when he came into office.
Why? Obsession with "state-sponsored" terrorism. That's a problem to be sure, but as it turns out (with 20/20 hindsight), not our biggest problem.
Why aren't we dealing with the potential threat from Islamic radicals in this country who could easily pull off another 9/11? Is it too difficult? Too politically incorrect?
The best way to fight the political war described in this article is to fight the real war the way it should be and stop fighting it the way Clinton did.
15 posted on
08/07/2002 6:58:40 AM PDT by
palmer
To: LibWhacker
TIME MAG IS FISH WRAP
Drop every copy in the waiting room trashcan.
TIME-CNN are anti-American, just like Mr. (Jane Hanoi Fonda), the despicable Ted "Charles Foster" Turner.
16 posted on
08/07/2002 7:01:14 AM PDT by
Stallone
To: LibWhacker
Clinton would never declare war in the Middle East because it might have disrupted the economy. His vicious attacks on President Bush's handling of the economy is why he was elected, and the fortuitously good market/economic performance during his tenure is the only real thing he can point to as a success during his presidency (of course, subsequent events call some of that into question).
If Clinton had invaded a Middle Eastern country, the oil taps might have been turned off and the economy sent into recession. Then, he would have had nothing to point to except extramarital escapades. In other words, he would have had to show some guts and perhaps alienate some people who voted for him, and he could never bring himself to do that.
President Bush has no such self-imposed restrictions and will make the tough decisions. That is why he is a better man for the Presidency.
To: LibWhacker
TIME has ALWAYS been known as the weekly Democrat. This is nothing new.
25 posted on
08/07/2002 7:23:40 AM PDT by
1Old Pro
To: LibWhacker
Time doesn't tell you that Bush and Runny had to DE- CLINTONIZE the military before they could consider going to WAR
29 posted on
08/07/2002 7:34:24 AM PDT by
uncbob
To: LibWhacker
To think that a real journalist would believe this drivel is beyond belief??? So what, if someone in the WH had some contingency plan on how to attack Al Quaeda in some back office. BJ was always a hands-on micro manager and if he was to attack Aftrashacan he would do it from bombers at 100,000 ft and not with troops. The military hated him nearly as much as he hated the military and would never let them manage their own war the way GW did.
Time should be banned from ever reporting another story with this one sided propaganda piece for the DNC. Amazing how all the talking heads had all their DNC talking points before this was printed?? Must be tough being a braindead liberal post 911. That 70% approval rating is really driving them over the edge. Looks like DNCTIMEWARNER is going the way of Solon.
Pray for GW and the Truth
32 posted on
08/07/2002 7:39:15 AM PDT by
bray
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson