Originally posted by andymoon How many times does it have to be stated that there is no credible evidence that suggests that Iraq EVER had anything to do with al-Quaeda or 9/11. I supported the war on TERROR, specifically the action in Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq has somewhere between little and nothing to do with the war on terror, except perhaps in the minds of the GOP and their sheep. <b>B-A-A-A !! What do you expect me to say? I think the toppling of Saddam is a legitimate part of a larger strategy meant to stabilize the middle east beyond the task of reducing terroristic threats to the US.</b> If I had been posting on this board after Clinton lied to my face about Lewinsky, you would have heard at least as bad about him, but even given that lie, Bush has been the worst president I have ever known, period. I have no problem calling the Dems on their bull$hit, but you seem to support the RNC line, no matter how ridiculous it is. <b>Maybe I agree with it first. You characterize me as some infantryman filling in the gaps. Maybe I genuinely agree with some of this stuff.</b> I am independant, it is just that the Democrats are making FAR more sense these days than the GOP. Heck, if there were even a HINT of fiscal conservativism in the GOP, I might feel differently. I would rather have a tax and spend Democrat right now than the borrow and spend Republican we have in office. <b>I am a registered Republican but I tend to agree with you about Republican fisal policy. I can leave behind the tax-and-spend Democrat, though.</b>
Okay, below I've cut and pasted the bulk of the email about Bush vs. Clinton. Please underline, highlight, whatever it takes to differentiate which parts are false-- which is the claim being made here. We have established that the 1993 WTC bombings and trials were pretty well taken care of by Clinton: "You know, it is easy to forget the 'promises' that Bill and Hillary made while in office. It strikes home when it is listed like this: After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT! After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT! After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT! After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT! After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. BUSH COVERED IT! Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today. BUSH TOLD THOSE FIREMAN -- THEY WOULD HEAR US TOO! And, now that Bush is taking action to bring these people to justice, we have Democrats charging him with being a war monger."
My earlier post where I interjected my own refutation doesn't cover that? If not I'll try and do it again. But I don't know how I'll make it different than when I did it before. The biggest falsehood is the fact that Clinton did get and arrest those who committed the '93 WTC bombing. The rest of the stuff carried out by Al Qaeda hasn't been covered by Bush. Al Qaeda is still there, and so is OBL. Yes you can say that Bush is attempting to cover it, but that doesn't the mission is accomplished. There is also evidence showing that Clinton was also in the process of covering it.
Hey, KingCheetah, I'm not sure I'm getting the meaning of your animal references? Have you got one of Trigger? -- Giddyup
LOL, I knew you'd still be at it a few hours later. I would think that the point by point refutation of it, footnoted to various sources, that has been linked to, copied, pasted, and patiently explained to you by various posters would be enough. But then I guess not. Why don't you try a different tack and explain how the WTC & Embassy bombers, etc. were NOT apprehended under the Clinton administration and how instead "Bush covered it"? Be careful not to swallow the syringe in the coke can when you're doing it.....
As I said in another place, the important thing here is that Bush is being criticized roundly by the Democrats for attempting to fulfill (covering) what were essentially Democratic promises.
I hear what you are saying and why I mentioned 'covering' in the piece. That certainly is an argument to be made against Democrats who are upset with Bush's actions against Al Qaeda. But that's not what the initial e-mail posted was about. The initial e-mail says that Bush has already covered all those things. That's false. Furthermore, despite warnings from Clinton's team, Bush didn't even attempt to start covering those pledges until after 9/11.
Originally posted by SamFisher LOL, I knew you'd still be at it a few hours later. I would think that the point by point refutation of it, footnoted to various sources, that has been linked to, copied, pasted, and patiently explained to you by various posters would be enough. <b>You are hallucinatory. No such thing exists. There's one lousy thing from Snopes.</b> But then I guess not. Why don't you try a different tack and explain how the WTC & Embassy bombers, etc. were NOT apprehended under the Clinton administration and how instead "Bush covered it"? <b>That was already cited as a mistake of the piece. It hardly makes the entire thing "false"-- as much as you might like it to.</b> Be careful not to swallow the syringe in the coke can when you're doing it..... <b>I'm not worried. Don't worry your pretty little head! </b>
Not that anyone else cares but: 1. invading Iraq under false pretenses does not constitute "covering it" so i believe that criticism is justified. 2. I don't think that ANYONE faults Bush for looking for OBL in Afghanistan so that can't fall under criticism. Keep digging, you're almost to China.
I would guess that the original author/sender of this e-mail doesn't have a lot of interest in telling the truth anyway. Here's the scam, I think: an e-mail can be mass-produced and delivered to many, many people with very little or no cost. Then it can easily be sent by each of those people to more people. Then: No one holds e-mail up to the same rigorous standards as, say, television news or national news magazines are held (or, at least, the standards to which they're believed to be held). Goal: Send this e-mail and hit as many stupid people as possible - you know, people who vote but don't actually take the time to critically examine the candidates and the issues. Voila - free votes. I wonder if that General actually exists? I could make a "General Thadeus Jabberjaw U.S.A.F. ret.," and send an e-mail to a bunch of cronies stating that John Kerry once saved the world from nuclear disaster back in the days when Bush was attempting to run the Texas Rangers. The e-mail from General Jabberjaw would then state that John Kerry has led the country in these ways; (include list of Kerry's stuff). And, while Kerry was achieving those things, Bush was doing cocaine. It doesn't matter if it's true - if 10,000 people read it, at least 100 of those people won't bother reading anything else and will vote for Kerry. Ah, Democracy.
You know, you can admit that you were wrong without the world ending. It happens to everybody; even my highly educated, well paid, intelligent ass screws stuff up all the time. However, when it happens I don't deny that it happened, instead I acknowledge it and try to fix it. Why can't you just admit it? You posted a silly urban legend/junk email and looked a little silly. OH well, live and learn, don't believe everything that you read. Instead you feel the need to reply to every post and look dumber and dumber and dumber with each one, not really clinging to any point or points, but just generally being contrarian because you perceive that it makes you look better; I don't know if you're trying to impress us or yourself, but it's not working if its the former, and its a strange pathology if its the latter.
Way to dodge. Which one of these was Saddam responsible for? Better yet, since we are discussing promises that Billary made that Bush is "covering" which one of these did Clinton say he would oust Saddam for. Remember, we are focusing on an email YOU posted, so further conjecture about what a bad man he was does not constitute proof. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and punished. After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
You're not easy to please (not that I'm really trying)! You criticize posters if they don't answer criticisms. And you criticize posters if they attempt to answer criticisms. Persnickity you are. I'm not hung up on whether or not this is fiction or non-fiction. I think it makes a valid point. I"ve clung to the original point I made which is that Bush is roundly and routinely criticized for finishing the job that began during Clinton's presidency. I could have summarized the letter written that out here and we could have had this discussion on the merits of the discussion but because I copied and pasted it from an email that has been around before, you mock it? Someting is wrong with that. Open your mind.
Dodging what? We agreed about Afghanistan. We disagreed about Iraq. I bring up the half of the formulae that justifies regime change and that is "dodging?"
