OK, 1. You didn't state this in your initial post and seemed to invent it halfway through the thread. 2. It's a useless thing to discuss, even if you had hypothetically attempted to do so Do you honestly think that "Democratic criticism" is directed at the Bush's administration's attempts to find the Cole and Khobar fugitives who had yet to be caught under the Clinton administartion as the WTC and Embassy bombers were as the attempts to catch the fugitives as being inherently wrong in and of themselves? Silliness. That discussion boils down to whether or not one thinks catching terrorists is good. Duh. Keep at it, Kenny. last word.
Originally posted by SamFisher OK, 1. You didn't state this in your initial post and seemed to invent it halfway through the thread. <b>I didn't "invent" it. I mentioned my regret when you all seemed unable to focus on the discussion I was trying to engender. You'd rather blather on about Snopes.</b> 2. It's a useless thing to discuss, even if you had hypothetically attempted to do so Do you honestly think that "Democratic criticism" is directed at the Bush's administration's attempts to find the Cole and Khobar fugitives who had yet to be caught under the Clinton administartion as the WTC and Embassy bombers were as the attempts to catch the fugitives as being inherently wrong in and of themselves? Silliness. <b>Yes, that would be silly. What I wanted to discuss was the perception that this war on terror encompassed the search for the missing suspects of each of these tragedies in one way or another, yet the Democrats politically oppose it. Surely, the 5 men rotting in jail for the 1993 WTC parking garage bombings are not the only conspirators out there.</b> That discussion boils down to whether or not one thinks catching terrorists is good. Duh. <b>No it doesn't. It's bigger than that.</b>
Well, I'm glad it took you five pages to figure out that that was what the thread was to be about. I thought it was about you backpedaling and looking ridiculous. Last word; stop it.
Here is the first line from my SECOND post: "So Clinton was able to arrest the immediate perpetrators. Good for him. Thanks, job well done! What about the root-seeds of the terror?" Isn't that kind of about what I said I wanted to talk about? It took you five pages... not me. You were too busy investigating the nature of the original idea that you missed the discussion I was trying to have.
Oh, so this was Clinton praise thread, as well as one asking about the "root-seeds" of the terror? Sorry, I missed it from your original post. Last word. Ha ha!
This is from page two: "If there was a case to be made for going after Osama he (Clinton) should have made it and pressed for public support. It's called Leadership. <b>Bush is getting assailed for it now</b> and he had a great but tragic launching point: 9/11. Notice that he's not backing off?!"
It only took you several hours and multiple responses to get to that one, huh? Yeah, this point was obvious from the original post...how could I have missed it? Last word again! Ha ha!
But wait, KingCheetah, They have built a bridge toward one another, and they're moving toward-- Oh noooooo!
This thread is unruinable. And it cannot be saved. giddyup's next post is coming, and it has already been posted, as has your next post...
Originally posted by SamFisher It only took you several hours and multiple responses to get to that one, huh? <b>I'm not responsible for the crappy riff-raff that the loyal opposition posted. I just have to deal with it.</b> Yeah, this point was obvious from the original post...how could I have missed it? <b>The same way that you miss so much else? You try to turn things into what you want them to be and it just doesn't always work out. Try being a little more receptive.</b>
