view it and weep. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JuH1xwLUnbg"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JuH1xwLUnbg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
We should ask this question first, did most Americans (ahem, including those high up in nation's leadership) give a damn about bin Laden before 9/11? Or perhaps we should also ask why bin Laden and al Qaeda were allowed to evolve in the first place?
hindsight is always 20/20.. No politician was in a position to pre-emptively launch an attack of that sorts. Sorry but it wasn't just Democrats who embraced the "pre-9/11" mindset, it was everyone (democrats, republicans, clowns, monkeys, everyone else in politics, etc..) And more importantly, even before 9/11, the Republicans missed out on some opportunities regarding 9/11 and possibly preventing it. However, it makes little sense to say that it's their fault for 9/11 since they didn't pay heed to any of the intelligence coming in.
You have been making some sound posts lately, and this is another...It is true, ALL leadership FAILED from 93 till 9/11...(But IMO, much of the blame lay towards Clinton...If Bush would have done the same actions or inactions after WTC 93, I would have been equally as harsh)... I wish we were in a position to pre-emptively kill that monster...I wish 9/11 never happened. Hopefully the lesson was learned with future results aimed at prevention and being on the offense with smart tactics...
Heck, what Bush has done since 9/11 wrt bin Laden? Did he track and hunt down bin Laden at all cost? The answer is no. If you can't tell who's the bigger loser between Bush and Clinton, you are clearly interested in playing politics only.
It is too bad that Clinton didn't do more to get Bin Laden. It is too bad that Bush did next to nothing to get Bin Laden when he had the chance before 9/11 and scarcely more since 9/11.
I don't think the predators were armed at that point. We all know Clinton would have been ripped if he sent Delta into Afghanistan and it went badly. Clinton was always in a no-win situation when it came to using the military. He was excoriated for Somalia and he had Delay on the House floor constantly trashing Clinton and throwing a fit about Kosovo. He launches attacks on Sudan and he's ripped, he's ripped about million dollar missiles fired into $14 tents in Afghanistan. This is the height of monday morning quarterbacking. Speaking of which, Bush has had 5 years after 9/11 with carte blanche essentially to kill that piece of garbage and he's still got nothing. You know there's an old saying in Texas that says fool me once, shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again.
Wnes, how can you make as assumption that anyone was drunk when both the person that was pulled over and the cop said they weren't. Leaping to conclusions again eh? Work on your comprehension and debate skills junior. DD
The problem with Israel is the methodology in which they go about the killings. They do it from a distance and it involves too much collatoral damage. Thus pissing off innocent people. If however it was done with a high powered rifle etc.....I doubt anyone would complain about it, and most would silently welcome it. DD
So you are in favor of assasinating the terrorists then, I mean as a preventative measure, right? And Video games are ESSENTIAL...don't knock em...you know you play them. DD
No you assign too much blame to Clinton. The same Republican party was complaining about Clinton's anti-terrorism measures as "wagging the dog" to distract from the Lewinsky scandal. NO ONE supported any sort of military action and most complained that what Clinton was doing was way too much. If anything, the Republican party deserves equal if not more blame for the situation. It's foolish to name names and assign blame. The nation as a whole failed on 9/11 and to point fingers is simply disingenous and takes a tragedy and turns it into a partisan political game.
A very, very cheap shot. Let everyone be aware that if you post something of a personal nature in Hangout, expect it to be used against you, spun to fit the topic, and facts be damned. wnes, do we really need that kind of stuff here? It's what I expect from texxx and Trader_J, not you. My 2 cents. Keep D&D Civil.
Thanks Deckerd, not to mention that he is making assumptions about me being drunk when driving, when I and the officer concluded that I wasn't. But...Wnes, I guess knows different in front of his computer monitor... Whatever ! DD