|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 2, 2009 12:36:13 GMT -5
Al Quada and 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Bush's attack on Iraq. You are absolutely correct. Although there was a tie to Al Qaeda, who had setup camps in Iraq. Iraq and the United States were at war and had been since the invasion of Kuwait on August 2nd, 1990. It was the continuous violations of the cease fire that got Iraq into problems. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 2, 2009 12:39:19 GMT -5
Clinton briefed Bush as well about al qaida's threats. Intelligence came in from other countries, yet Bush was the most vacationing president. Why did he wait until 2003 if this was such an urgent matter? You guys are justifying Iraq and ignoring the fact that Bush did not resolve 9/11. We are in two wars and a recession because of poor judgement and big lies. It is true we are in a recession because of poor judgment and big lies. Poor judgment on home loan policies pushed by Congress and big lies about how bad the system was strained before it collapsed. To bad Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd are such huge liars and really did not have the citizens best interests at heart. Their inaction lead to this collapse, not the war. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 2, 2009 12:40:05 GMT -5
We've been over that many times in the 9/11 thread. If you still think there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 you're nuts. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 Probably no link to Saddam and 9/11. But, indeed a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 2, 2009 12:44:15 GMT -5
please show me some evidence that clinton told bush, "hey, on sept. 11th there is going to be a terrorist attack on the WTC and pentagon." i can't wait to see that evidence. btw, the uss cole was NOT the first attempted terrorist attack on a US warship: Yemeni sources say the attack on the USS Cole was not the first attempt to blow up an American warship in Aden harbour. An attack on the American destroyer, USS Sullivans, in January 2000 had to be abandoned because the attackers' boat almost sank under the weight of explosives (AP 11 November, CNN 12 November). It appears that as a result of this the bombers called on an unnamed foreign expert for advice, and that the expert may have helped to shape the charge used against the Cole, maximising its effect.www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole3.htmclinton had the intel. why did he ignore it in this case as well as all others? why? why? why? the victims' families would love to know. It does not exist. I read an article in a Philippine News paper about the very warnings that Mink is speaking of. Guess what, they were general warnings about a general method of attack. They had no dates or specifics on the plan. But, does that matter to them? No. Even though the very country that provided us the general intelligence says themselves they did not provide enough details to prevent 9/11, Mink will continue to roll it out because she correctly believes that most Americans are ignorant of the truth. I was fortunate to be in the Philippines just before the election, so this very issue was circulating in the papers. To bad it refuted Minks claims. |
|
|
|
Post by moondog on Feb 2, 2009 12:48:24 GMT -5
Thanks for bringing us back on topic. I posted the entire interview, not just a snippet. Rush implies, by saying that he wants Obama and his policies to fail, that he would be happy to see America fail under Obama. He is so stubbornly partisan that he has lost sight of what is important: America's success by any reasonable means necessary. If you want to have a discussion about the "godless" (logical) Left, I would be happy to. Many liberals are spiritual, have faith in God, etc. but they don't take it to ridiculous (and scary) extremes like the Right does. Have you seen the documentary Jesus Camp yet? Well, since I watched the entire interview in full, I can honestly say you are mischaracterizing the entire conversation. What Rush said is that if the Bush tax cuts were left in place, he would consider that a success. But, he hopes the liberal policies of Obama fails, because that too would be a success for America. Rush laid out specifics, you did not. In fact, all you did was post a video and some insults. Is that what you call a valid debate? Insult someone and post a video? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Feb 2, 2009 20:14:30 GMT -5
Thanks for bringing us back on topic. I posted the entire interview, not just a snippet. Rush implies, by saying that he wants Obama and his policies to fail, that he would be happy to see America fail under Obama. He is so stubbornly partisan that he has lost sight of what is important: America's success by any reasonable means necessary. If you want to have a discussion about the "godless" (logical) Left, I would be happy to. Many liberals are spiritual, have faith in God, etc. but they don't take it to ridiculous (and scary) extremes like the Right does. Have you seen the documentary Jesus Camp yet? Well, since I watched the entire interview in full, I can honestly say you are mischaracterizing the entire conversation. What Rush said is that if the Bush tax cuts were left in place, he would consider that a success. But, he hopes the liberal policies of Obama fails, because that too would be a success for America. Rush laid out specifics, you did not. In fact, all you did was post a video and some insults. Is that what you call a valid debate? Insult someone and post a video? Not true. Bush's tax cuts did not help America get out of an economic crisis. In fact, it made the crisis worse. The Republicans had a chance to prove that their policies work and they failed by almost every measure. Even Bush resorted to Socialism (buying up banks) because it was what America needed at the time. Rush doesn't care what is actually best for America. He simply wants to see the policies he believes in succeed and everyone else's policies fail. That is the definition of a pigheaded person. Perhaps in the future the Republicans can pull their heads out of their asses long enough to get one of their own elected, but that will be a long, long time from now. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Feb 2, 2009 21:06:12 GMT -5
Can you back up this claim: "Bush's tax cuts did not help America get out of an economic crisis. In fact, it made the crisis worse." with some studies and facts rather than left wing opinion?
You say: "Rush doesn't care what is actually best for America. He simply wants to see the policies he believes in succeed and everyone else's policies fail." How would that be different from Dowd, Goodman, Franken, Jackson, Sharpton, and the other mouth pieces of the left?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Feb 2, 2009 21:40:25 GMT -5
The mere fact that the Bush administration failed the country in many ways is reflected in losing the White House & Congress, period. Bush left the country in a recession, high deficit, two wars that cost the country in many ways, unemployment almost in double digits....etc, all long before leaving office.
Because Bush is gone as is his corrupted administration, they lost Congress, the party is "leaderless"..........walk in, a "druggie" pundit who knows nothing but dirty politics, meant to sabotage the Obama administration. Isn't it ironic that when Bush was in office, anyone who didn't agree with his policies, was "un-American"? Those who didn't agree with the Bush policies, were labelled, "unpatriotic"? All of a sudden, it is fine to wish the current president to fail. Yes, fail and if he fails, this will be good for America. All of a sudden, the Republicans have the answer regarding the economy? What?!
Instead of admitting the Republicans failed already and owning up to it, the GOP Congress will not cooperate and help fix their big mess. Rush is there to lead the pack. This fat, druggie pundit, is their leader. It looks like desparation and if they don't work to fix their mess, they stand less of a chance in 2012 or longer.
If you need proof, look around! What Obama has to fix is a result of 8 years of mismanaged and corrupt politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Feb 2, 2009 21:45:36 GMT -5
please show me some evidence that clinton told bush, "hey, on sept. 11th there is going to be a terrorist attack on the WTC and pentagon." i can't wait to see that evidence. btw, the uss cole was NOT the first attempted terrorist attack on a US warship: Yemeni sources say the attack on the USS Cole was not the first attempt to blow up an American warship in Aden harbour. An attack on the American destroyer, USS Sullivans, in January 2000 had to be abandoned because the attackers' boat almost sank under the weight of explosives (AP 11 November, CNN 12 November). It appears that as a result of this the bombers called on an unnamed foreign expert for advice, and that the expert may have helped to shape the charge used against the Cole, maximising its effect.www.al-bab.com/yemen/cole3.htmclinton had the intel. why did he ignore it in this case as well as all others? why? why? why? the victims' families would love to know. It does not exist. I read an article in a Philippine News paper about the very warnings that Mink is speaking of. Guess what, they were general warnings about a general method of attack. They had no dates or specifics on the plan. But, does that matter to them? No. Even though the very country that provided us the general intelligence says themselves they did not provide enough details to prevent 9/11, Mink will continue to roll it out because she correctly believes that most Americans are ignorant of the truth. I was fortunate to be in the Philippines just before the election, so this very issue was circulating in the papers. To bad it refuted Minks claims. The evidence, from the Phillipines and other countries, came in plans and threats, not exact dates. Because they didn't have the date or flight numbers of the planes didn't mean the US didn't have enough warning! You don't know what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Feb 2, 2009 23:38:57 GMT -5
The evidence, from the Phillipines and other countries, came in plans and threats, not exact dates. Because they didn't have the date or flight numbers of the planes didn't mean the US didn't have enough warning! You don't know what you're talking about.
You don't have to dig up any Fillipino news - it's right there in the 9/11 Commission's report. You have a copy of that, don't you? The Commission said that the report was too vague and lacking in any specifics to take action on. Did you read that part? |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Feb 3, 2009 0:01:56 GMT -5
The mere fact that the Bush administration failed the country in many ways is reflected in losing the White House & Congress, period. Bush left the country in a recession, high deficit, two wars that cost the country in many ways, unemployment almost in double digits....etc, all long before leaving office. Mink, Bush was not on the ballot - John McCain was. McCain lost beacuse he ran an inept campaign and because the house of cards called the subprime mortgage market, which had been propped up by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al, for years, came tumbling down just 2 months before the election. you could almost hear the Dems rubbing their hands in glee. To be replaced with, what? A new, more corrupt administration? How else would you explain Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, Tom Daschele,....... Rush Limbaugh has admitted his drug use, ended it, and sought treatment. You would give more consideration to that if he were on Air America, rather than the EIB. How else would you explain your party's continued support of Ted Kennedy? Kennedy's car has killed more people than my rifle. Isn't it interesting that, when the same tactics are turned on you that you have been dishing up for the past eight years, you are offended? The Republicans are doing what the opposition party is supposed to do: they are opposing the failed policies of the majority party. The spending splurge that the Democrats are trying to hustle into law before anyone has a chance to really look at it has been proven in the past to not result in the turnaround that they would like you to believe it will. Republicans are offering more tax cuts, which always work to revive the economy. The class warriors, of course, are up in arms about that. Would that include you? Wrong again, grasshopper. Rush is a spokesman. He would like to be a leader, but, instead, he is an influential voice in the Republican Party. Speaking of fat pundits, did you catch Keith Olbermann on the sidelines at the Super Bowl? Keith, buddy, either drop 30 pounds or stop trying to button up your jacket! |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Feb 3, 2009 0:06:37 GMT -5
The evidence, from the Phillipines and other countries, came in plans and threats, not exact dates. Because they didn't have the date or flight numbers of the planes didn't mean the US didn't have enough warning! You don't know what you're talking about.
You don't have to dig up any Fillipino news - it's right there in the 9/11 Commission's report. You have a copy of that, don't you? The Commission said that the report was too vague and lacking in any specifics to take action on. Did you read that part? Yes, however vague, it was still a very real threat that could have been avoided. Besides, I've already dug it up months ago and it's here somewhere on the forum. No precautions were taken and Bush was the most vacationing president prior to the horrific act. |
|
