he has one

no successful attacks in the USA since 9/11.

can Clinton claim that no.

he was responsible for two attacks on the world trade centers.

one when he was in office. the second one he knew was going to take place and didn't tell anyone.

gene the others on here have given up on you.

even when you say something that is right. you make it wrong.


i am treating you like a bully and it is working.


you keep bringing your lies and half truths and i will be here to stand up to you


al quida is losing in Iraq because the people are starting to stand up to them.

it wasn't the surge that did it. but it was the surge that helped the Iraqis to find their own feet.

and the lets fight them over there instead of here policy seems to be working for the most part.

what is bad is Clinton is still in search of a legacy

Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 27, 2007Bush in Search of a Positive Lagacyhe has one no successful attacks in the USA since 9/11.can Clinton claim that no. he was responsible for two attacks on the world trade centers.one when he was in office. the second one he knew was going to take place and didn't tell anyone.

I agree on the attacks on the U.S. However, the Iraq war has ADDED to the number of terrorists that are willing to attack us in the future per the NIE>

One attack on the trade center took place during Clinton and One during Bush. Bush was warned six months before the second attack on 9/11 that al-Qaeda was planning an attack and ignored those warnings. Given the first attack and the repeated warnings from March 2001 -Sept 2001 a reasonable President would have taken more action to try and prevent the second attack. Clinton WARNED Bush in December 2000 that the REAL danger was from Bin Laden and Bush ignored that warning as well.

Bush also had the Predator with the Hell Fire Missile which might have been able to attack bin Laden but refused to allow the CIA to use it before 9/11. Only after 9/11 did Bush act to allow its use. This system was not available to Clinton.

al quida is losing in Iraq because the people are starting to stand up to them.

The ONLY reason al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq is because of Bush!

it wasn't the surge that did it. but it was the surge that helped the Iraqis to find their own feet.and the lets fight them over there instead of here policy seems to be working for the most part.

The "Fight them over there not over here" is BS. The fact there are MORE terrorists that are willing to Fight us OVER HERE proves that. The only thing we have done is strengthen our defense. At the same time our actions in Iraq has enabled the radical Moslems to recruit even more NUTS to attack us. That is the conclusion of the NIE that said “the invasion of Iraq was the nexus for the radicals to be able to convince more of the more moderate Moslems to join the fight against the U.S.” Bush has made the task of defending our country MUCH harder! He is correct when he said we must be successful 100% of the time while the terrorists only need to be successful ONE time! Just think how many more times we must be 100% successful given all the added terrorists willing to attack our country that Bush has helped create!

that is the point they can't attack us here right now their too busy running for their lives over there.


do you think bin laden would be hiding if they were winning.

bin laden wasn't hiding with clinton in office in fact he was thumbing his nose at us.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 27, 2007Just think how many more times we must be 100% successful given all the added terrorists willing to attack our country that Bush has helped create! that is the point they can't attack us here right now their too busy running for their lives over there. do you think bin laden would be hiding if they were winning.

Nothing we are doing in Iraq is preventing bin Laden from acting. It is what is taking place in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is important. We did not commit the forces needed to deal with bin Laden in Afghanistan because Bush invaded Iraq. In fact we did not have the troops needed to fight in both places and we have sent far more of our troops to a country that had nothing to do with the attack on 9/11 then the country that was responsible for 9/11. What sense does that make?

Bush, or any President cannot resolve this probelm as long as the so-called palestinians keep living the dark ages and support terrorism and the destruction of Israel.  Bush always did the right thing by not supporting arafat.




So that was the only thing preventing Clinton from taking out Osama?  I guess you need to read up on the failures of the Clinton administration in regards to terrorism, that's if you can find the documents Sandy Berger destroyed.




Al-quaeda was in Iraq before Bush attacked.  Do you simply ignore everything that goes against your obsession with Bush?




What sense is it to make the same useless posts over and over?

So that was the only thing preventing Clinton from taking out Osama? I guess you need to read up on the failures of the Clinton administration in regards to terrorism, that's if you can find the documents Sandy Berger destroyed.

CLINTON TRIED BUT BY THE TIME THE CRUSE MISSLES HIT BAN LADEN WAS GONE. THE PREDITOR WITH THE HELL FIRE WAS ABLE TO ATTACK A TARGET AS SOON AS IT WAS IDENTIFIED. If the CIA or the Military had the use of that weapon they could have sent them over to Afghanistan to locate bin Laden and if he had been spotted killed. Bush did not allow that option even though Tenet asked him many times before 9/11. No one knows for sure if we would have been able to kill Ben Laden with that system but Bush did not allow the CIA or the Military to try! After 9/11 Bush gave permission to use this system!

This peace conference is an absolute farce. In order to even have a peace conference, you need all the players at the table. This means Iran, Hezbollah and several other key parties that have been excluded. It's a nice gesture on Bush's part but unfortunately it's purely photogenic- there's no substance to this meal, instead of steak and potatoes it's all cake.  

That's the problem of drawing hard, dark lines in the sand and declaring entire nations part of an "axis of evil". When you make sweeping conclusions about difficult problems, and then it's time to sit down and talk, you either can't invite people to the table who should be there because you're breaking your own rules, OR they won't come because you're busy calling them evil. I'll never understand this administration.

Reply By: ArtysimPosted: Tuesday, November 27, 2007This peace conference is an absolute farce. In order to even have a peace conference, you need all the players at the table. This means Iran, Hezbollah and several other key parties that have been excluded. It's a nice gesture on Bush's part but unfortunately it's purely photogenic- there's no substance to this meal, instead of steak and potatoes it's all cake

I agree it is not perfect. However I heard the Israeli PM say Everything was on the table. That is NEW. I hope this will prove to be a success and will be happy to give Bush credit if this effort ends up with Israel and its enemies coming to an agreement!

after he warned bin laden before he fired the missiles. and the only thing he hit was medicine factory.