Jump to content

Bush's first 8 months fighting terrorism


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then I guess Waco is out as well. It only killed 83 people. Only half as important as Oklahoma city.

You've got it mixed up. The government wasn't trying to stop terrorists at Waco. They WERE the terrorists. Who put that really scary woman in charge of the justice department anyways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got it mixed up. The government wasn't trying to stop terrorists at Waco. They WERE the terrorists. Who put that really scary woman in charge of the justice department anyways?

 

So your saying that Bin Laden and Clinton were both leaders of powerful terrorist organizations? Well, no wonder he didn't do anything to prevent 9-11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever think the key question being asked in this thread about what Bill did will ever be answered, or avoided until the thread is closed?

 

The question has been out there for several days. I would guess the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what many will consider a calamitous rarity, I will have to say that I agree with RickyP on the entire subject.

 

The truth is that neither Clinton nor Bush could have been expected to foresee or prevent the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

 

I dare say that NO ONE saw that particular event happening. NO ONE.

 

To take potshots at each other for not preventing an unforseeable, unprecedented act like that is ludicrous.

 

 

Frances

 

PS - may the good Lord forgive me for agreeing with RickyP ... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what many will consider a calamitous rarity, I will have to say that I agree with RickyP on the entire subject.

The truth is that neither Clinton nor Bush could have been expected to foresee or prevent the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

 

I dare say that NO ONE saw that particular event happening. NO ONE.

 

To take potshots at each other for not preventing an unforseeable, unprecedented act like that is ludicrous.

 

 

Frances

 

PS - may the good Lord forgive me for agreeing with RickyP ... :D

 

 

It's official

hellfrozeover.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what many will consider a calamitous rarity, I will have to say that I agree with RickyP on the entire subject.

 

The truth is that neither Clinton nor Bush could have been expected to foresee or prevent the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

 

I dare say that NO ONE saw that particular event happening. NO ONE.

 

To take potshots at each other for not preventing an unforseeable, unprecedented act like that is ludicrous.

 

 

Frances

 

PS - may the good Lord forgive me for agreeing with RickyP ...

:D

 

Francis are you just trying to call me out or something..... lol I agree though, just like BF said above, hard to predict, unless you've got Miss Cleo working as a part of your cabinet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got it mixed up. The government wasn't trying to stop terrorists at Waco. They WERE the terrorists. Who put that really scary woman in charge of the justice department anyways?

What part of lawfull government agents being shot and killed while serving a warrant turns them into terrorists? The people at Waco were child molestors that chose to kill their own children rather than be arrested. I suspect that you could find a lot of reasons to fault the tactics used by the government agents in their attempt to make the arrests, but make no mistake about it, the adults in the Waco compound belonged in jail for a very long time. The government gave them over 30 days to give up. Some did, some refused. During that thirty days those "parents" continued to give their daughters to that freak. I have never understood why the right has used the Branch Davidians as their cause celebre. They were bad people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end is near.

 

I agree with TA. I would also go so far as to say that if the US government had taken this type of decisive action as far back as Carter and the Iran hostages maybe, just maybe the Islamists wouldn't have felt as emboldened as they do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end is near.

 

I agree with TA. I would also go so far as to say that if the US government had taken this type of decisive action as far back as Carter and the Iran hostages maybe, just maybe the Islamists wouldn't have felt as emboldened as they do now.

 

 

Not meaning to thread jack but, :D I hear a lot about if Carter had done this or that differently. I'm seriously asking what else he could or should have done during the Iranian hostage crisis.

 

Here's what he did do:

 

1. He froze all Iranian assets in this country and everywhere else he could.

 

2. In April of that year he launched a raid to get the hostages but everything fell apart from the helicopters catching fire, to equipment malfunctions and the result was a disaster that cost American servicemen their lives. Now this wasn't a successful attempt but it was an attempt and early enough to when they felt the conditions were right to get the Americans out.

 

3. After the failed rescue attempt the hostages were spread out over Teheran and another such mission would not have gotten them out alive.

 

4. Carter negotiated the rest of the way and almost had them free in September/October but the Iranians pulled away from the table.

 

5. All the hostages came home alive in January when Reagan took office.

 

 

A lot has been made about doing something different than Bush and no one coming up with solutions for Iraq. I'm just curious if anyone has a different solution than Carter had that eventually got the hostages home alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.