Just for the record the 911 attacks were perpetrated by LEGAL immigrants/visitors to this country. Maybe we should halt all LEGAL immigration and increase ILLEGAL immigration?

 

They may have came in legal but most were no longer legal by the time of the attacks. The next terrorist attack if or when it comes will not be from legal immigrants but from some snuck over the Rio Grande in the middle of the night.

Best I recall, your side hammered him for it and accused him of trying to deflect attention from Monicagate.

And which right-wing site did you get that one from?

 

I don't visit political web sites other than this little thread here. As far as "my side" I have voted Republican, Democrat and Independent in the last four US presidential elections so if by my side you mean American you would be right. I had forgotten about Clinton's "Wag the Dog" moment of sending in missiles during the middle of the whole Monica thing thanks for reminding me.

 

As far as the Beirut bombing I thought Reagan was absolutely wrong for pulling out after the bombing.

so if by my side you mean American you would be right.

Oh, and mine isn't?

 

You're firmly on the Right (and I don't mean "correct") side on this issue.

I had forgotten about Clinton's "Wag the Dog" moment of sending in missiles during the middle of the whole Monica thing thanks for reminding me.

Yeah, apparently the other side didn't think Al Qaeda was that much of a threat at that time, either.

I am on the right on this issue and more to the middle and even left on others, just because I am a conservative on National Security does not mean I am a robot for the GOP or any other party. If you notice I have said Bush and even Regan did things that I did not agree with. The difference is that most of the Clintonians will never admit he could have handled the whole terrorist thing better they think what ever and who ever he does is just fine and that he could do no wrong.

Yeah, apparently the other side didn't think Al Qaeda was that much of a threat at that time, either.

The "other side" was not in charge of our foreign policy during that period. The "other side" did not have an opportunity to take Bin Laden into custody. The "other side" did not command our military and intelligence agencies during that period. So, what is your point?

 

Bill Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts are indefensible. George W. Bush's anti-terrorism prior to 9/11 was likewise indefensible. However, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were and are on the same side.

The "other side" was not in charge of our foreign policy during that period. The "other side" did not have an opportunity to take Bin Laden into custody. The "other side" did not command our military and intelligence agencies during that period. So, what is your point?

 

Bill Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts are indefensible. George W. Bush's anti-terrorism prior to 9/11 was likewise indefensible. However, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were and are on the same side.

If the other side believed Al Qaeda was a threat, they would have supported the action instead of ridiculing Clinton for it.

 

Clinton has said the FBI advised him that they had no legal reason to take bin Laden into custody ... what's he supposed to do, violate the Constitution?

 

I'm not absolving anyone of blame or assigning blame to anyone ... there is plenty to go around. But some want to place it all on one side of the aisle.

If the other side believed Al Qaeda was a threat, they would have supported the action instead of ridiculing Clinton for it.

 

Clinton has said the FBI advised him that they had no legal reason to take bin Laden into custody ... what's he supposed to do, violate the Constitution?

 

I'm not absolving anyone of blame or assigning blame to anyone ... there is plenty to go around. But some want to place it all on one side of the aisle.

Bill Clinton said a lot of things during his two terms and a lot of those things were not true. Clinton apparently was convinced that there was enough evidence to attempt to kill Bin Laden at a terrorist training camp, yet he refused an offer to take custody of him from Sudan?

 

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

 

By MANSOOR IJAZ

President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

 

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

.

.

.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

 

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

 

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

 

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

 

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere

.

 

This thread was started to debate whether Bush deserves some credit for anti-terror actions. Clearly he does. The 9/11 attacks happened early on Bush's watch and he took appropriate actions in response.

 

IMO, Bill Clinton could not have taken those actions and Bush could not have taken the actions prior to the attacks. The political will and public support simply did not exist for strong action until after the fact.

 

I see no basis for arguing that Bush or Clinton deserve any credit for fighting terror prior to 9/11. Reagan's record in the area was mixed because although he did make the mistake of withdrawing troops from Beirut in response to a terror attack, he also put the fear of God into Gadaffi by bombing one of his residences.

 

The only president who I place heavy blame on for flaming the embers of terrorism is Jimmy Carter. He could have saved thousands of lives if he had dealt effectively with the Iranian thugs who seized our embassy in Tehran. Instead, Carter allowed himself and this nation to be humiliated by a handful of Islamic terrorists for months before he was mercifully tossed from office.

And you total up about a month's worth of abortions. Remember there have been more babies aborted in this country than Hitler had killed in the Holocaust.

 

And we are sickened by Hitler's actions and uphold the actions of this country.

You'd find a way to talk about abortion in a UK vs. UL thread. :lol:

You do realize that, like Christianity, Islam is a religion with many different branches and interpretations? You just clumped together all Muslims with the above statements. There are many devout practitioners of Islam that are not hate America or supporters of jihad. They just don't garnish the press the others do.

 

I believe the problem is with extreme fundamentalist Islam and not all of it.

 

 

 

True with any religion, including Christianity.

You'd find a way to talk about abortion in a UK vs. UL thread. :lol:

 

I take that as a compliment.:thumb:

Very nice and very funny.

I look forward to having many laughs with my Christian brothers of the Catholic denomination in heaven.:thumb:

 

 

Works for me. :banana:

I could probably post 20 articles with quotes from U.S. military officials disputing your statement that "our resources have not been overextended in the least". Standards for military recruiting have been lowered, career officers are leaving the military in droves, and we must rely more and more on what are essentially mercenaries in Iraq to support operations there. And we are flushing hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet in a country that will probably never be able to manage its own affairs, while our deficit and the debt explodes. Yeah, we're not overextended.

 

That tide has changed in the last four months. Of course, I am getting my information from the commanding General at Paris Island, who is about to be the second in command in Iraq. Every dollar spent in Iraq or any other spot in the world to eliminate enemies of this state is not being flushed down the toilet. Our military recruitment has been up during the last two cycles, especially in the Marine Corps. Is there something better to spend our tax dollars on than national defense now that we have a visible threat to our security in the world, I don't think so. Who's shoulders will our next terrorist attack be on? People who are proactive in rooting out the problem, or people who are for trying to let the problem take care of itself. How does allowing an anti-American faction to gain control of one of the largest oil centers in the world benefit the U.S.?

You cannot extinquish the muslim faith and as long as there is a muslim faith there will be extremists. That is a silly thought.

 

As long as America "flexes her muscles" there will be people who hate us and are therefore our enemies - you cannot eliminate all of them.

 

You statement sounds very 3rd Reichish if I can say that without invoking too much venom from others. Hitlers goal was to eliminate all of the Jews because HE BELIEVED they were the enemy of Germany.

 

President Lincoln was chided for not destroying the south and "eliminating the Union's enemies" - he said, and I paraphrase, Do I not destroy my enemy when I make him my friend?

 

If we only had more Lincolns around today . . .

Of course, Lincoln was dealing with a similar situation that we are facing today.

And you total up about a month's worth of abortions. Remember there have been more babies aborted in this country than Hitler had killed in the Holocaust.

 

And we are sickened by Hitler's actions and uphold the actions of this country.

 

I agree with your statement above LBBC but, your previous post was to give credit to Bush about stopping "partial birth" abortions. Acemona was responding to that statement. So if you are going to look at numbers you can't include "all" abortions since W has not ended them all. If you look at the number of "partial birth" abortions I think it is closer in line to the numbers Acemona was speaking of.