Tech Support Guy banner
  • Please post in our Community Feedback thread for help with the new forum software! If you are having trouble logging in, please Contact Us for assistance.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,788 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
When told a second plane had hit the WTC Towers and America was under attack?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Clinton - would have made brilliant, personal speeches, with feeling and emotions.

Then speak to the American people, saying basically the same thing as President Bush : "We will not tolerate...". He would have seeked support from the UN on a "limited" invasion of Afghanistan. Eventually get it, and would therefore have accomplished little there.

Would've called for increase cooperation from countries such as Iraq - and of course not get it, and accomplish nothing there.

Would have publicly denounced countries that support terrorism by name, and "strongly" encourage them to stop. - would've accomplished nothing there.

Would have started a weaker National Security organization like Bush's, that even less solve problems such as an out of control border with Mexico.

All in all, alot of blow, with little to no impact.

One thing for sure, he would not have invaded Iraq.
Even if WMD's were there (which of course they were )

Without UN support, Clinton would have invaded nobody.
Which is why, I believe, there would have been another similar attack on American soil. The price terrorist have paid for 9/11 is catastrophic (to them) under the Bush administration. I an convinced Clinton would have made a much smaller, half-hearted attack that would once again, be seen as weakness by them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Clinton - would have made brilliant, personal speeches, with feeling and emotions.

Then speak to the American people, saying basically the same thing as President Bush : "We will not tolerate...". He would have seeked support from the UN on a "limited" invasion of Afghanistan. Eventually get it, and would therefore have accomplished little there.

Would've called for increase cooperation from countries such as Iraq - and of course not get it, and accomplish nothing there.

Would have publicly denounced countries that support terrorism by name, and "strongly" encourage them to stop. - would've accomplished nothing there.

Would have started a weaker National Security organization like Bush's, that even less solve problems such as an out of control border with Mexico.

All in all, alot of blow, with little to no impact.

One thing for sure, he would not have invaded Iraq.
Even if WMD's were there (which of course they were )

Without UN support, Clinton would have invaded nobody.
Which is why, I believe, there would have been another similar attack on American soil. The price terrorist have paid for 9/11 is catastrophic (to them) under the Bush administration. I an convinced Clinton would have made a much smaller, half-hearted attack that would once again, be seen as weakness by them
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Even if the WMD's were there (which of course they were)
HELLO? Have I missed something? I don't recall anything about finding WMD's - what does "which of course they were" mean? Is this a FACT or MORE propaganda put out by the Administration without any facts??? And while we are at this - I will repeat, I don't think the WMD joking Bush did at the Press Club Roast was funny - or even proper. I find it completely irresponsible to joke about that kind of thing when hundreds of soldiers have died and are dying and coming home in body-bags from Iraq. Some of this chatter just doesn't make sense to me considering the high personal cost to so many Americans and Iraqi people. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
You took one statement I made (actually a postscript) and ran with that instead of anything else I said. - Typical.

Even the head of the UN Inspections is qouted many times that the WMD's WERE there in 1999!!!
EVERYONE knows they were!! I heard him myself say it on the O'reilly show just a few weeks ago - HELLO! yourself.

Now, I believe Bush and company made a grave error for WMD's as being the main reason to invade. If he would have "sold" the invasion on how 100,000's of citizens were murdered by that evil b*stard, the political outcry would've been different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
What in the Hell does "Typical" mean? You seem to be the one who is typical - and if you listen to O-reilly, enough said. We don't have anything more to say to each other - lol!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Maybe they mean Chemical Weapons - which are not the same as WMD's as far as I know. Maybe they are just flat lying - and they do so often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Typical - As in, it is typical for many posters to address a single line of comment someone says, and flame only that. Disregarding the rest.

Sorta how you just did it again.

As for O'reilly, I disagree with his line of questions, and his opinions as much as I agree with them. I watch it, because he brings issues to the table that no one else is talking about, like how the Red Cross was planning on using the money donated to the 9/11 victims to other charities - that was just plain wrong, and if it wasn't for his show - they would've done just that.
And I agree with one statement you make - We don't have anything more to say - we don't at least not in this thread, it needs to go back to it's original subject.
But I will say, I would not have dismissed your statements if you said you liked the Donahue show.
Who's the idealouge here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,004 Posts
Regardless, we'll never know, 'what if'? Can't play it again Sam!:rolleyes:
 

·
Moderator (deceased) Gone but never forgotten
Joined
·
47,973 Posts

·
Moderator (deceased) Gone but never forgotten
Joined
·
47,973 Posts

·
Retired Moderator
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
It is nice to see how the headlines can be misleading
She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."
Kinda vague?
President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate
And the controversy is?
It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.
So the purpose is?
I bet she is a great translator :D :up:
Why is it that so many cannot seem to blame those at fault? (if the has to be blamed) It's like the old...a woman was raped -- "she was askin for it" heh give me a break!
 

·
Retired Moderator
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
bassetman said:
Well, no one can say what anyone would have/would not have done, but here is a comparison of Dems and Repubs on who served in the military.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
geesh, could you find a more one sided website? LOL :p perhaps I could try and hunt down the truth for ya ;) :D
 

·
Retired Moderator
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
bassetman said:
So why doesn't the White House let them say that?
because of that damned security thingy 'nice word huh ;) ' I've thought for a long time that they should just let it all out, yeah there will be short-term riots, mainly because of all the decades of hiding the truth *folds up portable soapbox*
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top