~Clinton did plenty
Dana
"MSLU123" <msl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011027161731...@mb-cb.aol.com...
> For those of you that say Clinton did nothing
He did a lot.
Gave our military secrets to the Chinese
Travelgate
Fostergate
WhiteWater
Monica
Joyce
Mary
Kim
And who knows how may other ladies he raped
Reduced our military strength
Caused the poor economy
Lost the election for Gore
Increased the taxes on the middle class and the poor.
Loathes our military
Sacrificed our military in Africa
Was Impeached
Lied to America multiple times.
Who Cares?
"It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it"
"He cared a lot!"
"Dana" <a...@def.com> wrote in message
Mike
> Dana: The loonybin that you wrote this post from needs to keep
> you away from their PC. Are you Don Rickles?
>
Quintin
by Tony Hoppe
Bear with me on this one, but this type of hateful, ditto-spank malarkey
begs for dissection.
I'll address each charge individually.
1. 1993 WTC bombing: The perpetrators were hunted down, captured, put
on trial and summarily sentenced. Here's the news link to prove it -
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef/index.html - Too bad ditto-monkeys
are so blinded by hatred for Clinton they can't take the time to do a
little bit of fact finding.
2. 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia: They're referring to Riyadh. There
were arrests in this case and eventually it turned out that these
perpetrators were aligned with the same people who committed the Khobar
bombing a year later. Here's the news link -
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9606/28/saudi.probe.pm/ - Once again a little
fact finding reveals the lie behind the ditto-monkey charge that Clinton
did nothing.
3. 1996 Khobar Towers bombing: The investigation which started in the
Clinton administration ended up in indictments in June of this year.
Here's the news link -
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/21/khobar.indictments/ - And the silly
ditto-monkeys will try to give all the credit to Dumbya Bush I'm sure.
4. African embassy bombings: Two arrests in July of 1999.
Investigation shows links to Bin Laden. Here's the news link -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/eafricabombing/eafricabombing.htm
-
5. USS Cole bombing: An investigation (started by Clinton) resulted
in the arrest of 5 in Yemen including 2 Egyptians in January of this
year. Same investigation details links to Bin Laden and his group.
Here's the (yawn) news link -
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/yemen_usscole010111.html
-
And now for the REALLY stupid statements.
6. "Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 6,000+ people
would be alive today"??? This is how low the ditto-monkeys will sink in
their efforts to smear Clinton. Using their sick, perverted logic, I
can make moronic statements like that too. Like this one - - "Maybe if
Ronald Reagan had listened to his military advisors to NOT house
military personnel on land in Beirut, Lebanon in October 1983, 245 U.S.
Marines, soldiers and sailors might be alive today". Or how about this
one - "Maybe if people like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Al Rantel,
Dr. Laura, Oliver North, Sean Hannity (or anyone for that matter
associated with Fox Whore News) had not for years been instigating the
right-wing, militia yahoos like Tim McVeigh to distrust and hate their
government, 168 innocent men, women and pre-school children would be
alive today". See how that nasty little game works? I'd have to admit
though, that it's one game the conservatives are indeed masters at.
7. "The US government has spent much more money chasing down Bill Gates
over the past ten years than Osama Bin Laden"??? Once again,
ditto-monkey ignorance reigns supreme. Fact : up to now (and it hasn't
been 10 years) the total taxpayer cost in the Microsoft anti-trust suit
is around $60 million. Contrast that with the fact that in January of
1999 President Clinton submitted proposals to the Republican controlled
congress to spend a grand total of $10 billion on anti-terrorism and
national defense programs (subsequent weakening and watering down of the
legislation by Republicans pretty much rendered the anti-terrorism plans
toothless). Hmmm! I guess in the world of ditto-monkey math, $60
million is more than $10 billion! You see how desperate they are to
blame anything on Clinton?
Once again, here's the news link -
http://detnews.com/2001/editorial/0109/07/a10-287230.htm -
8. Bill and Hillary's memoirs? Who gives a shit? Why is it the
ditto-monkeys are all for free market capitalism and everyone making a
quick buck except when it comes to anyone with the last name of Clinton?
I'm going to give the morons a break on this one by not trotting out the
name of every conservative Republican who has cashed in on their
government service by becoming corporate whore lobbyists and whore media
spokespeople over the years.
The unmitigated truth is this - - Monica, stains on a blue dress,
cigars, and Clinton's zipper have been a much higher priority for
conservatives the past several years. The cock hungry Republicans said,
"Terrorism? What terrorism? Oh - you mean that stuff that always
happens to little brown foreign people! Nahh! We have to find out if
Bill lied to us about the semen stains first. Let's devote all of these
FBI and CIA resources to try and find out how many bimbos Clinton got
blow jobs from the past 8 years, because that's what's really important
to the People! Once we finish up with that then we'll think about
taking a look at this terrorism stuff".
Egad!! There's good old fashioned, conservative, Republican politics
for ya' huh?
- tjh
tica
Clinton treated these terrorist attacks in the same way that local law
enforcement treats robberies at the 7-11. Did subjecting these individual
terrorists to western laws and justice slow down the terrorist
organizations that they belong to for one minute? A lifetime in the
relative comfort and security of a western jail is a small price to pay for
someone who is willing to DIE for their cause. Justice may have been
served, but the underlying problem of escalating terrorist attacks remains.
When are we going to take these people, who have declared war on the United
States seriously? Should we wait until they have acquired Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal? Are these Anthrax attacks just a test run for something
much more pervasive.... something that could become epidemic once in a
population?
Simply bringing a few 'bad guys' in and putting them in jail does NOT
protect the USA.
I am not interested in prosecuting bad guys after they do something
wrong.... I want to be protected from them.
The Clinton answered did not provide a solution to escalating, evil
terrorism.
TICA
"Quintin" <sm...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3BDC4815...@nospam.com...
Rich Travsky
>
> Thanks for the history lesson., but you have missed the big picture.
> Clinton treated these terrorist attacks in the same way that local law
> enforcement treats robberies at the 7-11. Did subjecting these individual
> terrorists to western laws and justice slow down the terrorist
> organizations that they belong to for one minute? A lifetime in the
> relative comfort and security of a western jail is a small price to pay for
> someone who is willing to DIE for their cause. Justice may have been
> served, but the underlying problem of escalating terrorist attacks remains.
> When are we going to take these people, who have declared war on the United
> States seriously? Should we wait until they have acquired Pakistan's
> nuclear arsenal? Are these Anthrax attacks just a test run for something
> much more pervasive.... something that could become epidemic once in a
> population?
> Simply bringing a few 'bad guys' in and putting them in jail does NOT
> protect the USA.
> I am not interested in prosecuting bad guys after they do something
> wrong.... I want to be protected from them.
> The Clinton answered did not provide a solution to escalating, evil
> terrorism.
Neither did Duhbya until it happened.
Who Cares?
"Rich Travsky" <trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote in message
news:3BDC6AA9...@hotMOVEmail.com...
> tica wrote:
> >
> > The Clinton answered did not provide a solution to escalating, evil
> > terrorism.
>
> Neither did Duhbya until it happened.
Yeah, but Clinton didn't do anything after
it happened, either.
Same old Clinton shill game. Say this, say
that, claim this, claim that. Everything to
everybody, the ultimate con guy,
with nothing for anybody in the end,
except a few cronies and his library.
Rich Travsky
You didn't read Quintan's post, did you? Go back and read it.
While you're at it, read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/international/30INTE.html
September 30, 2001
U.S. Pursued Secret Efforts to Catch or Kill bin Laden
By JAMES RISEN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - The Central Intelligence Agency secretly began to
send
teams of American officers to northern Afghanistan about three years ago
in an
attempt to persuade the leader of the anti- Taliban Afghan opposition to
capture
and perhaps kill Osama bin Laden, according to American intelligence
officials.
The covert effort, which has not been previously disclosed, was based on
an
attempt to work with Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was then the military
leader of the
largest anti- Taliban group in the northern mountains of Afghanistan,
and to
have his forces go after Mr. bin Laden. Mr. Massoud was himself fatally
wounded
only two days before the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade
Center, and
the C.I.A. believes that he was assassinated by members of Mr. bin
Laden's
organization.
The C.I.A.'s clandestine efforts to deal with Mr. Massoud were among the
most
sensitive and highly classified elements of a broader long-term
campaign,
continuing unsuccessfully through the end of the Clinton administration
and into
the Bush administration, to destroy Mr. bin Laden's terrorist network.
The
American campaign against Mr. bin Laden intensified after the August
1998
bombings of two United States Embassies in East Africa, which
transformed the
Saudi-born exile into America's most wanted terrorist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61219-2001Oct2.html
U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or
Have Him Killed (washingtonpost.com)
By Bob Woodward and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 3, 2001; Page A01
In 1999, the CIA secretly trained and equipped approximately 60
commandos from the Pakistani intelligence agency to enter
Afghanistan for the purpose of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden,
according to people familiar with the operation.
The operation was arranged by then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif and his chief of intelligence with the Clinton administration,
which in turn promised to lift sanctions on Pakistan and provide an
economic aid package. The plan was aborted later that year when
Sharif was ousted in a military coup.
The plan was set in motion less than 12 months after U.S. cruise
missile strikes against bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan
that Clinton administration officials believe narrowly missed
hitting the exiled Saudi militant. The clandestine operation was
part of a more robust effort by the United States to get bin Laden
than has been previously reported, including consideration of
broader military action, such as massive bombing raids and Special
Forces assaults.
Sunday September 30 03:04 PM EDT
U.S. Pursued Secret Efforts to Catch or Kill bin Laden
By JAMES RISEN The New York Times
Officials say the United States has been trying to kill bin Laden
and destroy his network for years, but the terrorist organization
has become more ruthless and ambitious.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 The Central Intelligence Agency secretly began
to send teams of American officers to northern Afghanistan about
three years ago in an attempt to persuade the leader of the
anti-Taliban Afghan opposition to capture and perhaps kill Osama bin
Laden, according to American intelligence officials.
The covert effort, which has not been previously disclosed, was
based on an attempt to work with Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was then
the military leader of the largest anti-Taliban group in the
northern mountains of Afghanistan, and to have his forces go after
Mr. bin Laden.
...
But according to current and former intelligence officials and other
policy makers, the United States has been trying to kill bin Laden
and destroy Al Qaeda for years, as the terrorist organization has
become more ruthless and ambitious in its efforts to attack American
interests around the world.
Clinton administration lawyers determined that the United States
could legitimately seek to kill Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants
despite the presidential ban on assassinations, according to current
and former American officials. The lawyers concluded that efforts to
hunt and kill Mr. bin Laden were defensible either as acts of war or
as national self defense, legitimate under both American and
international law. As a result, President Clinton did not waive the
executive order banning assassinations.
There have been an array of unsuccessful attempts to target Mr. bin
Laden and disrupt or destroy Al Qaeda, American officials say. The
Clinton administration even considered mounting a secret effort to
steal millions of dollars from the bin Laden terrorist network by
siphoning it out of the international financial system, but discarded
the scheme because of objections from the United States Treasury about
the implications for world finance.
...
Washington has also attempted to target Mr. bin Laden's finances. One
idea briefly considered by the Clinton administration called for a
clandestine effort to drain money out of bank accounts that could be
tied to Al Qaeda. But former Clinton administration officials said that
Treasury Department officials opposed the idea, fearing that it might
damage the integrity of the financial system.
...
But the United States did mount an international effort to curb Mr.
bin Laden's access to the financial system. In 1998, President
Clinton invoked emergency economic powers against Mr. bin Laden and
Al Qaeda, giving the United States the power to freeze assets of any
individuals or institutions working with or assisting the terrorist
group. In 1999, the Taliban was added to the list, and American
officials were surprised to find that the Taliban had actually left
large sums of money in banks in the United States, mostly in older
Afghan government accounts. Eventually, American and international
pressure led to United Nations sanctions, and effectively shut down
international flights by Ariana Airlines, the Afghan government's air
carrier, which American intelligence had concluded was being used by Al
Qaeda as its conduit to the Persian Gulf and the rest of the world.
...
Rich Travsky
>
> As usual, whatever the Clintoon Administration attempted to do failed miserably.
> They sucked even worse than you, Travsky. That's not easy to do...
Can't handle it that they tried more than Duhbya, eh?
Meanwhile, the Taliban are on the run! Just be patient a few years,
right?
pithy
>
>Mark Gibson wrote:
>>
>> As usual, whatever the Clintoon Administration attempted to do failed miserably.
>> They sucked even worse than you, Travsky. That's not easy to do...
>
>Can't handle it that they tried more than Duhbya, eh?
>
>Meanwhile, the Taliban are on the run! Just be patient a few years,
>right?
Hmmm....
Osama bombed the WTC in '93 and the libs were mighty patient.
Always glad to educate your ignorant left-wing clymer, li'l dick!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If he's in a "because he is working to correct those
mistakes", then they must be pretty important mistakes
and he shouldn't have been there at all.
--Li'l dick travesty
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
be...@burgerking.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
>>
>>Mark Gibson wrote:
>>>
>>> As usual, whatever the Clintoon Administration attempted to do failed miserably.
>>> They sucked even worse than you, Travsky. That's not easy to do...
>>
>>Can't handle it that they tried more than Duhbya, eh?
>>
>>Meanwhile, the Taliban are on the run! Just be patient a few years,
>>right?
>
>Hmmm....
>
>Osama bombed the WTC in '93 and the libs were mighty patient.
>
>Always glad to educate your ignorant left-wing clymer, li'l dick!
Speaking of "little Dicks" Pissy, you don't have a problem one way or
other, do you?
Little girls don't have one.
BTW, Are you saying That Bin Laden snuck in here and got back safely
to Afghanistan?
You'll have to explain how that happened, Aunt Pissy
>Nonrevisionist analysis is demanded before too much
>hagiographic history of Ronald Reagan is engraved in
>granite and the 40th president is canonized beyond
>truth and endurance in airports, public buildings
>and Mount Rushmore.
>
>Now that he is 87 and mentally enfeebled, the
>encomiums are coming faster from editorialist
>who once excoriated him, their prose revised
>to reflect an insufferably sanitized version
>of his presidency. Against his relentless tide
>of tribute, truth must stand firm.
>
>The truth includes Reagan's anti-communist
>zealotry that compelled him to lie in writing
>every six months that he certified "progress" in
>human rights in El Salvador. That was the absurd,
>unilateral "condition" Congress required for
>continued US support of fascist terrorism by
>the death squads of that tormented country.
>
>Reagan's monomaniacal determination to overthrow
>Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua led to subsidizing of
>proxy mass murder of thousands of innocents there
>by Contra terrorists. Later came the Iran-Contra
>scandal, the usurpations of presidential powers
>>by Oliver North and the selling of armaments for
> American hostages in Lebanon, impeachable offenses
>in a non-teflon presidency.
>
>A similar moral famine affected Reagan when he
>declared that the only alternative in the Philippines to
>Ferdinand Marcos' reign of terror and murder
> (he did not characterize it as such) was a communist
>dictatorship. The peaceful revolution led by the admirable
>Benigno Aquino's widow Corazon - whose husband
>was murdered in a public spectacle by Marcos's
>henchmen - belied Reagan's denial of a democratic movement.
> Reagan was perfectly willing to keep anti-communist
>murderers like Marcos in Power.
>
>Although Elie Wiesel importuned him to shun a Nazi cemetery
>at Bitburg at the request of Michael Deaver and Helmut
> Kohl, President Reagan went and gave a ludicrous speech.
> He exculpated the entire German nation for its barbarity,
>persecution, genocide and war save "one man" he held
>responsible. Certainly there was a better way to honor
>Germany's decades of dedication to Democracy in the
>wake of World War II.
>
>The Reagan Administration supported Saddam Hussein
>when Iraq invaded America's nemesis Iran, in his eight year war. It
>led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Persian Gulf War and the
>present threat of chemical and biological warfare.
>Also deleted from Reagan's revisionism is his sending of 230
>Marines to their easily avoidable death in what then Senator
>Sam Nunn, D-Ga. called "Mission Impossible" in Lebanon.
>The same security measures employed by embassies and
>banks throughout the world would have prevented the
> bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.
>
>Reagan's me culpa after the bombing was bought by
>an American electorate that could never impute anything
>but the noblest motives to the "Gipper" and could forgive
>him almost everything.
>
>As George Clemenceau might conclude, history is
> too serious a matter to be left to editorial writers and
>columnists. Give Ronald Reagan his due, his leadership
>of the "revolution" that bears his name. It culminated in
> Republican control of Congress for the first time in
> 40 years in 1994. And give him credit for the energy
> that contributed to - but was far from solely responsible
>fro - the dissolution of the Soviet Union's hegemony.
>
>Extol his B-movie actor's ability to memorize his lines
>and deliver them with presidential credibility.
>
>Like him for his affability and personal charm.
>
>But remember and recognize that he was a shallow
>and shameless president who exploited a nation's
>need for shallow answers to profound and protracted
>problems.
>
>History must not permit him to "go gently into that good
>night" unscathed by scandal, imperverious to imperfections
>, oblivious to the tragedies he wrou
Quintin
tica wrote:
>
> Thanks for the history lesson., but you have missed the big picture.
The big picture is that if this had happened 1 year earlier Clinton
would have likely responded the same way as Bush but the Republican
would be excoriating him for it.
> Clinton treated these terrorist attacks in the same way that local law
> enforcement treats robberies at the 7-11. Did subjecting these individual
In your opinion, right? He didn't have the mandate Bush now has because
of the magnitude of the crime. That and the fact is Clinton didn't have
the support because of the heavily partisan atmosphere created by the
Conservanazis.
> terrorists to western laws and justice slow down the terrorist
> organizations that they belong to for one minute? A lifetime in the
> relative comfort and security of a western jail is a small price to pay for
> someone who is willing to DIE for their cause. Justice may have been
> served, but the underlying problem of escalating terrorist attacks remains.
> When are we going to take these people, who have declared war on the United
> States seriously? Should we wait until they have acquired Pakistan's
> nuclear arsenal? Are these Anthrax attacks just a test run for something
> much more pervasive.... something that could become epidemic once in a
> population?
These anthrax attacks are not the foreign terrorists, they are the Tim
McVeigh types that have been doing for 3 years now. The have just
escalated from just abortion clinics to other 'Liberal', the poor postal
worker are just their typical 'collateral damage'.
> Simply bringing a few 'bad guys' in and putting them in jail does NOT
> protect the USA.
Agreed.
> I am not interested in prosecuting bad guys after they do something
> wrong.... I want to be protected from them.
> The Clinton answered did not provide a solution to escalating, evil
> terrorism.
He did try, that's the point. He was prevented by Conservanazi
partisans.
Quintin
> >[..]Say this, say
> >that, claim this, claim that. Everything to
> >everybody, the ultimate con guy,
> >with nothing for anybody in the end,
> >except a few cronies and his library.
>
> --That sounds more like Ronald Reagan & George Bush(s)..
Sound like the Right Wing Spin Machine, you know the rats - Limbaugh,
Scaife, Falwell, etc.
Rich Travsky
>
> In article <3BDC7F48...@hotMOVEmail.com>, trav...@hotMOVEmail.com sputters...
> >
> >Mark Gibson wrote:
> >>
> >> As usual, whatever the Clintoon Administration attempted to do failed miserably.
> >> They sucked even worse than you, Travsky. That's not easy to do...
> >
> >Can't handle it that they tried more than Duhbya, eh?
> >
> >Meanwhile, the Taliban are on the run! Just be patient a few years,
> >right?
>
> Hmmm....
>
> Osama bombed the WTC in '93 and the libs were mighty patient.
>
> Always glad to educate your ignorant left-wing clymer, li'l dick!
Displaying your ignorance on another topic, eh?
Bonzo:
Courtesy of Narcissus
Nov. 4, 1979 Hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
US response: none
April 18, 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut
US response: none
Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
US response: "New Jersey" shelled beach and Marines pulled out
of Lebanon
Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
US response: none
March 16, 1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped and
tortured to death
US response: Reagan administration sells arms to Iran; 3
hostages freed
Sept. 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut
US response: A possible CIA attempt to assassinate Sheik
Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Everyone
was killed except Fadlallah.
Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221
US response: Iran arrested the hijackers, but then released
them.
June 14, 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847. Robert Dean Stethem,
a U.S. Navy diver, was shot
US response: Israel responded by releasing the prisoners
demanded by the hijackers
October 1985 - January 1986 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille
Lauro; leon Klinghoffer killed
Bombing of Rome, Vienna airports
US response: US Navy sent to Gulf of Sidra to provoke Khaddafi
April 5, 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque; one american
soldier killed
US response: 200 US aircraft attack Tripoli and Benghazi; two
days later, three Americans were murdered in Beirut.
December 21, 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, killing 270
people
US response: After ten years of US pressure on Khaddafi, one
defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment; the other was
acquitted.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html
Duhbya - did nothing until WTC. Ignored bioterrorism treaty,
waited until October, 10 months after the UN and EU asked its member
nations to freeze assests of some of bin Laden's people.
Clinton:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/international/30INTE.html
September 30, 2001
The Associated Press
Courtesy of Quintan:
As you see, Polly, you're bitch slapped again.
Your time would be better spent finding those obfuscated urls, little
liar.
RT
SemiScholar
<trav...@hotMOVEmail.com> wrote:
>pithy wrote:
>>
>> In article <3BDC7F48...@hotMOVEmail.com>, trav...@hotMOVEmail.com sputters...
>> >
>> >Mark Gibson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As usual, whatever the Clintoon Administration attempted to do failed miserably.
>> >> They sucked even worse than you, Travsky. That's not easy to do...
>> >
>> >Can't handle it that they tried more than Duhbya, eh?
>> >
>> >Meanwhile, the Taliban are on the run! Just be patient a few years,
>> >right?
>>
>> Hmmm....
>>
>> Osama bombed the WTC in '93 and the libs were mighty patient.
>>
>> Always glad to educate your ignorant left-wing clymer, li'l dick!
>
>Displaying your ignorance on another topic, eh?
>
>Bonzo:
>
>Courtesy of Narcissus
>
>
>Nov. 4, 1979 Hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
>
> US response: none
Well, Jimmy Carter tried to do something, even though the miltary
fucked it up at Desert One. He tried peaceful means first, and
ultimately gave the green light to a military rescue mission that
failed.
But Reagan did nothing (other than selling missiles to the country
that took the hostages).
StormDrain
"pithy" <LibsHat...@dnc.org> wrote in message
news:ON%C7.15226$KD2.5...@news1.epix.net...
> In article <3BDC7F48...@hotMOVEmail.com>, trav...@hotMOVEmail.com
sputters...
> >
> >Mark Gibson wrote:
> >>
> >> As usual, whatever the Clintoon Administration attempted to do failed
miserably.
> >> They sucked even worse than you, Travsky. That's not easy to do...
> >
> >Can't handle it that they tried more than Duhbya, eh?
> >
> >Meanwhile, the Taliban are on the run! Just be patient a few years,
> >right?
>
> Hmmm....
>
> Osama bombed the WTC in '93 and the libs were mighty patient.
Clinton tried to get a comprehensive anti-terrorism package through a very
holstile republican congress. They passed a much watered down version of
it, but guess what...they ressurected it and passed it just last week (yes,
its pretty much the Clinton package). The republicans couldn't even put
politics aside for national security, shame!
Mitchell Holman
You missed one:
May 12, 1987, USS Stark frigate attacked by an Iraqi Exocet missile.
Extensive damage and casualty resulted.
American Casualties: 34 Sailers killed
US Response: none
Rich Travsky
>
> "pithy" <LibsHat...@dnc.org> wrote in message
> news:ON%C7.15226$KD2.5...@news1.epix.net...
> > In article <3BDC7F48...@hotMOVEmail.com>, trav...@hotMOVEmail.com
> sputters...
> > >
> > >Mark Gibson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> As usual, whatever the Clintoon Administration attempted to do failed
> miserably.
> > >> They sucked even worse than you, Travsky. That's not easy to do...
> > >
> > >Can't handle it that they tried more than Duhbya, eh?
> > >
> > >Meanwhile, the Taliban are on the run! Just be patient a few years,
> > >right?
> >
> > Hmmm....
> >
> > Osama bombed the WTC in '93 and the libs were mighty patient.
>
> Clinton tried to get a comprehensive anti-terrorism package through a very
> holstile republican congress. They passed a much watered down version of
> it, but guess what...they ressurected it and passed it just last week (yes,
> its pretty much the Clinton package). The republicans couldn't even put
> politics aside for national security, shame!
Man, is there no end to the ways in which Polly bin Dumbass can make a fool
of himself?
Senator Palpatine
> "pithy" <LibsHat...@dnc.org> wrote in message
> news:ON%C7.15226$KD2.5...@news1.epix.net...
> > In article <3BDC7F48...@hotMOVEmail.com>, trav...@hotMOVEmail.com
> sputters...
> > >
> > >Mark Gibson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> As usual, whatever the Clintoon Administration attempted to do failed
> miserably.
> > >> They sucked even worse than you, Travsky. That's not easy to do...
> > >
> > >Can't handle it that they tried more than Duhbya, eh?
> > >
> > >Meanwhile, the Taliban are on the run! Just be patient a few years,
> > >right?
> >
> > Hmmm....
> >
> > Osama bombed the WTC in '93 and the libs were mighty patient.
>
> Clinton tried to get a comprehensive anti-terrorism package through a very
> holstile republican congress. They passed a much watered down version of
> it, but guess what...they ressurected it and passed it just last week (yes,
> its pretty much the Clinton package). The republicans couldn't even put
> politics aside for national security, shame!
>
and barrell tax and spend socialist programs. The rebubs. shot it down because
of that. Then the dems played politics as usual trying to blame the republicans
of what you wrote. So are the liberals really concerned about our national
security or about social programs for people who dont need them?