>>The attack on the U.S.S. Cole was in retaliation for Clinton's attempt to blow Bin Laden and most of his top people to bits with a missile strike.
yeah right...the one where clinton lied about how he had just missed BenLaden by minutes"?
The USS Cole would have never been in port had it not been for two things. One, the ship that WAS to be in port, the USS Simpson, was out on the seas broke down. Secondly, Neither ship would, nor should, have been in a hostile port, had it not been for clintons policy. <<
PL -
Yes. There was a missile strike, and that's the one I meant. Whatever stupid crap Clinton may have said about it, the fact that it occurred is well documented.
The rest of your post doesn't seem to address the issue, which was how Clinton's so-called "namby pamby" policy had supposedly encouraged the terrorists and that he is therefore responsible for 9/11.
Are you saying that he shouldn't have sent warships into the Middle East? Would it have been less "namby pamby" to make sure they were all out of harm's way?
This isn't making sense to me. So far, I haven't seen any evidence to support the outrageous accusation that the attacks of 9/11 should be blamed on the Clinton administration.
I thought you guys didn't believe in unsupported accusations.
Here's a question for you: If terrorists attack the U.S. again in the future, will it be Bush's fault, since he hasn't caught Bin Laden or most of his co-conspirators? Or will you still want to blame Clinton?
- Allen |
