LOL! The terrorists struck many times before 9/11, as you said. Why didn't Bush retaliate as soon as he came into office?
Because under Bush the terrorists didn’t strike us before 911. (duh) Bush had only been in office 7 months, barely enough time to get an idea of the pervasiveness of the threat. Contrariwise, Clinton had been in office for 8 years, had even taken several hits from terrorists and did nothing.
Better question: why did Bush downgrade terrorism on the list of priorities as soon as he came into office?
Because, as Powell has just testified, administration leaders underestimated the threat, having only been in office 7 months. Contrariwise, Clinton had been in office for eight entire years and under him the muslims had attacked us several times. He had the tools available to him and yet he did nothing—quite unlike Bush.
I asked you for evidence that Clinton sat on his hands. Considering that you want evidence of Bush's absence from his fake military service, my request is reasonable.
The evidence is palpable that Clinton sat on his hands. The current 911 investigation actually cites it, telling how Clinton, despite eight years in office, despite having his nation take hit after hit from terrorists, did nothing about it. That same investigation cites Bush also, but since Bush had only been in office 7 months he cannot possibly be considered as culpable as Clinton. Bill Clinton had eight years to defend his country and, like all leftists, did nothing. On the other hand, after a mere seven months Bush began operations that eventually put America firmly in control of two terrorist nations, even killing or captured dozens of terrorist operatives. Clinton, after 8 years, did nothing.
So, Clinton didn't lie, because he had "ultimate authority"? Interesting concept.
This is just stupid. Clinton is one person whose testimony took place on his own behalf, not on that of the United States government. Contrariwise, Bush’s honorable discharge came officially from the United States. As such, it trumps your paltry “evidence” concerning his having gone AWOL. You have nothing but the whining of a leftist “commander.” That simply doesn’t cut it against the testimony of your own government, comprised of thousands of people and systems designed to ensure the truth of honorable discharges.
It is the same tool, used for different ends. For sure, it has always been a terrorist weapon.
Please. You must try to think logically here. If I use a hammer to hammer a nail and then someone takes the same hammer and uses it to hammer me, the significance of the hammer changes from my perspective. In the former case, it was a tool I used toward my own interests. In the latter case it became a weapon used against my own interests. They are different things qualitatively. Bush did not create the anti-soviet version of the terrorists and he certainly didn’t create the anti-American versions either. Your whining about his creating a “breeding” ground for Al Qaeda in Iraq is just crap, since Al Qaeda was breeding long before Bush in very many breeding grounds, almost all of which no longer exist because of Bush. |
