The perpetrations died on 9/11 and unlike Clinton, Bush went after the
people behind the perpetrators and has killed thousands in the origination.

DNC talking point #3491 - Bush invaded the wrong country. Use this one to
lie and pretend that we haven't gotten bin Laden because of Iraq.

Clinton caught scores of Al Qaeda operatives and had them in jail and
selling out their compatriots.

You might also read about the LAX/Millenium plot.

Or the Bush assassination plot in Italy.

The Clinton team made counter terrorem a top priority and was heavily
focused on disrupting their operations and taking out their
leadership.

If you actually read ANYTHING you'd know that.

Ah you're to stupid to waste bits on.

retrogrouch at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote
"Remarkably, the Bush Administration believed too much emphasis was
placed on neutralizing Osama bin Laden. When the State Department
released its annual report "Patterns of Global Terrorism" on April 30,
2001, CNN reported that "unlike last year, there's no extensive
mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior
State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake
in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and `personalizing
terrorism.'" (CNN's Inside Politics, 4/30/01).

Yeah, so? The focus should have been on all of Al Qaeda and not just one
man, ya dope.

Gheez..

And that's exactly the way it turned out, isn't it? A meaningless report oft
refered to by democrats as "he was warned" as if no one knew that Al Qaeda
wanted to attack the US and had to be told and without knowing how or when.
Hear me? No one knew the time or place or method and everyone already knew
that Al Qaeda wanted to attack the US.

Now you are doing exactly what Bush said, using the report to cover your
ass. Fucker must be clairvoyant.

Eddie Haskell wrote:
I've responded to everything you have said and all you can do is cry and
claim that I make "LALALA" noises while beating you senseless.

Now, choke it down and try not to cry about it:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/01/09/clinton/index.html


I've read about 30 books on the terrorism and counter terrorism
efforts from 1995 to the present, as well a few hundred on the history
of US and British intel generally (my thesis written for a former
counsel to the Intelligence Oversight Board) was on the history and
legalities of the difficulties regulating executive intelligence
agencies in the system of checks and balances).

You've evidently found one article by a political hack for the New
Republic. at least you read something. Now who should I believe? Those
who were there and wrote of the history with footnotes and a record,
or a commentator with an axe to grind? let me see. . . .

Les Cargill wrote:
It's Andrew Sullivan. He works for "The Atlantic", SFAIK.... he
also appears to have no significant coherence to what he
writes....
A Fun read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

Eddie Haskell wrote:

The problem is that Bush has prevented any significant terrorist attack
against the US or interests since 9/11

LOL. I've shown you to be an ignorant fool with no concept of what's
happened on terrorism and counter terrorism in the last 20 years.

You went from no attacks on US and I quickly showed you with two
minutes on google about 15 embassy attacks.

You haven't a clue what's going on. You're just echoing Limbaugh
mantras that are lies.

and that fact has you scalding mad to
the point of having to make shit up.

A guy stumps his toe in Alabama and that becomes a terrorist attack..

Those dead from these attacks are insulted by your lies. You're
shameless.

I guess you figure the republican stole the election line is too worn out to
use a third time in a row..

No, I just figure the folks voting for McCain will be voting *against*
the nigger rather than *for* the Republican.  When you think about it,
the only way the GOP could have lost this election was for the Dems to
nominate a guy who wasn't white.  Had Clinton got the nom, McCain
would already be paste.

Swill
--
No, his mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Always hopeful, yet discontent,
He knows changes arent permanent,
But change is. -- Geddy Lee/Rushhttp://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

White, Black, Yellow, blue, green, purple, WHAT'S THE FUCKIN'
DIFFERENCE? JUST VOTE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE! OBAMA '08!

This is Eddie Haskell's brain on drugs:
retrogrouch at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote
"Remarkably, the Bush Administration believed too much emphasis was
placed on neutralizing Osama bin Laden. When the State Department
released its annual report "Patterns of Global Terrorism" on April 30,
2001, CNN reported that "unlike last year, there's no extensive
mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior
State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake
in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and `personalizing
terrorism.'" (CNN's Inside Politics, 4/30/01).

Yeah, so? The focus should have been on all of Al Qaeda and not just one
man, ya dope.

Gheez..

Well, jeez . . . doncha think that if Bush *had* focused on Bin Laden
he'd have *found* Al Qaeda?

DOH!

Dude, you are such an embarrassment to the Republican party. Keep up
the good work, Iddie! I'll be rootin' for ya!

This is retrogrouch at (no spam) comcast.net's brain on drugs:
Eddie Haskell wrote:
I've responded to everything you have said and all you can do is cry and
claim that I make "LALALA" noises while beating you senseless.

Now, choke it down and try not to cry about it:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/01/09/clinton/index.html


I've read about 30 books on the terrorism and counter terrorism
efforts from 1995 to the present, as well a few hundred on the history
of US and British intel generally (my thesis written for a former
counsel to the Intelligence Oversight Board) was on the history and
legalities of the difficulties regulating executive intelligence
agencies in the system of checks and balances).

You've evidently found one article by a political hack for the New
Republic. at least you read something. Now who should I believe? Those
who were there and wrote of the history with footnotes and a record,
or a commentator with an axe to grind? let me see. . . .

Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!

*cough* The commentator with an axe to grind, Alex.

What'd I win??

/sarcasm (because you can't ever be too careful)

Or the Bush assassination plot in Italy.

Curses! Foiled again!

If you actually read ANYTHING you'd know that.

Well, that sort of stuff isn't published EVERYWHERE. You have to look
for it.

This is Eddie Haskell's brain on drugs:
And that's exactly the way it turned out, isn't it? A meaningless report
oft
refered to by democrats as "he was warned" as if no one knew that Al Qaeda
wanted to attack the US and had to be told and without knowing how or
when.
Hear me? No one knew the time or place or method and everyone already knew
that Al Qaeda wanted to attack the US.

Now you are doing exactly what Bush said, using the report to cover your
ass. Fucker must be clairvoyant.

And nobody in this administration could have foreseen an Iran funded
war between Israel and an out of control Lebanon.

And nobody in this administration could have foreseen a hurricane in
New Orleans.

And nobody in this administration could have foreseen the subprime
meltdown.

And nobody in this administration could have foreseen gas prices
doubling (and this while shutting down Iraq's oil production
overnight).

And nobody could have foreseen the US getting caught torturing people
(What, they ran out of pentathol?)

I could go on forever

but hey, a few highlights ought to make the
point that it seems like nobody in this administration could see much
of anything.

Well, we didn't have much to choose from the last two times, this
season's crop is much better.

Swill
--
Obama belongs to the people.

"Here I am. Signed, sealed, delivered, I'm yours."
Gobama! Gobama! Gobama!

This is Eddie Haskell's brain on drugs:
retrogrouch at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote
"Remarkably, the Bush Administration believed too much emphasis was
placed on neutralizing Osama bin Laden. When the State Department
released its annual report "Patterns of Global Terrorism" on April 30,
2001, CNN reported that "unlike last year, there's no extensive
mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior
State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake
in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and `personalizing
terrorism.'" (CNN's Inside Politics, 4/30/01).

Yeah, so? The focus should have been on all of Al Qaeda and not just one
man, ya dope.

Gheez..

Well, jeez . . . doncha think that if Bush *had* focused on Bin Laden
he'd have *found* Al Qaeda?

DOH!

Dude, you are such an embarrassment to the Republican party. Keep up
the good work, Iddie! I'll be rootin' for ya!