Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Bush was offered Bin Laden...

  1. #1

    Bush was offered Bin Laden...

    ...by Afghanistan in exchange for dropping sanctions.

    Watch this report and then we can discuss Bush's record on terror leading up to 9/11.

    [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15046240/[/url]

    He made counter-terrorism a sub-cabinet level. Democrats on many occasions complained about the lack of attention paid to terrorism. Bush was too concerned with his Star Wars project. Talk about totally misguided expenditure of government money and complete ineptitude. Who is really the party that was tough on terror leading up to 9/11?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    First the NYT and now Keith Olbermann! Yea!!


    Sorry kid, again, you're a nice smart kid, but I give stuff like this the same weight you give to Coulter and Rush.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]First the NYT and now Keith Olbermann! Yea!!


    Sorry kid, again, you're a nice smart kid, but I give stuff like this the same weight you give to Coulter and Rush.[/QUOTE]
    Well then you choose to remain uninformed on what has transpired. If you remember Jetsphan also has posted from the Cato Institute.

    Oberman logs questions and answers from previous press conferences and taped testimony from public figures.

    I can't believe you are so knee jerk on this. It would do you well to read the transcripts or hear the clip.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [img]http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/spec_coll/comix/bigcovers/despair.gif[/img]

  5. #5
    the only story about OBL is that the US has been trying to get this man since 1998!!!!

    8 FRIKKING years and the USA cannot find the man responsible for the worst attacks on America...
    We should be voting for every 3rd party candidate out there b/c repugs and dems have done nothing for this country in 10 years..
    THE US Frikking A can't find 1 man!!
    but we did get saddam's gun for little bush's office..
    YEEHAH!!!
    Last edited by bman; 09-29-2006 at 03:23 PM.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Well then you choose to remain uninformed on what has transpired. If you remember Jetsphan also has posted from the Cato Institute.

    Oberman logs questions and answers from previous press conferences and taped testimony from public figures.

    I can't believe you are so knee jerk on this. It would do you well to read the transcripts or hear the clip.[/QUOTE]

    First of all - the NYT is ridiculous. Secondly, Olbermann is ridiculous.

    Do you listen to Coulter or Rush? They source their material and use quotes and actual audio tape as well. Is anyone who doesn't listen to them "uninformed?" I can't believe you are so simple-minded about this.

    Phan, like I said, is a nice, smart kid. He's a hard worker who likely has parents who raised him the right way. But he posted from the Cato Institute a report that was highly critical of the GOP and Bush, not the Dems. [I]All[/I] of his posts are critical of the GOP and Bush, not the Dems. The GOP does deserve tons of criticism, trust me. But your example of his citing of Cato as evidence of his "balance" is misleading, since it was simply another anti-Bush point. Granted, I'll pay attention to Cato much more so that Olbermann or the NYT, but when I see Phan publishing reports from Cato that shred liberal pieties, I'll consider him more balanced...fair enough?

    Besides, bman is right - the government as a holw bricked on OBL prior to 9-11....Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush. All deserve blame, but most of the blame for 9-11 goes to OBL himself. We can sit around and worry about who is to blame or whatever, but we should really be trying to figure out the best plan going forward and neither party is doing so because of this election year bickering and "Gotcha!" politics. I f*cking hate both parties.

    My responses in the Clinton/Fox news thread were not to suggest that Bush is above blame but to counter the laughable notion that Clinton did anything whatsoever about OBL. Mouth-foamers like Kenny can't see that.

  7. #7
    Yes I read Coulter from time to time. I have to confess I don't listen to Rush. All I can say is to dismiss a report because you don't like the reporter just means that there is a good chance you are not well informed. To dismiss the NYT news division as a joke is ridiculous. Let me ask you. What paper has a better news division?

    Oberman had a fascinating and worthwile report. When the Republicans claim that only they can protest us and the Democrats are soft the truth needs to be presented.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]Yes I read Coulter from time to time. I have to confess I don't listen to Rush. All I can say is to dismiss a report because you don't like the reporter just means that there is a good chance you are not well informed. To dismiss the NYT news division as a joke is ridiculous. Let me ask you. What paper has a better news division?

    Oberman had a fascinating and worthwile report. When the Republicans claim that only they can protest us and the Democrats are soft the truth needs to be presented.[/QUOTE]

    The WSJ has a much better news division, IMO. The NYT is a joke, sorry. Olbermann is a joke. You like them, I don't.

    You don't listen to Rush = you are uninformed. He has many fascinating reports.

    Democrats are soft - soft on crime, soft on terror. It's not shocking. Do you honestly think the GOP is softer on crime than the Dems? Softer on terrorism? Please....

  9. #9
    [QUOTE][B]First of all - the NYT is ridiculous. Secondly, Olbermann is ridiculous.[/B][/QUOTE]

    This from a man who uses Stephen Hayes as a source to back up the falsehood that Saddam and Al Queda had a working relationship.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE][B]My responses in the Clinton/Fox news thread were not to suggest that Bush is above blame but to counter the laughable notion that Clinton did anything whatsoever about OBL. Mouth-foamers like Kenny can't see that.[/[/B]QUOTE]

    The only mouthfoamer is J5E, who despite his Ivy league education has yet to learn the fundamentals of reading comprehension. Clinton admitted that he did not do enough in that interview. He flat out stated that he FAILED. No one is saying that he did enough. The point is that , contrary to your biases, Yes he did do something (though clearly not enough)and that what GWB has done in his 6+ years has done very little to protect us (actually he is probably hurting us with his bonehead moves). The problem is that J5E and others on this board cant seem to understand that "doing something" does not necessarily mean you have to use military warfare (guns, bombs, destruction, killing lots of people , lots of bloodshed etc) to be "doing something" about it. Weve used this cowboy military offensive approach for 6 years now........its not working.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]
    You don't listen to Rush = you are uninformed. He has many fascinating reports.[/QUOTE]

    yes many fascinating reports the guy is on more pills than Elvis Presley

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]This from a man who uses Stephen Hayes as a source to back up the falsehood that Saddam and Al Queda had a working relationship.[/QUOTE]

    Kenny -thanks for the kind words about fatherhood. I'll tell you - it's great but MAN, I need some sleep!

  13. #13
    J5 you are def. right about Rush's fascinating reports. Such as he was not arrested for his offense. Instead, he turned himself in, huge difference. That is fascinating.


    [QUOTE=jets5ever]The WSJ has a much better news division, IMO. The NYT is a joke, sorry. Olbermann is a joke. You like them, I don't.

    You don't listen to Rush = you are uninformed. He has many fascinating reports.

    Democrats are soft - soft on crime, soft on terror. It's not shocking. Do you honestly think the GOP is softer on crime than the Dems? Softer on terrorism? Please....[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    It truly is incredible that here is a thread raising serious issues and all people can talk about is Oberman, Rush, NYT etc. Hey guys try reading the piece and stop obsessing over who wrote it.

    Does anyone care about this stuff?

  15. #15
    You are right Queens and I apologize. Unfortunately, politics almost always gets in the way of real crime fighting.

    Has anyone been watching "The WIRE" this year, or actually as long as it has been in on? This is one of the most accurate shows out there and this season shows how ridiculous politics get before and during an election year. I know it is city politics, but all the same shyt happens during federal elections as well.

    Politicians all want to make THEIR mark and really don't care if it is good for the majority.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us