It's personal & nobody's business

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The cigar, the fat chick, the adultery. Wasn't that the argument? It has no affect on his job performance was another. The left claims it was uptight conservatives who had a problem & that it had nothing, no nothing to do with lying under oath before a grand jury. Perjury, I believe it's called.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 79 Sec. 1623. said:
Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Click to expand...

ARTICLE II said:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Click to expand...





Now, let's imagine our country today, 09/08/2003 had our former President not been so wrapped up in his dick that he actually did his job. See, William Jefferson Clinton is to blame for George "Dubya" Bush. We were attacked several times during his presidency.

Oct. 12, 2000: Terrorist bombing kills 17 U.S. sailors aboard the USS Cole as it refueled in Yemen's port of Aden. The United States says Saudi exile Osama bin Laden prime suspect.

Aug. 7, 1998: Car bombs explode outside U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, within minutes of each other, killing 224 people and wounding thousands. Bin Laden is again blamed.

June 25, 1996: Truck bomb explodes outside the Khobar Towers in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding hundreds of other people. Members of a little-known Saudi militant group, Hezbollah, were indicted for the attack.

Nov. 13, 1995: Car bomb detonates at a U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five American service personnel.

Feb. 26, 1993: A bomb explodes in a parking garage below the World Trade Center in New York, killing six people and wounding more than 1,000. Six Islamic militants were convicted in the bombing and sentenced to life in prison.

Had Clinton the foresight to accept the Sudanese offer & taken binLaden into custody, Sept 11 most likely wouldn't have happened. It wasn't just one offer either. Some reports claim as many as 11 times we had a chance. Not once was the offer taken seriously. Not once did Clinton act as a President should & look out for the best interest of America. Sure, he sent troops to Haiti-now there is a serious threat to the US, yet he ignored Rwanda. He even sent airplanes & bombs to Bosnia. Nobody on the ground under US control though. When the going got really tough (read Somalia & Beirut) we ran away, giving terrorism (Al Qaeda specifically) hope & reason to believe we'd do little to stop them.


Dubya may be a fool but he's a fool that acts in our interest. Slick Willie was just a fool.
 
Open your eyes, look at the big picture, blah blah blah.


Oh, hell I'll spell it out AGAIN.

Without bin Laden in custody, we were attacked. They assumed we'd piss & moan, fire off a few rockets at some more aspirin factories, thump our chest & be done with it.

They were wrong.

We took out the Afghanistan with amazing ease. Then, deciding it was better to fight on their soil than ours, we killed two birds with one stone. Iraq has been a thorn in our (and the UN's) side & they are the center of the area in conflict. Afghanistan & Iraq mostly surround Iran, who is on the brink of civil war (3 birds?) & Iraq immediately neighbors Syria & Saudi Arabia (who, I think, is getting lots & lots of shit from many countries, behind the scene). Since Kuwait loves us, they won't stand in our way of transporting troops & weaponry from the gulf & even if they did, we now have Iraq.


I wrote this shit before, look it up.
 
Simply, yes.

After 12 years of ........ it was time & convenient.
 
And you think Bush would have been anymore willing to take Bin Laden Before 9-11.Don't forget the only plane (non-military)flying after 9-11 was picking up Bin Laden's relatives and taking them out of the US.With the kind of connections it must have took to pull that off ,you really think Osama would have been taken into custody.Locking him up would not have meant he couldn't have continued his operations anyway,hell,he's working off the back of a camel at the moment.All locking him up would have done is rallied the radicals and raised more monies from his Saudi relatives.
 
Wait a fucking minute. The entire point of this exercise was not to argue this war, again, but to study the effects of personal behaviour & how it affects events later.

Get back ON topic :D
 
AB said:
All locking him up would have done is rallied the radicals and raised more monies from his Saudi relatives.
Click to expand...

Possibly. We do know what happens when he's not locked up though. Would anybody else have taken him off the hands of the Sudanese? Hard to say. My guess is yes. The conservatives are far more concerned with national security than the liberals.
 
Well...I saw the Saudis mentioned several times in your opening post. What say we go blow the fucking place off the map? :D
 
My vote-Hell yea.

If I were in a position that affecterd matters of national security, I'd say no.
 
Gonz said:
We do know what happens when he's not locked up though.
Click to expand...

No,because then hes protected by the "Constitution" and his communications with his Lawyers are privileged.Moussaui (sp) is locked up and even after 9-11 his access to sensitive security info isn't out of the question and hes being allowed to contact other knowed Al quaeda members, under arrest in Europe ,to prove he had no knowkedge of 9-11.
 
Gonz said:
Possibly. We do know what happens when he's not locked up though. Would anybody else have taken him off the hands of the Sudanese? Hard to say. My guess is yes. The conservatives are far more concerned with national security than the liberals.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about locking him up. How about he just disappear forever?

And I do agree with your point about the previous administration sitting on its ass playing politics trying to please everyone and lull them into some blind stupor that "everythings ok lets just do nothing and criticize those who do and inflate our overbloated economy some more" (which amazingly seems to have worked greatly because everyone seems to taken the bait and let the wool be pulled over their eyes) while the threats and terrorists were embolden and reinforced....and that is in a nut shell what led to 9/11.

In the end personal decisions and playing politics certainly had a hand in the situation.

However, I think republicans could have just as easily been foolish enough to let this happen...had it suited their political needs at the time. The fact that Bush had just stepped into office rather than a Democrat is a moot point because he wasnt in there long enough to have impacted the situation. The fact that the previous administration had been Democrat and not Republican does mean somthing though.
 
Moussaui is one of the reasons we're using the military justice system for most of 'em. :mad:
 
:rofl4:

Had Clinton the foresight to accept the Sudanese offer & taken binLaden into custody, Sept 11 most likely wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

Guess you missed that part too?
 
like i said previously, it would be the easy scapegoat to blame the clinton administration for allowing bin laden to slip free. i think a more pertinent place for disatisfaction and blame should be the policies that allowed bin laden to become so well trained and armed as he was, by the cia during his years in afghanistan while fighting the soviets.

i heard no-one from the us standing up from the republican side, or any other side, and demanding the arrest of islamic militants with a grudge against the us. i somewhat doubt that had clinton not been in office the attitude would have been any different.

did bush immediately begin his war on terror on his ascention to office, unhappy with the democrat line on terrorism against the us? no, because the view of hindsight that can bring together those 5 attacks in 7 years was just as uninterested.
 
flavio said:
Bush and the conservatives are looking like bigger fools everyday so your going to try a last ditch effort to blame stuff on Clinton? This is getting a little sad and besides, your facts are sorely lacking.
Click to expand...


Not a last ditch response to anything. Ive been placing the blame squarely with those responsible and Ive been doing it since the early 90s.

I admit I dont have many (details), names, dates, and events (details) then again, I cant exactly explain gravity either, but I know it exsists. I dont think you could refute gravity just because hypothetical person x in a dissusion forum somewhere didnt have all the evidence to prove it.

Your placing blame in the wrong place and thats just how it is....sad really!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top