Conservatives gain all their knowledge from quips and comic strips. Very limited thinking beyond " you didn't build that" or " what difference does it make". Plus you guys all wound up with stupid trump comments that have zero chance of happening. " I will build a wall and have mexico pay for it". No real thinking beyond general statements.
So none of those statements by Democrats in that ad are true?
FACT: Democrats are unable/unwilling to keep Americans safe.
They didn't under Clinton when Al-Qaeda became a global terror network right under his nose, and they aren't now with ISIS becoming into a global network of terror with Obama in charge.
Then when Bush came in and started kicking ass, you guys accused him of "being too mean" (Gitmo, torture, CIA detainment, "stupid wars" etc.) to the bad guys.
If there's an attack a few months after the new Republican president is sworn in, it's all on Obama since ISIS is EXPLODING RIGHT NOW on his watch. Hussein is a disaster! The next POTUS is going to have a hell of a mess to clean up!
Unwilling to keep safe??? You do know 9-11-2001 was not a safe day for us right? That was while bush was president.
Obama has killed more terrorists and civilians than bush admin by miles.
Of of course you will blame Obama.....you will blame him no matter what or when there is an attack. If there is none.....you will say " just wait" or give credit to republican led house or some shit. It's what conservatives do....blame and never take responsibility. It's what they always do.
Obama has killed more terrorists and civilians than bush admin by miles.
Of of course you will blame Obama.....you will blame him no matter what or when there is an attack. If there is none.....you will say " just wait" or give credit to republican led house or some shit. It's what conservatives do....blame and never take responsibility. It's what they always do.
9/11 happened only because Clinton sat back and allowed al-Qaeda to become a global terror network. From the first WTC attack to the US embassy bombings, to the USS Cole bombing, terrorism was treated like a "law enforcement problem" Clinton had no interest in engaging. Bin Laden went on CNN and taunted America while 9/11 was in the planning stages - all on Clinton's watch. Then the gaystream media tried to pin on it on Bush based on some vague 'memo'
Now ISIS is doing the same under Obama! Deja vu all over again, except it looks like their next "big" attack in America will be with WMD!
U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes
‘We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us’
Hey Obama, the 2000s called, they want their foreign policy back!
"limited thinkers" -- when it comes to protecting Americans and killing the bad guys, your party is a fucking joke!
Now ISIS is doing the same under Obama! Deja vu all over again, except it looks like their next "big" attack in America will be with WMD!
U.S. Pilots Confirm: Obama Admin Blocks 75 Percent of Islamic State Strikes
‘We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us’
Hey Obama, the 2000s called, they want their foreign policy back!
"limited thinkers" -- when it comes to protecting Americans and killing the bad guys, your party is a fucking joke!
Richard Clarke told us how disengaged Bush was on terror. He fell asleep during his presidency and what we see today , is a direct result of his decision to go to war with Iraq.
The numbers tell story who is killing more terrorists....those numbers can't be disputed. Thankfully Obama admin came in and got bin laden....bush admin couldn't even do that. Republicans created this and now we are stuck with it.
Richard Clarke is a lying hack and can go fuck himself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN: 1997, Osama Bin Laden declares jihad (4 years before Bush!)
Blowjob Bill's response: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN: 1997, Osama Bin Laden declares jihad (4 years before Bush!)
Blowjob Bill's response: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Richard Clarke is a true American hero that tried to save this Country before 911, but his new boss wasn't as interested as the old one, or the current one. I will give the Republican controlled media credit though, because they have successfully convinced enough brain dead lying, moronic idiots like Casper that somehow 911 happened under a D POTUS, and that W kept us safe.
Richard Clarke is a true American hero that tried to save this Country before 911, but his new boss wasn't as interested as the old one, or the current one. I will give the Republican controlled media credit though, because they have successfully convinced enough brain dead lying, moronic idiots like Casper that somehow 911 happened under a D POTUS, and that W kept us safe.
"the new boss wasn't as interested as the old boss"
Before W even thought about running for POTUS, what was Bill Clinton's response to bin Laden's declaration of war, his taunting Americans on CNN, the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, the Khobar towers bombing, the USS Cole attack? I mean, Clark said he was totally engaged and interested, right? face)(*^%
So what was the Interested One's response and strategy?
Answer the question.
Liberal Logic 101:
Bush's fault!
Richard Clarke is a true American hero that tried to save this Country before 911, but his new boss wasn't as interested as the old one, or the current one. I will give the Republican controlled media credit though, because they have successfully convinced enough brain dead lying, moronic idiots like Casper that somehow 911 happened under a D POTUS, and that W kept us safe.
That " w kept us safe" line is one for the ages. I guess if you forget about the anthrax attacks and the biggest attack in history.....then ya.
how dumb repubs are.....during 2004 RNC they showed a video of 9/11 and praised bush for keeping us safe.
Nobody is saying that Bush was a top notcher on security, the discussion is about Obama being a threat to our security.
Obama is a terrible foreign policy guy who actually does threaten US security by virtue of his ineptness.
Frankly, I'm tired like most of our citizens of having a president that loves to attack others for his failures.
I don't believe in too much advance worrying but we do need to elect Trump! If we get another leader anywhere
near as bad as Obama the best policy would be to brace ourselves against even more misery.
Here's what Dick Morris (Bill Clinton's chief political strategist) had to say about how "engaged and interested" Blowjob Bill was fighting Islamic terrorism:
"He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”
Who to believe, Morris or Clarke? Who knows. Each have their agendas, so call it a wash.
Now look at the evidence - actions speak louder than party hacks on either side.
What did Blowjob Bill do to fight Islamic terrorism and defeat al-Qaeda?
Virtually nothing.
No troops or special forces hunting down al-Qaeda leadership
No CIA involvement
No sustained military bombing campaigns wiping out their safe havens
Nothing.
Nada.
Zippo.
Nichts.
Niet.
Just like Obama on ISIS, Democrats can NEVER be trusted to keep people safe.
Why? Too busy redistributing your wealth to give a shit!
"He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”
Who to believe, Morris or Clarke? Who knows. Each have their agendas, so call it a wash.
Now look at the evidence - actions speak louder than party hacks on either side.
What did Blowjob Bill do to fight Islamic terrorism and defeat al-Qaeda?
Virtually nothing.
No troops or special forces hunting down al-Qaeda leadership
No CIA involvement
No sustained military bombing campaigns wiping out their safe havens
Nothing.
Nada.
Zippo.
Nichts.
Niet.
Just like Obama on ISIS, Democrats can NEVER be trusted to keep people safe.
Why? Too busy redistributing your wealth to give a shit!
Now the TRUTH, with FACTS.
Ask FactCheck
[h=1]Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?[/h] [h=4][/h]
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
FULL QUESTION
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
FULL ANSWER
Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.
It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.
– Joe Miller
Ask FactCheck
[h=1]Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?[/h] [h=4][/h]
- By Joe Miller
- Posted on January 18, 2008
A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
FULL QUESTION
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
FULL ANSWER
Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.
It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa’s claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those "why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat ‘yes’ early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.
– Joe Miller
"fact checking" (a non-sequitur)
WHAT DID BILL CLINTON DO TO DEFEAT AL-QAEDA AND ISLAMIC TERRORISM?
Hows this.....ask gasman how to recover from Vits right hook. I hope this answers your question.
www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm
