Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 10:47:04 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: 2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?  (Read 5633 times)
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: June 14, 2010, 11:20:57 am »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #51 on: June 14, 2010, 05:54:17 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2010, 01:04:42 am »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10401
United States


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2010, 08:32:45 am »
Ignore

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennium_Plot&redirect=no
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2010, 03:38:36 pm »
Ignore


Oh give it up already.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2010, 04:04:53 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: June 16, 2010, 10:39:08 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #57 on: June 16, 2010, 11:42:44 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: June 17, 2010, 10:24:15 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.


all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7048
United States


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: June 18, 2010, 10:11:02 pm »
Ignore



Clinton vs McCain

Clinton comes close in a lot of southern states, but looses all of them except for Florida. One of the surprises of the night is Virgnia going early for McCain. Clinton does worse than expected everywhere. She led McCain by seven points going into election day, but almost all of the voters who decided in the voting booth went to McCain as did basically all of the undecideds. When americans thought of the Clintons, they thought of the Monica Lewinski scandal and they found Hillary to not be very likable. That cannot save McCain, but it can put him closer than expected.
Logged

Just for the fun of it, summer 2014 reading: I am taking college courses both in July & did in May. I have read all of the material for those. Besides that I read Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story & the book on Kennedy & Nixon by Chris Matthews both cover to cover & before that One Last Kiss: The Chris Coleman Story. All very informative & entertaining books. I have started Rendevouz With Destiny By Craig Shirley.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #60 on: June 19, 2010, 02:13:43 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.


all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2010, 04:09:27 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.


all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: June 21, 2010, 04:56:43 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.


all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?

Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: June 21, 2010, 07:51:46 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.


all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?

Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.

You got that right.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #64 on: June 21, 2010, 08:41:41 pm »
Ignore


9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.


all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?

Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.

You got that right.

At least we agree on something.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: June 24, 2010, 08:52:39 pm »
Ignore

What are we agreeing on?
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #66 on: June 25, 2010, 01:57:48 pm »
Ignore

What are we agreeing on?

That John kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines