Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Kerry is a fool

Originally posted by Stazi the Aussie:

---

Originally posted by Davo7SVT:

---

Originally posted by SleeperZ:

---

I'm voting for Clinton.
The country was just fine while he was getting his jollies in the Oval Office.

---

Apparently you aren't aware that most, if not all, planning for 9/11 was done while he was in office.

---

His screen-name says it all.........he was obviously asleep for the last 8 years.

Typical ostrich-like behavior - If I ignore it, it'll go away.

EDIT: Watching the DNC a few nights ago, I was flabegasted at the sheep clapping and cheering for Clinton when he walked on stage. How do people ignore the fact that this guy was/is a grade A1 douche bag?

---

Originally posted by daenku32:

---

Just wait until RNC comes around you'll have douche bags-elect walk onto the stage aminds cheers.

---

Originally posted by daenku32:

---

Originally posted by Stazi the Aussie:

---

Originally posted by Davo7SVT:

---

Originally posted by SleeperZ:

---

I'm voting for Clinton.
The country was just fine while he was getting his jollies in the Oval Office.

---

Apparently you aren't aware that most, if not all, planning for 9/11 was done while he was in office.

---

His screen-name says it all.........he was obviously asleep for the last 8 years.

Typical ostrich-like behavior - If I ignore it, it'll go away.

EDIT: Watching the DNC a few nights ago, I was flabegasted at the sheep clapping and cheering for Clinton when he walked on stage. How do people ignore the fact that this guy was/is a grade A1 douche bag?

---

Just wait until RNC comes around you'll have douche bags-elect walk onto the stage aminds cheers.

---

That's your opinion...based on what?

My opinion, at least, is based on the fact that Clinton was/is an immoral, adultering, lying, disgraceful excuse for a president. I challenge you to say that President Bush falls under any of those categories (and before you do the Dem knee-jerk reaction Mr. Speedy-Gonzalez of: "He lied, he lied!", please remember the irrefutable findings of the 9/11 Commission).

Originally posted by daenku32:

---

Just wait until RNC comes around you'll have douche bags-elect walk onto the stage aminds cheers.

---

Originally posted by Davo7SVT:

---

Apparently you aren't aware that most, if not all, planning for 9/11 was done while he was in office.

---

Originally posted by BP:

---

Originally posted by Davo7SVT:

---

Apparently you aren't aware that most, if not all, planning for 9/11 was done while he was in office.

---

and i believe it was bush who was too busy on vacation and playing golf to heed the report titled "bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S"

the 9/11 panel cited several mistakes that happened under bush's watch which could have prevented the attacks. of course the conservatives response will be it's clinton's fault, and as usual won't own up to or take the blame for anything including going to war on a mistake.

lol @ the warmongers.

---

Originally posted by 99MystiqueATX:

---

What happened to separation of church and state?? Personally I don't think it matters what religion, race, or sex the candidates are, that shouldn't be part of the election. We're beyond that, or at least, we should be...

That being said, Bush, IMO is a horrible speaker!

---

Originally posted by BP:

---

and i believe it was bush who was too busy on vacation and playing golf to heed the report titled "bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S"

---

I can accept Bush missing one brief over Clinton having 8 YEARS to correct our bearings in the light of numerous briefings and reports that talked to the growing extremists threat to the US here and abroad.

Trust me on this one. You DON'T want to get into a position of defending the Clinton administration on their inaction and bungling in all of this...

Originally posted by BP:

---

...the 9/11 panel cited several mistakes that happened under bush's watch which could have prevented the attacks. of course the conservatives response will be it's clinton's fault, and as usual won't own up to or take the blame for anything including going to war on a mistake.

lol @ the warmongers.

---

You obviously haven't read the report.

I'm juggling it along with a few other books now and the BULK of the concern is more focused towards the strategic failures and miscommunications/disconnect between the FBI and CIA, more than nailing any particular administration to the wall, despite the transparent fact that most of the failures and catalysts behind them stem from the time period between '94/'95 and '00...

I wonder who was in office during this particular stretch of time?

Our failure to counter 9/11 is MUCH broader than which political party was in office. Both Bush and Clinton made tactical and strategic errors in responding to a growing threat. This is undeniable.

What isn't is the time period that each had to work within to fix things and the ACTIONS that were taken towards building up our Intel efforts in the Middle-East. I'll let you tell the rest of us who totally "screwed the pooch" on paying attention to the warnings that were sounded after the 1st WTC bombing in '93 and who gutted CIA budget and HumInt capabilities in the Middle-East during the '90s.

Please counter these FACTS. Please show me where the Clinton Administration paid more than "paltry" attention towards a growning concern.

I'm serious.

Let's talk timeframe, now. 8 years vs. 1 year, give or take a few months? If you knew jack-s**t about they way things work in Washington, it takes an administration about a year just to get their vision off the ground and the great bureaucracy responding towards it's demands. That still doesn't excuse the Bush administration from taking it's time on addressing terrorism concerns (which got thrown into high gear after 9/11), but he DID respond to them, unlike Clinton who basically had an ineffective and counter-productive policy on it...

I don't think anyone's denying that the Bush administration ultimately bears the responsibility of going to war in Iraq, regardless of the quality of intelligence used. No matter who steers the ship in which direction, it's the captain who's ass is on the line for things. Where the contention lies is that you (and those like you) flat-out REFUSE to take the blinders off and see that Iraq under UNANIMOUS UN mandate was supposed to offer an UNCONDITIONAL and FULL accounting of their chem/biochem capabilities.

They did not and our invasion stands on it's own merits. Given the intelligence, Bush made the right decision. We were wrong on Hussein's tactical abilities in quick and easy depolyment of his WMD. The search for the missing VX, missing warheads and equipment that Hans Blix couldn't accout for goes on, so it's still an open question.

No one to this day has answered my question of why Hussein still refuses to discuss WMD with US interrogators. Why does he still remain silent on this?

If you're going to spout this crap, at least put some meat on things to back it up. Right now you sound like a 30-second "infomercial" that's pre-fabricated for the idiot box.

Again, I'm not through the entire 9/11 report as of yet, but I've read little that tosses the BULK of the concern and fallout on the Bush administration, as you so ignorantly suggest here.

If you're ahead of me and have finished the book, please point me where I may have missed this or in which chapter it's in that I haven't reached.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Originally posted by BP:

---

and i believe it was bush who was too busy on vacation and playing golf to heed the report titled "bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S"

---

I can accept Bush missing one brief over Clinton having 8 YEARS to correct our bearings in the light of numerous briefings and reports that talked to the growing extremists threat to the US here and abroad.

Trust me on this one. You DON'T want to get into a position of defending the Clinton administration on their inaction and bungling in all of this...

Originally posted by BP:

---

...the 9/11 panel cited several mistakes that happened under bush's watch which could have prevented the attacks. of course the conservatives response will be it's clinton's fault, and as usual won't own up to or take the blame for anything including going to war on a mistake.

lol @ the warmongers.

---

You obviously haven't read the report.

I'm juggling it along with a few other books now and the BULK of the concern is more focused towards the strategic failures and miscommunications/disconnect between the FBI and CIA, more than nailing any particular administration to the wall, despite the transparent fact that most of the failures and catalysts behind them stem from the time period between '94/'95 and '00...

I wonder who was in office during this particular stretch of time?

Our failure to counter 9/11 is MUCH broader than which political party was in office. Both Bush and Clinton made tactical and strategic errors in responding to a growing threat. This is undeniable.

What isn't is the time period that each had to work within to fix things and the ACTIONS that were taken towards building up our Intel efforts in the Middle-East. I'll let you tell the rest of us who totally "screwed the pooch" on paying attention to the warnings that were sounded after the 1st WTC bombing in '93 and who gutted CIA budget and HumInt capabilities in the Middle-East during the '90s.

Please counter these FACTS. Please show me where the Clinton Administration paid more than "paltry" attention towards a growning concern.

I'm serious.

Let's talk timeframe, now. 8 years vs. 1 year, give or take a few months? If you knew jack-s**t about they way things work in Washington, it takes an administration about a year just to get their vision off the ground and the great bureaucracy responding towards it's demands. That still doesn't excuse the Bush administration from taking it's time on addressing terrorism concerns (which got thrown into high gear after 9/11), but he DID respond to them, unlike Clinton who basically had an ineffective and counter-productive policy on it...

I don't think anyone's denying that the Bush administration ultimately bears the responsibility of going to war in Iraq, regardless of the quality of intelligence used. No matter who steers the ship in which direction, it's the captain who's ass is on the line for things. Where the contention lies is that you (and those like you) flat-out REFUSE to take the blinders off and see that Iraq under UNANIMOUS UN mandate was supposed to offer an UNCONDITIONAL and FULL accounting of their chem/biochem capabilities.

They did not and our invasion stands on it's own merits. Given the intelligence, Bush made the right decision. We were wrong on Hussein's tactical abilities in quick and easy depolyment of his WMD. The search for the missing VX, missing warheads and equipment that Hans Blix couldn't accout for goes on, so it's still an open question.

No one to this day has answered my question of why Hussein still refuses to discuss WMD with US interrogators. Why does he still remain silent on this?

If you're going to spout this crap, at least put some meat on things to back it up. Right now you sound like a 30-second "infomercial" that's pre-fabricated for the idiot box.

Again, I'm not through the entire 9/11 report as of yet, but I've read little that tosses the BULK of the concern and fallout on the Bush administration, as you so ignorantly suggest here.

If you're ahead of me and have finished the book, please point me where I may have missed this or in which chapter it's in that I haven't reached.

---

Ed Zackory!

Originally posted by Stazi the Aussie:

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Originally posted by BP:

---

and i believe it was bush who was too busy on vacation and playing golf to heed the report titled "bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S"

---

I can accept Bush missing one brief over Clinton having 8 YEARS to correct our bearings in the light of numerous briefings and reports that talked to the growing extremists threat to the US here and abroad.

Trust me on this one. You DON'T want to get into a position of defending the Clinton administration on their inaction and bungling in all of this...

Originally posted by BP:

---

...the 9/11 panel cited several mistakes that happened under bush's watch which could have prevented the attacks. of course the conservatives response will be it's clinton's fault, and as usual won't own up to or take the blame for anything including going to war on a mistake.

lol @ the warmongers.

---

You obviously haven't read the report.

I'm juggling it along with a few other books now and the BULK of the concern is more focused towards the strategic failures and miscommunications/disconnect between the FBI and CIA, more than nailing any particular administration to the wall, despite the transparent fact that most of the failures and catalysts behind them stem from the time period between '94/'95 and '00...

I wonder who was in office during this particular stretch of time?

Our failure to counter 9/11 is MUCH broader than which political party was in office. Both Bush and Clinton made tactical and strategic errors in responding to a growing threat. This is undeniable.

What isn't is the time period that each had to work within to fix things and the ACTIONS that were taken towards building up our Intel efforts in the Middle-East. I'll let you tell the rest of us who totally "screwed the pooch" on paying attention to the warnings that were sounded after the 1st WTC bombing in '93 and who gutted CIA budget and HumInt capabilities in the Middle-East during the '90s.

Please counter these FACTS. Please show me where the Clinton Administration paid more than "paltry" attention towards a growning concern.

I'm serious.

Let's talk timeframe, now. 8 years vs. 1 year, give or take a few months? If you knew jack-s**t about they way things work in Washington, it takes an administration about a year just to get their vision off the ground and the great bureaucracy responding towards it's demands. That still doesn't excuse the Bush administration from taking it's time on addressing terrorism concerns (which got thrown into high gear after 9/11), but he DID respond to them, unlike Clinton who basically had an ineffective and counter-productive policy on it...

I don't think anyone's denying that the Bush administration ultimately bears the responsibility of going to war in Iraq, regardless of the quality of intelligence used. No matter who steers the ship in which direction, it's the captain who's ass is on the line for things. Where the contention lies is that you (and those like you) flat-out REFUSE to take the blinders off and see that Iraq under UNANIMOUS UN mandate was supposed to offer an UNCONDITIONAL and FULL accounting of their chem/biochem capabilities.

They did not and our invasion stands on it's own merits. Given the intelligence, Bush made the right decision. We were wrong on Hussein's tactical abilities in quick and easy depolyment of his WMD. The search for the missing VX, missing warheads and equipment that Hans Blix couldn't accout for goes on, so it's still an open question.

No one to this day has answered my question of why Hussein still refuses to discuss WMD with US interrogators. Why does he still remain silent on this?

If you're going to spout this crap, at least put some meat on things to back it up. Right now you sound like a 30-second "infomercial" that's pre-fabricated for the idiot box.

Again, I'm not through the entire 9/11 report as of yet, but I've read little that tosses the BULK of the concern and fallout on the Bush administration, as you so ignorantly suggest here.

If you're ahead of me and have finished the book, please point me where I may have missed this or in which chapter it's in that I haven't reached.

---

Ed Zackory!

---