View Single Post
Old 02-13-2005, 10:22 PM   #6
capitalcity
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Hippie Hollow
Posts: 3,128
capitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant futurecapitalcity has a brilliant future
Default RE:hmmm..wasnt CLinton in charge in the 90's?? the almighty leader

Clinton did do something...

His answer to islamofacist terror - a truly half-assed attempt at a speedy resolution. He fired cruise missles at al-qaida training camps in Afghanistan following the embassy attacks in 1998. The outcome of this futile operation? Well it obviously didn't eliminate Bin Laden, cause his band of merry men were back at it in the summer of 2000 bombing the uss cole.

One can make the case that Clinton's actions speed up the timetable on the 9/11 al-qaida attacks.

Of course Bin Laden lusted after the terror-drama of jihad within US borders - but whose to say that he wouldn't have continued his campaign against militarized US targets abroad (for years) before attempting such a bold move. (Remember the initial plan involved 10 planes against targets in LA, SF, Chicago, NY, and DC)

For whatever reason the attack was scaled down and moved forward. Might this be because of Clinton's ineptitude? Was al-qaida mobilized in response to the (failed) cruise missle attack? Did this actually fuel his fire or help him recruit more terrorists? PROBABLY.

Clinton sat on his hands while hundreds died. His eventual response - throwing rocks at the hornet's nest.

Thank God the man elected in 2000 would have the courage to take him on with ground forces as opposed to the guess work of assassination from hundreds of miles offshore.
__________________
Back up in your ass with the resurrection.
capitalcity is offline   Reply With Quote