My memories fading can anyone remind me

Thread starter #1

dixie

Senior Member
what the demorats President response was to ANY of this?
It looks like the democrats want to shrug off history and act like Islamofascism was started by Bush.

Feb 1993 - World Trade Center bombing
March 1993 - Mumbai car bombings in India
June 1993 - Failed New York City landmark bomb plot
July 1994 - Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires
July 1994 - Alas Chiricanas bombing
July 1994 - Israeli Embassy Attack in London and a Jewish charity are car-bombed
Dec 1994 - A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434
Dec 1994 - Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by terrorists who planned to crash the plane into Paris
Jan 1995 - Operation Bojinka
April 1995 - Bombings in France
Nov 1995 - Bombing of military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Nov 1995 - Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan


Jan 1996 - In Kizlyar, 350 Chechen militants took 3,000 hostages in a hospital
Jan 1996 - Central Bank Bombing in Sri Lanka
June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia
Feb 1997 - An armed man opens fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building
Nov 1997 - Gunmen attack tourists in Luxor, Egypt
Jan 1998 - Wandhama Massacre, Kashmir
Aug 1998 - U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya
Jan 1999 - Gunmen open fire on Shi'a Muslims worshipping in an Islamabad mosque
Sept 1999- Russian Apartment Bombings




Dec 1999 - Indian Airlines Flight 814from Kathmandu, Nepal to Delhi, India is hijacked
Jan 2000 - The last of the 2000 millennium attack plots fails, as the boat meant to bomb USS The Sullivans sinks.
Feb 2000 - German police foil Strasbourg cathedral bombing plot
Oct 2000 - USS Cole bombing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ the best I can remember is, those who commited these acts will be caught and tried in a court of law,,,, that's more than our Marines are getting on the senate floor today, isn't it?
 
Uh... Well there was the time.... er.... Didn't Clinton... no that was different. Gosh Dixie, I'm stumped too!
 
The Democrats response was not to get us stuck in the middle of a civil war in a country that posed no threat to the stability of the US until we attacked it. And by the way, the Republicans controlled congress when most of those attacks came. But they had other priorities. Hint--bj.
 
Thread starter #4

dixie

Senior Member
Linwood said:
The Democrats response was not to get us stuck in the middle of a civil war in a country that posed no threat to the stability of the US until we attacked it. And by the way, the Republicans controlled congress when most of those attacks came. But they had other priorities. Hint--bj.
No threat??? the first world trade center bombing 1993-93 again a failed bombing attempt 97- a gunman kills people on the empire state bldg. 98 three US embassy's bombed 2000 a failed bombing on the USS the Sullivan's and the one that made it on the USS Cole, and my personal favorite clintax failure, Somalia just what do the terrorist have to do to get a demorat Presidents attention? the sound of silence is deafening from the left when faced with facts.
 

Flash

Senior Member
Linwood said:
And by the way, the Republicans controlled congress when most of those attacks came.
I don't claim to be too smart but I was thinking it was the President who said we going to do a strike here or there. Also "HE" would be the one to ask congress to declare war not congress telling HIM to declare it.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
No threat???

Right, Iraq was no threat to the US. Plus, why did it take 9/11 to focus Bush' attention on terrorism? You would think he was aware of your list before he took office. I think one of the silliest reponses Bush made to 9/11 was that it taught us that the oceans no longer protect us from attack. On second thought, maybe he wasn't aware of your list.

Flash, if the Republican Congress was aware that the President had dropped the ball on national security it could have and should have made the case to the public. I don't remember that happening. I DO remember endless investigtions into a 20-year old land deal, the president's sex life, etc. I guess maybe it was a matter of priorities.
 
Thread starter #8

dixie

Senior Member
Linwood said:
No threat???

Right, Iraq was no threat to the US. Plus, why did it take 9/11 to focus Bush' attention on terrorism? You would think he was aware of your list before he took office. I think one of the silliest reponses Bush made to 9/11 was that it taught us that the oceans no longer protect us from attack. On second thought, maybe he wasn't aware of your list.

Flash, if the Republican Congress was aware that the President had dropped the ball on national security it could have and should have made the case to the public. I don't remember that happening. I DO remember endless investigtions into a 20-year old land deal, the president's sex life, etc. I guess maybe it was a matter of priorities.
duck, dodge, spin, ALL this happened on clintax's watch, iraq's funding, and being used as a training ground for terrorist was no reason either, ROFL, as I ask before, just how much does it take to get a demorat to realize America's being attacked in a war that it didn't want or start!?
 

Flash

Senior Member
Linwood said:
No threat???

Flash, if the Republican Congress was aware that the President had dropped the ball on national security it could have and should have made the case to the public.
So are you saying (IYO) Clinton dropped the ball on national security or not?

Before you answer remember it's a yes or no question.
 
No.
 

Flash

Senior Member
Thank you for a straight answer.
 
Thread starter #12

dixie

Senior Member
Flash, I wanna buy you a cup of coffee!! to the best of my knowledge your the ONLY one here that's EVER got a straight answer out of lin!!!
 

Flash

Senior Member
It comes from my years as a 1st Sgt. :flag:
 

SBG

Senior Member
dixie said:
Flash, I wanna buy you a cup of coffee!! to the best of my knowledge your the ONLY one here that's EVER got a straight answer out of lin!!!
One word answer and he still can't get it right.:confused: :bounce:

Nuclear technology to North Korea.

Submarine stealth technology to the Chicoms.

Failure to apprehend Bin Laden...even when he was offered up on a platter.

Yep...Democrats have been great for U.S. national security.
 
Thread starter #15

dixie

Senior Member
SBG said:
One word answer and he still can't get it right.:confused: :bounce:

Nuclear technology to North Korea.

Submarine stealth technology to the Chicoms.

Failure to apprehend Bin Laden...even when he was offered up on a platter.

Yep...Democrats have been great for U.S. national security.
Yep, and after the answer in another thread about why the demorats attacked Lebermman, its even plainer to me now, they could care less about us or America, they want power and control and will let the US go down the john if thats what it takes to get it.
 
The worst terrorist attack ever on American soil took place on George Bush's watch, a little more than a month after he failed to respond to a warning that an attack was being planned. He spent the afternoon after he received the briefing fishing on his ranch and the rest of that month on vacation. He really has no choice but to point fingers at Clinton because to admit the truth, that he never took international terrorism seriously until the attack, would ruin him politically. Point all the fingers you want, it won't change the truth of what Bush did or didn't do before 9/11.
 
Thread starter #17

dixie

Senior Member
Linwood said:
The worst terrorist attack ever on American soil took place on George Bush's watch, a little more than a month after he failed to respond to a warning that an attack was being planned. He spent the afternoon after he received the briefing fishing on his ranch and the rest of that month on vacation. He really has no choice but to point fingers at Clinton because to admit the truth, that he never took international terrorism seriously until the attack, would ruin him politically. Point all the fingers you want, it won't change the truth of what Bush did or didn't do before 9/11.
and it was W's doings that none of the federal agencies could share info either too I guess lin. and W had to base his decisions on piece mill Intel because they were only about 8 months into office behind a man more concerned about his sex life and being PC and popular than national security
 
Linwood said:
He really has no choice but to point fingers at Clinton because to admit the truth, that he never took international terrorism seriously until the attack, would ruin him politically.
Perhaps you might cite some authoritative quotes where The President blamed Clinton? The one thing the man has never done is publicly criticize the Clinton Administration.

Maybe you can cut and paste a little something for us from DU, or Dailykos to entertain us today on this topic.
 
They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy… After September the 11th, 2001, we’ve taught the terrorists a very different lesson: America will not run in defeat and we will not forget our responsibilities.

This is from a speech Bush gave in August 2005. He explicitly says Carter, Reagan and Clinton lacked the courage and character to defend the country, thereby encouraging international terrorism. It has been pointed out that he conveniently left out attacks carried out while his father was in office. But the big picture is that there are any number of surrogates, Hannity, Limbaugh etc., who put the talking points out there for the administration. And as we can see from the way the talking points are parroted here, it works with people who want to believe.
 
That's funny. I don't see where he blamed Clinton or any other President in that statement.

The operative phrase is "They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy". In this phrase he is talking about the terorists concluding in error we would not eventually strike back.

So once again we are left with emptiness. You said President Bush had blamed Clinton. Your quote does not reflect any accusation or "blame game" quotes, by the current sitting President against President Clinton.

As Mr. Limbaugh is want to say "Words mean things". Perhaps you would like to try again?
 
Top