waka
Emasculating the Right
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 1,972
Do you mean implying? And yes, I am implying that there is not enough evidence to support the notion that Clinton had anything to do with any murders. If you provide a link, it will have 0 credibility to me if its some right wing whacko organization.gator_hater said:Are you inferring that there were no 'suspicious' deaths under Clinton (Vince Foster comes to mind). Also are you ignoring that several of the worlds top spy agencies came to the same conculsion (England and Israel come to mind).
Sure we didn't lose many military guys under Clinton, but we lost 3000 of our neighbors because he was to busy chasing interns and covering his tracks to
chase Bin Laden and uncover HIS tracks.
Au contraire. The Clinton White House did indeed go after Bin Laden and it was much more than the misdirected cruise missles. Bin Laden was the number one target for US intelligence in Clinton's terms. It is popular for the dittoheads, the Hannity's etc to superficially say that he did nothing......far from the truth. It is the Bush administration that ignored warnings that terrorists were planning on using airplanes as missles. Clinton's admin provided all of the material that stated that there was going to a massive attack on the passdown to the new admin. What did Bush do? Nothing. Before 9-11, Bush even complained that the daily intel involved too many pages and he wanted them condensed. He was more concerned with tax cuts for the wealthy and trying to placate Americans by providing a $300.00 dollar advance. Bush and his admin lied about WMD's to justify his personal vendetta and now 2500 soldiers are dead.
My signature stands.
"Will somebody gove Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?!?!"
BIll Maher
Last edited: