| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
07 Jul 2005 08:21:14 PM |
| Object: |
Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
Why do NeoCons hate America?
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1002
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1749 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
08 Jul 2005 05:59:09 PM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:rvkrc11f6sgpabv1vngap190ngqg5vs2i4@4ax.com...
Why do NeoCons hate America?
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1002
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Little Bo Clayton Has Lost His 3-Toed Sloths" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
08 Jul 2005 07:04:29 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com> wrote in message
news:1zDze.134038$PR6.108918@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting *****"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:rvkrc11f6sgpabv1vngap190ngqg5vs2i4@4ax.com...
Why do NeoCons hate America?
http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1002
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
I'm curious if OBL owns stock in Halliburton?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
09 Jul 2005 04:51:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1751 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
10 Jul 2005 09:30:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:51:45 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine
Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
In his book "Losing Bin Laden", author Richard Miniter addresses how 'rat
willie's failures unleashed global failure.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
12 Jul 2005 12:06:16 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:51:45 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine
Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
In his book "Losing Bin Laden", author Richard Miniter addresses how 'rat
willie's failures unleashed global failure.
duke
In Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore shows what a lying ***** Bush is. What's
your point?
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
12 Jul 2005 12:08:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:06:16 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
In his book "Losing Bin Laden", author Richard Miniter addresses how 'rat
willie's failures unleashed global failure.
In Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore shows what a lying ***** Bush is. What's
your point?
No, he doesn't. He's just sorry President Bush doesn't look like him.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
13 Jul 2005 02:17:54 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:06:16 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
In his book "Losing Bin Laden", author Richard Miniter addresses how 'rat
willie's failures unleashed global failure.
In Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore shows what a lying ***** Bush is. What's
your point?
No, he doesn't. He's just sorry President Bush doesn't look like him.
So is Bush.
--
Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
13 Jul 2005 06:00:31 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:17:54 -0600, nJb <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
In Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore shows what a lying ***** Bush is. What's
your point?
No, he doesn't. He's just sorry President Bush doesn't look like him.
So is Bush.
Not likely. But you might enjoy looking like mmoore.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
10 Jul 2005 05:53:35 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:51:45 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine
Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
In his book "Losing Bin Laden", author Richard Miniter addresses how 'rat
willie's failures unleashed global failure.
Ah, a right-wing rag publication.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
11 Jul 2005 05:51:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:53:35 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:51:45 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine
Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
In his book "Losing Bin Laden", author Richard Miniter addresses how 'rat
willie's failures unleashed global failure.
Ah, a right-wing rag publication.
Nope, snowden, a rag is a regular production. This is a book.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
11 Jul 2005 05:56:04 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:53:35 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:51:45 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine
Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
In his book "Losing Bin Laden", author Richard Miniter addresses how 'rat
willie's failures unleashed global failure.
Ah, a right-wing rag publication.
Nope, snowden, a rag is a regular production. This is a book.
Who are you talking to? Can't be me. My name's not snowden. However,
your right-wing rag publication can be in book form. :-)
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 04:14:24 PM |
|
|
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 04:45:43 PM |
|
|
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121375664.498668.68510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin
Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had
done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
Do you happen to remember the *first* attack on WTC? Hint....it was back in
'93 when the so-called "conservative" kids around here were still shitting
their diapers. (Idiots like Smith, Jar-Jar, Osprey, ad nauseum can feel free
to insert obligatory remark here...)
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/fastfacts/blffterrorism8.htm
Please note that, under the Clinton Administration, those responsible were
rotting in federal prison less than 14 months after
That is: investigated, captured, tried, convicted and sentenced in a tad
over a year. There was not another attack on American soil until 1995.
In April, 1995, McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building. Of course, he
was a home-grown terrorist. What happened to him, you ask? Well, the Clinton
Administration caught that fucker, too. He was captured 90 minutes afterward
on unrelated charges, but never released because the investigation turned to
him:
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timothy-McVeigh
In other words, the Clinton Administration didn't ***** around and invade
extraneous countries.
On Clinton's watch, there were two attacks. Both groups of perpetrators were
captured. One was executed, the other is in prison for the rest of his life.
Clinton's track record is obviously better than Bush's, and given that
record, I'd put my money on Osama being captured during the Clinton
Administration.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Salah al-Din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
17 Jul 2005 09:53:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:45:43 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com> wrote:
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121375664.498668.68510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin
Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had
done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
Do you happen to remember the *first* attack on WTC? Hint....it was back in
'93 when the so-called "conservative" kids around here were still shitting
their diapers. (Idiots like Smith, Jar-Jar, Osprey, ad nauseum can feel free
to insert obligatory remark here...)
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/fastfacts/blffterrorism8.htm
Please note that, under the Clinton Administration, those responsible were
rotting in federal prison less than 14 months after
That is: investigated, captured, tried, convicted and sentenced in a tad
over a year. There was not another attack on American soil until 1995.
In April, 1995, McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building. Of course, he
was a home-grown terrorist. What happened to him, you ask? Well, the Clinton
Administration caught that fucker, too. He was captured 90 minutes afterward
on unrelated charges, but never released because the investigation turned to
him:
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timothy-McVeigh
In other words, the Clinton Administration didn't ***** around and invade
extraneous countries.
On Clinton's watch, there were two attacks. Both groups of perpetrators were
captured. One was executed, the other is in prison for the rest of his life.
Clinton's track record is obviously better than Bush's, and given that
record, I'd put my money on Osama being captured during the Clinton
Administration.
But they did attack Americans for no cause and kill over 80 of them.
But, they did it for the children. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 05:11:54 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121375664.498668.68510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin
Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had
done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
Do you happen to remember the *first* attack on WTC? Hint....it was back in
'93 when the so-called "conservative" kids around here were still shitting
their diapers. (Idiots like Smith, Jar-Jar, Osprey, ad nauseum can feel free
to insert obligatory remark here...)
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/fastfacts/blffterrorism8.htm
Please note that, under the Clinton Administration, those responsible were
rotting in federal prison less than 14 months after
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from the
rental truck.
That is: investigated, captured, tried, convicted and sentenced in a tad
over a year. There was not another attack on American soil until 1995.
You make that sound like an accomplishment.
In April, 1995, McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building. Of course, he
was a home-grown terrorist. What happened to him, you ask? Well, the Clinton
Administration caught that fucker, too. He was captured 90 minutes afterward
on unrelated charges, but never released because the investigation turned to
him:
Thanks to an alert local cop. Meanwhile the Feds blundered around for
weeks trying to find the other culprits, even murdering a hapless
prisoner who they thought was an accomplice. Then they decided to drop
the matter and pretend no one else was involved, despite the fact
McVeigh was seen by witnesses with other men that day.
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timothy-McVeigh
In other words, the Clinton Administration didn't ***** around and invade
extraneous countries.
No argument there. Bush is far worse than Clinton. But to say Clinton
was good or even competent is setting our standards WAY too low.
On Clinton's watch, there were two attacks.
You seem to have forgotten TWA 800, and the Cole bombing, and the
embassy bombings. Oh, don't tell me you bought that song and dance
about TWA 800 spontaneously combusting?
Both groups of perpetrators were
captured. One was executed, the other is in prison for the rest of his life.
Clinton's track record is obviously better than Bush's,
Again, no argument.
and given that
record, I'd put my money on Osama being captured during the Clinton
Administration.
Since he wasn't, I will take that bet, how much?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 05:40:44 PM |
|
|
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121379114.456627.230770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121375664.498668.68510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin
Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he
had
done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him
instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER
911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave
Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
Do you happen to remember the *first* attack on WTC? Hint....it was
back in
'93 when the so-called "conservative" kids around here were still
shitting
their diapers. (Idiots like Smith, Jar-Jar, Osprey, ad nauseum can feel
free
to insert obligatory remark here...)
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/fastfacts/blffterrorism8.htm
Please note that, under the Clinton Administration, those responsible
were
rotting in federal prison less than 14 months after
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes after the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of your claim.
That is: investigated, captured, tried, convicted and sentenced in a tad
over a year. There was not another attack on American soil until 1995.
You make that sound like an accomplishment.
The first portion of that, yes. Especially when you consider that Ken Lay is
still walking the streets.
The second, no, and you can ***** yourself with your implication to the
contrary. I was merely stating facts.
Also, combining the two was a bit disenginuous, unless you take issue with
Salameh's capture. The way your post is worded makes it hard to tell.
In April, 1995, McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building. Of course,
he
was a home-grown terrorist. What happened to him, you ask? Well, the
Clinton
Administration caught that fucker, too. He was captured 90 minutes
afterward
on unrelated charges, but never released because the investigation
turned to
him:
Thanks to an alert local cop. Meanwhile the Feds blundered around for
weeks trying to find the other culprits, even murdering a hapless
prisoner who they thought was an accomplice. Then they decided to drop
the matter and pretend no one else was involved, despite the fact
McVeigh was seen by witnesses with other men that day.
Proof?
You're delving into minutae with some very outlandish claims.
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timothy-McVeigh
In other words, the Clinton Administration didn't ***** around and invade
extraneous countries.
No argument there. Bush is far worse than Clinton. But to say Clinton
was good or even competent is setting our standards WAY too low.
I said nothing of the sort. I merely stated the facts:
WTC 1 -under Clinton. Captured and in prison.
Murrah -under Clinton. Captured and executed.
WTC 2, aka 9/11 -under Bush. As recently as a couple months ago, Bush stated
that 'he just doesn't think of Osama that much.'
If Clinton's standards are, as you say, *that low, then Bush's must register
in the negatives. And, as was the point of my post, Clinton caught those
that attacked on his watch. Bush couldn't catch syphilis in a two-dollar
***** house.
Or are you trying to say that we can just look forward to more years of
attacks, and we'll see how the next guy works out?
On Clinton's watch, there were two attacks.
You seem to have forgotten TWA 800, and the Cole bombing, and the
embassy bombings.
No, I didn't. But an apples to apples comparison, plus a brief "reading
comprehension" lesson, would clarify what I said: "American soil."
I watch people using fuzzy definitions and statistics when they want to push
an argument into the realm of ridiculous. Some try to make the argument that
even attacks by the insurgency on our soldiers in Iraq are considered
"terrorist attacks," at which time we can safely say that the vast majority
of 'terrorist attacks' will never be solved.
That is why I specified what I did. WTC 1 & 2 and Murrah.
Oh, don't tell me you bought that song and dance
about TWA 800 spontaneously combusting?
I was neither on the investigating committee, nor do I wear a tinfoil hat. I
leave the conspiracy theories to the kooks and their missiles....
....nor do I remember anything about "spontaneous combustion."
Once again, do you have proof of your statements?
Both groups of perpetrators were
captured. One was executed, the other is in prison for the rest of his
life.
Clinton's track record is obviously better than Bush's,
Again, no argument.
and given that
record, I'd put my money on Osama being captured during the Clinton
Administration.
Since he wasn't, I will take that bet, how much?
Out of context, therefore an obvious fallacy.
Osama didn't attack WTC under Clinton.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 08:32:29 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes after the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of your claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?sect=1
It sure was nice enough for McVeigh to drive around without license
plates so an Oklahoman patrolman could pick him up.
That is: investigated, captured, tried, convicted and sentenced in a tad
over a year. There was not another attack on American soil until 1995.
You make that sound like an accomplishment.
The first portion of that, yes. Especially when you consider that Ken Lay is
still walking the streets.
A victim of Clinton and Bush economic policies.
The second, no, and you can ***** yourself with your implication to the
contrary. I was merely stating facts.
Also, combining the two was a bit disenginuous, unless you take issue with
Salameh's capture. The way your post is worded makes it hard to tell.
It was nice of him to keep phoning the rental agency to let them know
he was hanging around to be picked up.
http://www.asksam.com/cgi-bin/as_web5.exe?Command=DocName&File=911Report.ask&Name=3.1%20FROM%20THE%20OLD%20TERRORISM%20TO%20THE%20NEW%3A%20THE%20FIRST%20WORLD%20TRADE%20CENTER%20BOMBING%20
In April, 1995, McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building. Of course,
he
was a home-grown terrorist. What happened to him, you ask? Well, the
Clinton
Administration caught that fucker, too. He was captured 90 minutes
afterward
on unrelated charges, but never released because the investigation
turned to
him:
Thanks to an alert local cop. Meanwhile the Feds blundered around for
weeks trying to find the other culprits, even murdering a hapless
prisoner who they thought was an accomplice. Then they decided to drop
the matter and pretend no one else was involved, despite the fact
McVeigh was seen by witnesses with other men that day.
Proof?
You're delving into minutae with some very outlandish claims.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05262005.html
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timothy-McVeigh
In other words, the Clinton Administration didn't ***** around and invade
extraneous countries.
No argument there. Bush is far worse than Clinton. But to say Clinton
was good or even competent is setting our standards WAY too low.
I said nothing of the sort. I merely stated the facts:
WTC 1 -under Clinton. Captured and in prison.
Murrah -under Clinton. Captured and executed.
Considering how much effort was spent in capture, the girl scouts could
have handled it.
WTC 2, aka 9/11 -under Bush. As recently as a couple months ago, Bush stated
that 'he just doesn't think of Osama that much.'
If Clinton's standards are, as you say, *that low, then Bush's must register
in the negatives.
Amen.
And, as was the point of my post, Clinton caught those
that attacked on his watch.
My point was Clinton couldn't catch Osama, even when he had the chance.
Bush couldn't catch syphilis in a two-dollar
***** house.
Or are you trying to say that we can just look forward to more years of
attacks, and we'll see how the next guy works out?
Oh, we can definitely expect more attacks, and the next guy will be no
better.
On Clinton's watch, there were two attacks.
You seem to have forgotten TWA 800, and the Cole bombing, and the
embassy bombings.
No, I didn't. But an apples to apples comparison, plus a brief "reading
comprehension" lesson, would clarify what I said: "American soil."
TWA 800 was taking off from American soil dude. Or are we going to say
that since it was in the air, it wasn't on American soil? Ah, the joys
of Clintonian parsing.
I watch people using fuzzy definitions and statistics when they want to push
an argument into the realm of ridiculous. Some try to make the argument that
even attacks by the insurgency on our soldiers in Iraq are considered
"terrorist attacks," at which time we can safely say that the vast majority
of 'terrorist attacks' will never be solved.
Amen.
That is why I specified what I did. WTC 1 & 2 and Murrah.
Oh, don't tell me you bought that song and dance
about TWA 800 spontaneously combusting?
I was neither on the investigating committee, nor do I wear a tinfoil hat. I
leave the conspiracy theories to the kooks and their missiles....
...nor do I remember anything about "spontaneous combustion."
Once again, do you have proof of your statements?
John Kerry on the Chris Matthews show back in September 2001 identified
TWA800 as a "bombing".
Both groups of perpetrators were
captured. One was executed, the other is in prison for the rest of his
life.
Clinton's track record is obviously better than Bush's,
Again, no argument.
and given that
record, I'd put my money on Osama being captured during the Clinton
Administration.
Since he wasn't, I will take that bet, how much?
Out of context, therefore an obvious fallacy.
No, we can extrapolate. The Clinton administration could capture
terrorists who 1) show up at the rental agency to get their money back
or are 2) waiting in the local jail to be picked up.
Since Osama met neither of these conditions, we can conclude that
capturing Osama would be beyond Clinton's capabilities today, just like
it was back in the '90's when Clinton was trying to catch Osama then.
Osama didn't attack WTC under Clinton.
Which means what? Clinton wasn't really trying that hard back in the
'90's?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 10:19:46 PM |
|
|
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121391149.104105.99550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes after
the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of your
claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?sect=1
It sure was nice enough for McVeigh to drive around without license
plates so an Oklahoman patrolman could pick him up.
First, on the page you linked to, there was no mention whatsoever of McVeigh
trying to "get his money back from the rental truck," which was your claim.
Second, I already knew about the car with no license plate, plus it was on
the page that I already linked to:
"Ninety minutes after the explosion, McVeigh was pulled over by a highway
patrol officer for driving without a license plate but when the officer
discovered that McVeigh had an unregistered gun, he arrested him on a
firearms charge."
That is: investigated, captured, tried, convicted and sentenced in a
tad
over a year. There was not another attack on American soil until
1995.
You make that sound like an accomplishment.
The first portion of that, yes. Especially when you consider that Ken
Lay is
still walking the streets.
A victim of Clinton and Bush economic policies.
Red herring fallacy noted.
The second, no, and you can ***** yourself with your implication to the
contrary. I was merely stating facts.
Also, combining the two was a bit disenginuous, unless you take issue
with
Salameh's capture. The way your post is worded makes it hard to tell.
It was nice of him to keep phoning the rental agency to let them know
he was hanging around to be picked up.
http://www.asksam.com/cgi-bin/as_web5.exe?Command=DocName&File=911Report.ask&Name=3.1%20FROM%20THE%20OLD%20TERRORISM%20TO%20THE%20NEW%3A%20THE%20FIRST%20WORLD%20TRADE%20CENTER%20BOMBING%20
In April, 1995, McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building. Of
course,
he
was a home-grown terrorist. What happened to him, you ask? Well, the
Clinton
Administration caught that fucker, too. He was captured 90 minutes
afterward
on unrelated charges, but never released because the investigation
turned to
him:
Thanks to an alert local cop. Meanwhile the Feds blundered around for
weeks trying to find the other culprits, even murdering a hapless
prisoner who they thought was an accomplice. Then they decided to drop
the matter and pretend no one else was involved, despite the fact
McVeigh was seen by witnesses with other men that day.
Proof?
You're delving into minutae with some very outlandish claims.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05262005.html
http://history1900s.about.com/cs/crimedisaster/p/okcitybombing.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Timothy-McVeigh
In other words, the Clinton Administration didn't ***** around and
invade
extraneous countries.
No argument there. Bush is far worse than Clinton. But to say Clinton
was good or even competent is setting our standards WAY too low.
I said nothing of the sort. I merely stated the facts:
WTC 1 -under Clinton. Captured and in prison.
Murrah -under Clinton. Captured and executed.
Considering how much effort was spent in capture, the girl scouts could
have handled it.
WTC 2, aka 9/11 -under Bush. As recently as a couple months ago, Bush
stated
that 'he just doesn't think of Osama that much.'
If Clinton's standards are, as you say, *that low, then Bush's must
register
in the negatives.
Amen.
And, as was the point of my post, Clinton caught those
that attacked on his watch.
My point was Clinton couldn't catch Osama, even when he had the chance.
Bush couldn't catch syphilis in a two-dollar
***** house.
Or are you trying to say that we can just look forward to more years of
attacks, and we'll see how the next guy works out?
Oh, we can definitely expect more attacks, and the next guy will be no
better.
On Clinton's watch, there were two attacks.
You seem to have forgotten TWA 800, and the Cole bombing, and the
embassy bombings.
No, I didn't. But an apples to apples comparison, plus a brief "reading
comprehension" lesson, would clarify what I said: "American soil."
TWA 800 was taking off from American soil dude. Or are we going to say
that since it was in the air, it wasn't on American soil? Ah, the joys
of Clintonian parsing.
Flight 108 went through
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
I watch people using fuzzy definitions and statistics when they want to
push
an argument into the realm of ridiculous. Some try to make the argument
that
even attacks by the insurgency on our soldiers in Iraq are considered
"terrorist attacks," at which time we can safely say that the vast
majority
of 'terrorist attacks' will never be solved.
Amen.
That is why I specified what I did. WTC 1 & 2 and Murrah.
Oh, don't tell me you bought that song and dance
about TWA 800 spontaneously combusting?
I was neither on the investigating committee, nor do I wear a tinfoil
hat. I
leave the conspiracy theories to the kooks and their missiles....
...nor do I remember anything about "spontaneous combustion."
Once again, do you have proof of your statements?
John Kerry on the Chris Matthews show back in September 2001 identified
TWA800 as a "bombing".
More assertions with no evidence.
Both groups of perpetrators were
captured. One was executed, the other is in prison for the rest of
his
life.
Clinton's track record is obviously better than Bush's,
Again, no argument.
and given that
record, I'd put my money on Osama being captured during the Clinton
Administration.
Since he wasn't, I will take that bet, how much?
Out of context, therefore an obvious fallacy.
No, we can extrapolate. The Clinton administration could capture
terrorists who 1) show up at the rental agency to get their money back
or are 2) waiting in the local jail to be picked up.
Since Osama met neither of these conditions, we can conclude that
capturing Osama would be beyond Clinton's capabilities today, just like
it was back in the '90's when Clinton was trying to catch Osama then.
Have
Osama didn't attack WTC under Clinton.
Which means what? Clinton wasn't really trying that hard back in the
'90's?
Tell ya what. Since you want to go in cir
-0-
About halfway through this, I decided that it is obvious you will continue
down rabbit trails of irrelevance. I care not for these games. In addition
to that, you continue to make wild claims with no evidence to support them.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
15 Jul 2005 02:52:16 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121391149.104105.99550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes after
the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of your
claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?sect=1
It sure was nice enough for McVeigh to drive around without license
plates so an Oklahoman patrolman could pick him up.
First, on the page you linked to, there was no mention whatsoever of McVeigh
trying to "get his money back from the rental truck," which was your claim.
The money back from the rental truck was referring to the 1993 WTC
attack, not McVeigh.
Second, I already knew about the car with no license plate, plus it was on
the page that I already linked to:
"Ninety minutes after the explosion, McVeigh was pulled over by a highway
patrol officer for driving without a license plate but when the officer
discovered that McVeigh had an unregistered gun, he arrested him on a
firearms charge."
So we agree on the facts, why does Clinton get credit for the actions
of a highway patrol officer?
That is: investigated, captured, tried, convicted and sentenced in a
tad
over a year. There was not another attack on American soil until
1995.
You make that sound like an accomplishment.
The first portion of that, yes. Especially when you consider that Ken
Lay is
still walking the streets.
A victim of Clinton and Bush economic policies.
Red herring fallacy noted.
Did I bring up Ken Lay? Hmmm, no, the person who introduced the Ken
Lay red herring was you.
So, why did you bring Ken Lay up in the first place if you don't like
red herrings?
The second, no, and you can ***** yourself with your implication to the
contrary. I was merely stating facts.
Also, combining the two was a bit disenginuous, unless you take issue
with
Salameh's capture. The way your post is worded makes it hard to tell.
It was nice of him to keep phoning the rental agency to let them know
he was hanging around to be picked up.
http://www.asksam.com/cgi-bin/as_web5.exe?Command=DocName&File=911Report.ask&Name=3.1%20FROM%20THE%20OLD%20TERRORISM%20TO%20THE%20NEW%3A%20THE%20FIRST%20WORLD%20TRADE%20CENTER%20BOMBING%20
If my original post was unclear, my apologies. You asked a question
about McVeigh after copying some of my text referring to Salameh. I
didn't bother to correct it but just continued talking about McVeigh.
And let the record show, you did not challenge my evidence.
In April, 1995, McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal building. Of
course,
he
was a home-grown terrorist. What happened to him, you ask? Well, the
Clinton
Administration caught that fucker, too. He was captured 90 minutes
afterward
on unrelated charges, but never released because the investigation
turned to
him:
Thanks to an alert local cop. Meanwhile the Feds blundered around for
weeks trying to find the other culprits, even murdering a hapless
prisoner who they thought was an accomplice. Then they decided to drop
the matter and pretend no one else was involved, despite the fact
McVeigh was seen by witnesses with other men that day.
Proof?
You're delving into minutae with some very outlandish claims.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05262005.html
Let the record show you did not challenge my evidence.
On Clinton's watch, there were two attacks.
You seem to have forgotten TWA 800, and the Cole bombing, and the
embassy bombings.
No, I didn't. But an apples to apples comparison, plus a brief "reading
comprehension" lesson, would clarify what I said: "American soil."
TWA 800 was taking off from American soil dude. Or are we going to say
that since it was in the air, it wasn't on American soil? Ah, the joys
of Clintonian parsing.
Flight 108 went through
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
Heh. Typical response from someone who doesn't want government lies
questioned. Last time someone suggested that was when I said Bush was
full of crap about his WMD claims, BEFORE we went to war with Iraq.
Oh, don't tell me you bought that song and dance
about TWA 800 spontaneously combusting?
I was neither on the investigating committee, nor do I wear a tinfoil
hat. I
leave the conspiracy theories to the kooks and their missiles....
...nor do I remember anything about "spontaneous combustion."
Once again, do you have proof of your statements?
John Kerry on the Chris Matthews show back in September 2001 identified
TWA800 as a "bombing".
More assertions with no evidence.
I noticed you didn't question my evidence on the other "assertions". If
you think I am going to waste my valuable time, without being
compensated, providing full documentation to people who ignore the
evidence I do provide, you are wrong.
John Kerry was on Chris Matthews' show on September 24, 2001. He
identified recent terrorist attacks and listed the TWA800 among them.
If you want to check it for yourself, call the show and ask for a
transcript.
Osama didn't attack WTC under Clinton.
Which means what? Clinton wasn't really trying that hard back in the
'90's?
Tell ya what. Since you want to go in cir
-0-
About halfway through this, I decided that it is obvious you will continue
down rabbit trails of irrelevance. I care not for these games. In addition
to that, you continue to make wild claims with no evidence to support them.
Well, if you change your mind and want to challenge my evidence, you go
right ahead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 09:28:16 PM |
|
|
David <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes after the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of your claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?sect=1
We notice that your evidence proves your own claim to be wrong.
Like most right-wing halfwits you really don't know the facts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
15 Jul 2005 02:26:13 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
David <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes after the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of your claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?sect=1
We notice that your evidence proves your own claim to be wrong.
I never said McVeigh was trying to get his money back from the rental
truck. I don't know why Donald linked that part of my post with a
question about McVeigh.
Like most right-wing halfwits you really don't know the facts.
Who said I was right-wing moron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
15 Jul 2005 02:29:42 PM |
|
|
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121455573.795306.281350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
David <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but
because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from
the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes after
the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of your
claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?se
ct=1
We notice that your evidence proves your own claim to be wrong.
I never said McVeigh was trying to get his money back from the rental
truck. I don't know why Donald linked that part of my post with a
question about McVeigh.
Like most right-wing halfwits you really don't know the facts.
Who said I was right-wing moron?
Why he did, of course :)
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
15 Jul 2005 02:46:54 PM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121455573.795306.281350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
David <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but
because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back from
the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes after
the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of your
claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?se
ct=1
We notice that your evidence proves your own claim to be wrong.
I never said McVeigh was trying to get his money back from the rental
truck. I don't know why Donald linked that part of my post with a
question about McVeigh.
Like most right-wing halfwits you really don't know the facts.
Who said I was right-wing moron?
Why he did, of course :)
And he knows this how?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
15 Jul 2005 02:49:22 PM |
|
|
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121456814.763840.50310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mickey wrote:
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121455573.795306.281350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
David <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but
because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back
from
the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes
after
the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of
your
claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?se
ct=1
We notice that your evidence proves your own claim to be wrong.
I never said McVeigh was trying to get his money back from the rental
truck. I don't know why Donald linked that part of my post with a
question about McVeigh.
Like most right-wing halfwits you really don't know the facts.
Who said I was right-wing moron?
Why he did, of course :)
And he knows this how?
Know? When did liars start needing to KNOW things to say them?
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
15 Jul 2005 02:55:02 PM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121456814.763840.50310@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mickey wrote:
"David" <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1121455573.795306.281350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
David <davecheryll@earthlink.net> wrote:
The other Donald wrote:
Not because of competence by the Clinton administration, but
because
the terrorist was stupid enough to try and get his money back
from
the
rental truck.
Do you have some proof of this? McVeigh was captured 90 minutes
after
the
detonation of Murrah. I'd certainly like to see some evidence of
your
claim.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/mcveigh/snag_2.html?se
ct=1
We notice that your evidence proves your own claim to be wrong.
I never said McVeigh was trying to get his money back from the rental
truck. I don't know why Donald linked that part of my post with a
question about McVeigh.
Like most right-wing halfwits you really don't know the facts.
Who said I was right-wing moron?
Why he did, of course :)
And he knows this how?
Know? When did liars start needing to KNOW things to say them?
Mickey
Ok, you made your point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 04:21:06 PM |
|
|
David wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Which is, of course, a total lie. There was no real "Sudan invitation."
It was simply an offer from a Sudanese warlord that never really
panned out.
To say that it was an "engraved invitation" is a rightie lie.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
Agreed. Osama didn't attack America's home-soil (Embassy bombings, USS
Cole, etc aren't "home-soil" in many Americans' minds) until after Clinton.
Like all crime (terrorist attacks are crimes), you cannot prosecute
until the crime has been commited. See, in a civilized world, you're
innocent until proven guilty; you're innocent until you commit the crime.
Thinking about killing someone is *NOT* the same as killing someone.
You can prosecute the latter, not the former. Unfortunately for
Clinton, the "thinking" and "planning" was done during his time.
Had we been attacked if Gore had won 2000? I cannot say, but Bush's
ignoring the threat wasn't the answer. Bush spoke more about the
gophers on his ranch than he did about Osama Bin Laden.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 05:03:51 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
David wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Which is, of course, a total lie. There was no real "Sudan invitation."
It was simply an offer from a Sudanese warlord that never really
panned out.
You mean never really pursued.
To say that it was an "engraved invitation" is a rightie lie.
You are correct, the invitation was not actually engraved.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
Agreed. Osama didn't attack America's home-soil (Embassy bombings, USS
Cole, etc aren't "home-soil" in many Americans' minds) until after Clinton.
Like all crime (terrorist attacks are crimes), you cannot prosecute
until the crime has been commited. See, in a civilized world, you're
innocent until proven guilty; you're innocent until you commit the crime.
No kidding.
Thinking about killing someone is *NOT* the same as killing someone.
You can prosecute the latter, not the former. Unfortunately for
Clinton, the "thinking" and "planning" was done during his time.
The embassy bombings did not kill anyone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
14 Jul 2005 09:18:18 PM |
|
|
David wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
David wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Which is, of course, a total lie. There was no real "Sudan invitation."
It was simply an offer from a Sudanese warlord that never really
panned out.
You mean never really pursued.
You mean menver really happened.
To say that it was an "engraved invitation" is a rightie lie.
You are correct, the invitation was not actually engraved.
Nor was it an invitation.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
Agreed. Osama didn't attack America's home-soil (Embassy bombings, USS
Cole, etc aren't "home-soil" in many Americans' minds) until after Clinton.
Like all crime (terrorist attacks are crimes), you cannot prosecute
until the crime has been commited. See, in a civilized world, you're
innocent until proven guilty; you're innocent until you commit the crime.
No kidding.
Which is why Osama is guilty...but not in Clinton's time.
Thinking about killing someone is *NOT* the same as killing someone.
You can prosecute the latter, not the former. Unfortunately for
Clinton, the "thinking" and "planning" was done during his time.
The embassy bombings did not kill anyone?
And were the embassy bombings planned by OBL?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "David" |
|
| Title: Re: Terrorism Went DOWN Under Clinton, UP Under Bush |
15 Jul 2005 02:21:41 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
David wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
David wrote:
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting ***** wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:54:30 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:59:09 GMT, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com>
wrote:
I'm just curious if President Dumbfuck bothers to think about bin Laden
*NOW*?
Oh, I'm sure 'rat willie wakes up at nite and wonders is only he had done
something about obl. Then the world would think highly of him instead.
Unlike AWOL, who has let Osama Bin Laden run free 43 months AFTER 911,
Clinton would have long caught him.
Yeah right. They were looking for him for years because of the embassy
bombings and other terrorism back in the '90's. Sudan even gave Clinton
an engraved invitation to pick him up, and nothing was done.
Which is, of course, a total lie. There was no real "Sudan invitation."
It was simply an offer from a Sudanese warlord that never really
panned out.
You mean never really pursued.
You mean menver really happened.
No, I don't mean menver really happened.
To say that it was an "engraved invitation" is a rightie lie.
You are correct, the invitation was not actually engraved.
Nor was it an invitation.
Actually, it was a singing telegram, with a dancing bear.
Bush has dramatically increased terrorism, but claiming Clinton would
have caught Osama is *****.
Agreed. Osama didn't attack America's home-soil (Embassy bombings, USS
Cole, etc aren't "home-soil" in many Americans' minds) until after Clinton.
Like all crime (terrorist attacks are crimes), you cannot prosecute
until the crime has been commited. See, in a civilized world, you're
innocent until proven guilty; you're innocent until you commit the crime.
No kidding.
Which is why Osama is guilty...but not in Clinton's time.
By this logic Osama still isn't guilty, because he hasn't been proven
guilty.
Thinking about killing someone is *NOT* the same as killing someone.
You can prosecute the latter, not the former. Unfortunately for
Clinton, the "thinking" and "planning" was done during his time.
The embassy bombings did not kill anyone?
And were the embassy bombings planned by OBL?
Yes, check out the MSNBC FAQ on OBL.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp?cp1=1
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
