"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

. At least Clinton tried to deal with it.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/221552.shtml


His own Secretary of State may give him an "A" for effort, but look at what
really happened.

Clinton did nothing about all those US Embassies that were toppled, nothing
about the first WTC attack, nothing about the Cole.

Historically, the Democrats have really gotten us into big messes. VietNam
is just one example.

I don't think America should take the risk of voting for any Democrat.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:58:16 -0600, Gilligan wrote:


Clinton did nothing about all those US Embassies that were toppled,
nothing about the first WTC attack, nothing about the Cole.

The US Embassies? This article was written the day after Clinton
retaliated. Notice any familiar names?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/

And, the Republican response to this retaliation? Remember accusations of
"wag the dog"?

Uh, those involved with the first WTC attack are now in jail.

"In two separate jury trials in Manhattan federal court, half a dozen men were
later convicted of direct roles in the bombing. Mamed Salameh, Ahmad Ajaj,
Mahmud Abouhalima and Nidal Ayyad were found guilty in March 1994.

In November 1997, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of masterminding the plot,
and Eyad Ismoil was convicted for driving the rented Ryder truck into the
garage.

Each man was sentenced to 240 years in prison, or one year for every year
of expected life they deprived their victims."

Oh, and the USS Cole? That happened on Oct. 12, 2000, the month before
GWB was elected. Rather than be concerned with the last two months of
Clinton's term, a fairer question would be what did GWB do about in the
year he had before 9/11?

Give me a break. Try to actually cite facts. At least Clinton went after Bin
Laden. Bush didn't do anything until he had no choice after 9/11. Now, even
Afganistan is spiraling out of control.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

. At least Clinton tried to deal with it.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/221552.shtml


His own Secretary of State may give him an "A" for effort, but look at
what really happened.

Clinton did nothing about all those US Embassies that were toppled,
nothing about the first WTC attack, nothing about the Cole.

Historically, the Democrats have really gotten us into big messes. VietNam
is just one example.

I don't think America should take the risk of voting for any Democrat.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Give me a break. Try to actually cite facts. At least Clinton went after
Bin Laden. Bush didn't do anything until he had no choice after 9/11. Now,
even Afganistan is spiraling out of control.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/7...ovak02.article

Haiti spiraled out of control for Clinton.

Well, in that case, he's one up on Bush. Afganistan and Iraq are out of
control and many lives have been lost as a result.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Give me a break. Try to actually cite facts. At least Clinton went after
Bin Laden. Bush didn't do anything until he had no choice after 9/11.
Now, even Afganistan is spiraling out of control.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/7...ovak02.article

Haiti spiraled out of control for Clinton.

If Clinton did good by simply trying, shouldn't Bush get credit for trying
in Iraq?

No because he mislead us into thinking it was a war of necessity rather than
a war of choice. Clinton didn't lie about the reasons for the military
action.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..
If Clinton did good by simply trying, shouldn't Bush get credit for trying
in Iraq?