On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:30:08 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:36:38 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Some would argue that is because Clinton didn't do much, period.

US interests were attacked many times by terrorists during the Clinton
years with very little action or response on his part.

Eisboch

You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag the
Dog"?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...onal.react.02/

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/

So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other than
divert attention?

Why didn't he finish the job?
--
John

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come
around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...

Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

Blew it? How many successful terrorist attacks on US soil has OBL launched
since 9-11.



You don't have to "attack" to cause devastation, e.g., two TRILLION
dollars wasted on Iraq, 4,000 US soldiers killed, tens of thousands of
Iraqis killed, oil prices at $109 a barrel, the U.S. reputation in the
gutter. Those are some of the results of Bush blowing it.

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...


Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come
around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember
"Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...


Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.

How do we settle this tiff? Do we do as your side, the "progressives",
advocates and roll over and let ourselves get walked on or do we stand
up to the tyranny that Islam is and fight it at ever turn?

"HK" wrote in message
...




Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the Islamists,
do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:03:34 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:


You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...onal.react.02/

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/

So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?

Why didn't he finish the job?

Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.

So are the FBI's most wanted.

You didn't answer my question.
--
John

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the Islamists,
do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch



Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to happen
via military action.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...



Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.


The ones that have sworn to Allah to kill you, me, our wives, kids,
families, neighborhoods? Those?

You betcha.

Eisboch

Yeah, how? They're in 50 different countries. It is not going to happen
via military action.

No, not completely, but the military will bear the primary responsibility to
address physical threats. You have to remember. The US military is going
through a slow, painful transformation and it's going to take more time to
fully develop new tactics, capabilities and means of fighting this type of
war. Progress is being made, but the transition from a Cold War tactical
capability to fighting small groups of widely spread terrorists will take
more time. That's why our efforts in Iraq and elsewhere seem like an
overkill or over reaction for the threat sometimes.

Meanwhile, I have a few dead tree stumps on my property also.

Eisboch

On Mar 13, 5:48*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. *As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. *Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? *bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.

You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...

Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I have always said by spreading the wealth, mass
communication, and real education we can eventually make them pretty
much impotent like our own KKK here in the US. If those kids had a
sneaker factory to work at, a car to drive a girl around with, and a
movie to go to, they would not be thinking about blowing themselves up
out of dispair..

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:48 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:13 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:03 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:01 -0500, John H. wrote:
You might want to consider, Republicans' were rather slow to come around
to the threat. As I recall, a BJ had all their focus. Remember "Wag
the Dog"?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...esstional.reac...
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
So you believe that Clinton was actually trying to do something other
than divert attention?
Why didn't he finish the job?
Why hasn't GWB? bin Laden is *still* missing.
yukity, yukity, yuk, that's sooooo 2003...Get with it, the mission
changes, like any war...
Translation: Bush blew it, but we don't want to discuss that part of it
anymore.
You mean, because we did not win yet? You should do a little reading
on the history, and meaning of war before you come to the table
sounding so silly. First off, in war, there are usually two or more
sides. Each side tries to win, sometimes the other side moves, or
changes tactics. Niether side wants to lose, so they fight back...
Anyway, you should read up on it, facinating really...
Win *yet*? You don't really think we are going to put down the
Islamists, do you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, but I have always said by spreading the wealth, mass
communication, and real education we can eventually make them pretty
much impotent like our own KKK here in the US. If those kids had a
sneaker factory to work at, a car to drive a girl around with, and a
movie to go to, they would not be thinking about blowing themselves up
out of dispair..


Well, that makes a lot more sense than thinking we can send the US
military wherever we will to kill them.