If Clinton did not get a BJ from Monica would we be in Iraq?

Yes. Nothing would have changed. We would still be there.

Because the "K" St. project would have continued with or without Monica.

 

One doesn't need to blame BILL Clinton for Iraq. The "other" Clinton did a much better job getting us into Iraq.

 

9/11 would have still happened, but Gore would have done what President Clinton did after the the Cole and other bombings of Americans. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He may have dropped a few bombs, but Clinton did that and we kept getting hit over and over because we were seen as weak. That's why Osama chided the democrats. He wants them to get us out of Iraq so they can build Al Queda forces up to hit us here again.

Never forget; they hate America. You cannot make friends with someone who hates you and believes that their holy book tells them to kill you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Sep 17 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]513654[/snapback]</div>

You are good and correct. The clinton approach - the do nothing while America got attacked and americans dies approach - a novel approach for a US President, i believe a first in 250 years - got us nowhere. at least with the new approach endorsed by the majority of democrats and repubs have gotten us 6 attack free years and no INNOCENT Americans killed on home soil - a refreshing change. that itself is subject to change in '08 for better or worse.

a president gore is as frightening a thought as any - i cant imagine the carnage would have stopped at 3,000 dead american civilians - i imagine we would have been attacked on numerous fronts with significant casualties to american civilians.

there is NO doubt, especially given the latest Osama tape that he is a Democrat - he touched on global warming, evil corporations, taxes, getting out of iraq -- a carbon copy of the current democratic platform - i think except for one thing - he respects the job our troops have done and wants them outtathere asap because we are killing too many of his guys while our current democrats are embarrassed by our troops and their professionalism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Sep 17 2007, 04:01 PM) [snapback]513654[/snapback]</div>

They hate america for what america has done to their countries,
they don't need iraq to build Al Quaida forces.
Their Holy book tell them to kill you as the bibble tells you to kill them...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tchou @ Sep 17 2007, 10:36 AM) [snapback]513677[/snapback]</div>

Man that's the old testament. The new testament is about love, peace and rock & roll.. turn the other cheek.. Lord forgive them for they do now know… or should it have been lord kill them for they do know ...

Religin and politics don't mix.. Go back and hit the pipe and relax.. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tchou @ Sep 17 2007, 10:36 AM) [snapback]513677[/snapback]</div>

Actually my Bible does not tell me to kill - I would love you to reference that if you could.

Also, explain why the clear majority of terrorism is performed by those of the Islamic faith?

What has American done to their countries?

Did we treat France any different except we fought larger wars there, killed more people there, destroyed my buildings and infrastructure there? And why do we not have "French" based terrorism? So what have we done to their countries that has spawned Islamoterrorism?

Finally - do you believe in the separation of "church" and "state"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fairclge @ Sep 17 2007, 10:42 AM) [snapback]513680[/snapback]</div>

GROOVY, Pass it over here..lol..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]513667[/snapback]</div>

Just to set the record straight. Clinton did attack by cruise missile strikes Al Qaida sites. When the ML scandal broke he had to stop attacking sites because of republican criticism that he was creating distractions. This is in contrast to the Bush administration who never had a meeting on terrorism until the week before Sept 11. Also consider that the intelligence community did not certify Al Qaida as responsible for the Cole and embassy attacks until Bush was in office. All is documented here:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09142007/timeline.html

Osama is a democrat...please...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 09:46 AM) [snapback]513683[/snapback]</div>

It does. You just don't because you are a good person regardless of religion.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/short.html

The islamism problem is as always widespread ignorance and lack of education. An environment where religion always fluorish.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 10:26 AM) [snapback]513667[/snapback]</div>

Novel? Could you please relate President Reagan's response to the bombing of our barracks in Lebanon? Other than a quick retreat and some retroactive labeling of response to mortar attacks as a 'response' (the French, who lost far fewer troops, bombed the heck out of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in response). Ignorance of basic history makes you look like a blind partisan ignorantly following whichever party you want to wave a foam finger for.

Also recall the wonderful Republican response to Clinton's missile attacks directly on Bin Laden training camps - they were ridiculed as "Monica missiles," as scoring partisan points was put ahead of the nation's security. And what was Bush Jr's strong response to terrorism prior to Sept 11th? Other than thinking about maybe making a meeting a two.

By far the best response to terrorism since 1980 was mounted by Bush Sr, and the same folks carried it on relatively unhindered into Clinton's term in office (he was happy to let the pro's Jr. drove out carry on their work).

As for the original question of would we be in Iraq with a President Gore, probably yes. Since were were flying active combat operations over Iraq, which could only be ended by allowing the genocide of the Kurds or a partioning that would really irk the Turks, I don't see how things would have magically turned to roses with a Gore presidency. Although I think history is already judging that it would be very difficult to botch the Iraq war up more than Bush Jr has. It is infuriating to think of what we could have had if it had been President McCain handed a plateful of global support and license on 9/11/01.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Sep 17 2007, 11:23 AM) [snapback]513705[/snapback]</div>

I agree with you, the retreat from beirut after the attack on the marine barracks was wrong and empowered them. this was unlike him as shown by his attack on kadafy's home after the attack on a disco in europe - and kadafy's daughter was killed in that attack if i remember correctly.

the clinton missile attack was wrong and stupid and ill timed and ill executed - and totally done for political reasons. i dont remember him hitting anything with those missiles - and after getting bitc* slapped by islamofascists for 8 years clinton shoots one missile ??? Wth??? how about after WTC I in 1993 - what did he do then??????????????? NOTHING. USS COLE - NOTHING. no doubt FDR, truman, jfk went rolling in their graves and that is just the great democratic presidents i admired.

and please the french... they sicken me. they sell nuclear reactors to iraq iran and any other whor* nation who can pay for it, they get involved in the worlds largest scandal - the food for oil - they thumb their noses at everyone with their history of imperialism and not to mention getting their butt kicked in two major wars in under half a century only to have to rely on the good will, the treasure and the BLOOD of others including to no small sum the US of A -and they are your guiding post.

i am not ignorant of modern of past history - as you see when i said that retreating from beirut after the bombings was wrong - i am not like you, a kool aid drinker who can look at the clinton presidency and call it a shining success in how to manage foreign policy and attacks on americans home and abroad and call it the right stuff. i personally think his total or near total lack of protection and lack of action in terms of all the goings on during his presidency - perhaps the first time in 250 years an american president sat back and watched as americans were killed by enemies who DECLARED WAR ON US DURING HIS TERMS IN OFFICE - will cause history to judge him very harshly 100 years from now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]513724[/snapback]</div>

Clinton's response attacks were much more than "one missile". The actual perpetrators of the WTC I attack and most of the planners were systematically tracked down and captured, widely considered a better response than botching the invasion of a completely unrelated hell hole in "response."

You are clearly ignorant of modern history, and moreover you do not seem to care. I prefer to debate based on facts to arrive at a better understanding of what appropriate future behavior should be and who I should support with my time and money. As you do clearly do not, I see no point in arguing with you. You can have the last word.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(roryjr @ Sep 17 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]513654[/snapback]</div>

Man you are so correct, however your preaching on DEAF EARS.... Its the Barney hour, if we are friendly to them they will see that we welcome them. So they will be nicer to us in the future as we are all about peace..

Makes me want to vomit, all these people care about is the USA and what we stand for crumbling or else falling under their rule. everything the USA stands for makes them hate the us citizens no matter what party they stand with.




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 10:26 AM) [snapback]513667[/snapback]</div>

LOL, of course hes wanting the dems to believe he agrees with them so the dems will pull us out and see that we attacked him and that his people are really the victims here... LMAO :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Sep 17 2007, 12:01 PM) [snapback]513728[/snapback]</div>

let me ask you a hypothetical question - a foreign entity tries to kill/murder 10,000 American civilians on our home soil and gets only six - what do you do as president?

and

a foreign entity explodes a nuclear device - dirty bomb - kills thousands of Americans on our home soil and dies himself in the attack - what do you do as president?

and lastly,

as an expert in modern history tell me why did FDR first invade algeria and morroco after the attack on Pearl Harbor?


thank you in advance for you feedback and insight into these questions.

i dont need the last word, and i find it amusing how you wrap yourself up in a cocoon to protect yourself and your self generated opinions of others - very self-serving.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 17 2007, 09:35 AM) [snapback]513674[/snapback]</div>

I think the extreme believers are the ones that want to dominate the world. I don't know whether they hate us, but they want to kill us because we won't submit to Islamic rule. And it doesn't matter where the non-believers are, they think the same about them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Sep 17 2007, 12:08 PM) [snapback]513729[/snapback]</div>

It's a very scary world where the leader of a cowardly terrorist organazation makes more sense on these issues than the president of The United States.




Let the flames begin...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Greenkeeper @ Sep 17 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]513740[/snapback]</div>

flaming is not necessary here
and this is why i say Osama Bin Laden is a Democrat.
thank you

still waiting for our history expert to respond to my questions - i guess he took his ball and ran home.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 17 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]513724[/snapback]</div>

Dr Berman You are either very ignorant or you are deliberately making up lies.
Why do you ignore the opinion of Richard A. Clarke ,the person most knowledgeable in this matter ?