In reply to sourdoughman: 1. I hate answer a question with a question, but are you admitting that the troops dont have the equipment they need? 2. What terrorist camps do you speak of? And would they alone been enough for you to send our mililitary into Iraq? I may not be able to answer all your questions, but you need to be more specific about them.
Personnally I don't know if they have all the equipment they need or not. Thats what Kerry said not me and he voted against funding for the troops. The terrorist camps that were found in Iraq when we went in there, there has also been proof of Al Quada in Iraq before we invaded.
I've got a couple of questions for you Smax. First, do you, as you appear to be doing, place the blame for the 9/11 attacks squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration? Secondly, how do you think Al Gore would have prevented the attacks, and had he been unable to prevent them, what do you believe his appropriate response would have been? Third, how do you think John Kerry would better defend America, in lieu of the fact that since 9/11, under the Bush administration, no attacks have taken place on our soil?
9/11...you know ....3,000 people died. Geez What could have GW done to prevent 911? He ignored the reports ........
When someone has recently blown a hole in one of your battleships and blew up a US Embassy. You should probably pay more attention to them not less. Dont you agree? Yes or No? I guess you didnt read all the way to the bottom of my post eaither, but here it is for you in bold orange: In April 2001 the administration released the government’s annual terrorism report with no extensive mention of Osama bin Laden as in prior years. A State Department official told CNN that "theClinton administration had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.” Similarly, at an April meeting of deputies Clarke urged a focus on Al Qaeda. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz responded, “No, no, no. We don’t have to deal with al-Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.” In addition, General Donald Kerrick, the deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton who stayed on for a few months with the Bush administration, wrote a memo to his successor (Stephen Hadley) that the administration needed to pay attention to al Qaeda since they will strike again. “They never once asked me a question nor did I see them having a serious discussion about it. They didn’t feel it was imminent the way the Clinton administration did.” The Bush administration terminated a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the U.S. and even provided aid to the Taliban in 2001. (9)
I asked a yes or no question. Do you feel the Bush adm. is 100% to blame for 9/11. I also asked you two more specific questions. Now, please provide your own answers, Mr. Moore, and stop avoiding answering. I asked for your thoughts and opinions. Surely you can speak for yourself?
where is the rest of your information above on the Clinton Administration? How about Al Gore and his airport committee that came up with plans on improving airport security but American Airlines talked the Clinton Administration out of implementing it. I don't agree with everything Bush does but the point I'm trying to make is there is plenty of blame to go around and Clinton is just as guilty as Bush. Why are you just pointing out Bush flaws when theres plenty from the Clinton years, they knew how to kill Americans and invade Americans homes with guns pointed at kids but they couldn't fight terrorism.
He had a rough night on election night a few years back and isn't looking forward to another in a few months. :thumb: It must stink that his candidate didn't get much of a bump from his convention, I watched pretty much all of the DNC Convention. I think there in trouble! :lol:
