Comments on: How Soon They Forget

By: Sven

Sven — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:22:01 +0000

” What is Bush doing about Bin Ladin now?” — TOS

Still in Afghanistan and working with the Pakistan government to locate him. Maybe you missed that on the news since they tend not to report all the facts. BTW, when you’re able to orchestrate a better plan to capture a fox in a fox hole, let the military know so we can stop wasting our time out there since it sounds like you could do better. Oh wait, that’s right, the Newsweek reporter knows how to get him. Okay, we’ll just ask him.

By: TOS

TOS — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:25:57 +0000

I had one other point I would like to make. Believe it or not, before 2003 I was always registered as an independant. I didn’t even vote for Clinton. I voted for Ross Perot because I’m not especially a fan of either of the major political parties. The way I see it, 99% of politicians of both parties are not to be trusted. I did vote for Al Gore in 2000, however, as I concider Bush a mental midget by comparison.

I was initially very supportive of Bush in our efforts in Afghanistan after September the 11th. But soon after he quickly changed course and turned his attention to Iraq, and forgot all about Osama. It was after this that I changed course myself, and registered as a Democrat. One more thing I have to be angry with Bush about.

By: TOS

TOS — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:01:43 +0000

I’ll see your point when you actually make one. The same criticism you make of Clinton could be made of Bush, as it could be said that he let Bin Ladin escape Tora Bora a few years back. The reality is that neither situation was that simple.

The Republicans made a big stink back when Clinton had his war in Bosnia. Yet now these same people are criticising him for not dropping enough bombs? Hypocrits. Its easy to look at the past and see what mistakes were made or not made. But you are avoiding my point: What is Bush doing about Bin Ladin now? Nothing.

By: Sven

Sven — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:19:24 +0000

Still avoiding the point. Bush had zero chances to get Bin Laden before 4,000 plus American’s died in NYC. Clinton had two.

By: TOS

TOS — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:30:26 +0000

Yeah, back when the Republican’s were screaming “No wagging the dog! No war for Monica”, and they had Clinton by the testicles over a personal, private matter, Clinton should have started a war over the Cole bombing, right?

And where is Bin Laden now? As Bush has even said publicly, our current president doesn’t even think about him anymore. But you go right on parroting your quotes from the past along with the other 36% of you who still support this failure of a president.

By: Sven

Sven — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 07:27:20 +0000

Ya, getting Bin Laden in ’98 would have been a really stupid thing to do, too, when Clinton had the chance not once, but twice. I agree, all those people that died in 9/11 because we didn’t get the master mind behind those attacks in the first place. Good thing we didn’t react on our “spotty” intelligence.

By: TOS

TOS — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 02:22:58 +0000

Yeah, all those people during the Clinton administration believed Saddam was a threat. Funny, though: They didn’t think launching an invasion of him after exaggerating the case against him with tales about nukes and direct threats to the US homeland was a good idea. Why not? Because it would have been a really stupid thing to do. And it remained a really stupid thing to do when Bush did just that.

For Bush (and his echo chamber) to go around whining now about how “Democrats said Saddam was a threat, too!” is one of the weakest responses to a failed presidential policy I’ve ever seen.