XPost: alt.terrorism.world-trade-center, soc.culture.usa, alt.activism   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq   
   From: pinkfloppybitsdatstank@hotmail.com   
      
   .impervious wrote:   
   > In news:q%VXb.28355$1S1.10001@nwrddc01.gnilink.net,   
   > CH attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:   
   >   
   >>> Clinton aggressively pursued terrorists.  period.   
   >>   
   >> Clintoon aggressively pursued squat. He may have "pursued" terrorists   
   >> but nothing was aggressively done.   
   >   
   > what kind of nothing did he do?   
   >   
   > i mean, no bombings?  no investigations?  no plans?   
   >   
   > short of war, what exactly is there to aggressively do?  and, short of   
   > another War On A Noun, which have always failed (think War On Drugs or   
   > War On Poverty), how does one aggressively pursue terrorists other   
   > than in efforts to discover and thwart their plans?   
      
   You hit them where they live, you don't just sit back and wait for them to   
   come to us, just as GWB has done.   
      
   >>>  not just   
   >>> defensively, but offensively.  he took decisive measures to prevent   
   >>> and punish terrorist attacks both here and abroad.   
   >>   
   >> He took the easy way out, that is what he did. He lobbed a few cruise   
   >> missles around as a show but never ever took the actions that were   
   >> necessary   
   >   
   > funny - Newt said Clinton did "exactly the right thing," by "showing   
   > them we wouldn't back down.   
   >   
   > but it's the "lobbed a few cruise missiles" part that gives you away   
   > as a Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter/Hannity junkie...  if i had a nickel for   
   > every time each of them used the exact phrase "Clinton lobbed a few   
   > cruise missiles," i could build the entire Rube Goldberg Star Wars   
   > Missile Defense System in my backyard.   
      
   Sorry to tell you but I don't get cable, don't care for Rush, as he is   
   nothing more than a money grubbing sensationalist and really don't care to   
   know the rest.   
   What would you call what Clintoon did then? In the fact that he did lob a   
   few cruise missle at Afghanistan and a few more at Sudan how else would you   
   say it?   
      
   >>> i find it a little more than pathetic that you fail to see that   
   >>> naturally-caused deaths were responsible for far more deaths than   
   >>> terrorism, and nothing was done to prevent them.   
   >>   
   >> Sure things were done to prevent them and a lot of them are   
   >> avoidable. The point is the next time we are attacked it may not be   
   >> just airplanes. Are you prepared to live like they do in Israel and   
   >> Palestine? Now that is fear......   
   >   
   > the fact that you think that is even a possibility is what proves   
   > you're being fooled by the Fear Machine in the White House.   
      
   To many facts involved. Too much history involved. Open your little eyes. We   
   are just fortunate in the US that we do not have active terrorists on our   
   soil like there is in the rest of the world. Why do you think we are immune?   
   What makes us different than Chechneya? Russia? Palestine? Israel?   
   Indonesia? The Phillipines? I don't need to be fooled by the White House to   
   know that there are people with very serious intentions of doing us and what   
   we stand for serious harm. Open your eyes. We are just, so far, extremely   
   lucky. The writing on the wall for me was Lean Klinghoffer, remember him? He   
   was the American in the wheelchair that was thrown off of the Achille Lauro   
   way back when by Arafat and his thugs. It was pretty obvious then and even   
   more obvious now. You may choose to bury your head in the sand and choose a   
   president that does so also but not me.   
      
   >>> there is no objective reporting on television.  my news comes from   
   >>> facts, not speculation.   
   >>   
   >> Well then your "facts" have clouded your judgement. That is obvious.   
   >   
   > as i said - i don't need judgement to discern fact from opinion.   
   > fact   
   > is verifiable, while opinion is not.   
      
   And in some areas there are nothing but opinions, that is where your   
   judgement comes in.   
   You say aggressively, I say not. That is all based on opinions, not facts.   
   The fact is, and the one that is important, is that whatever Clintoon did or   
   did not do, it was not near aggressive enough otherwise WTC -2 would never   
   have happened.   
      
   >  it is as simple as that.   
      
   Only if you are a fool I guess.......a half blind fool at that.   
      
   >  i tell   
   > you the things that happened, and you tell me why you think they   
   > did... which one of us is reporting fact?   
   > arguing with idiots is exasperating...  i hope this pays off in the   
   > end, and a few of you who are only republicans because you think we   
   > all just want to raise your taxes will understand the very real   
   > threat to our country Bush presents, and vote the correct way.   
      
   And you seem to completely ignore the fact that Clintoon was a threat to the   
   US based on his history of inaction and outright selling out of the US. It   
   will be a cold day in hell when the US trusts the safety of our country to a   
   liberal loser like Clintoon again. I think you seriously under estimate the   
   damage to the Democratic parties reputation the man has caused, GWB may not   
   be a perfect President but he is a far cry from one riddled with personal   
   problems, scandals and inaction like the last one we had.   
      
   > i promise i won't say "told you so."   
      
   And I promise I will say I told you so.   
      
   --   
   Cliff   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)