Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I've already stated, Bill Clinton warned of terrorism in his 1998 State of the Union.
"As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our nation's security - including increased dangers from outlaw nations and terrorism. We will defend our security wherever we are threatened -- as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of terror. The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world. Let's give them our support, the safest possible workplaces, and the resources they need so America can continue to lead."
It is so funny to see not ONE Bush supporter provide a bush quote about terrorism prior to 9/11!
He warned? Who did he warn? The US? And what did he warn of? That terrorists may strike again? Warning means nothing. Why didn't he do anything about it?
After NYC, Saudi, Khobar towers (Saudi again) Nairobi, Kenya, and Tanzania, he warned.
Yet the question remains: What did Bill do about it?
Nothing. He did NOTHING. He just kept cutting funding to the USA military. You know, the ones who need "stuff" to protect themselves and defend the country that costs money that comes in the form of Federal funding?
USS Cole: 10/2000. Two years after this quote and Bill's speech where he "warned" us all.
You can "warn" away anything. Bill was in the position to do something about it. He didn't. And why didn't he? What could your average American do to "warn off" terrorism? Write a letter to Islamic extremists and say, "Hi Mr. Terrorist, could you please knock it off? "
Bill was supposed to protect and defend the country as CIC, he did not. He "warned".
Now, let's deal with how many terrorist attacks on US interests or on US soil has happened since Bush proclaimed a global war on terrorism and took action against the terrorists.....are those crickets I hear chirping?
He warned? Who did he warn? The US? And what did he warn of? That terrorists may strike again? Warning means nothing. Why didn't he do anything about it?
After NYC, Saudi, Khobar towers (Saudi again) Nairobi, Kenya, and Tanzania, he warned.
Yet the question remains: What did Bill do about it?
Nothing. He did NOTHING. He just kept cutting funding to the USA military. You know, the ones who need "stuff" to protect themselves and defend the country that costs money that comes in the form of Federal funding?
USS Cole: 10/2000. Two years after this quote and Bill's speech where he "warned" us all.
You can "warn" away anything. Bill was in the position to do something about it. He didn't. And why didn't he? What could your average American do to "warn off" terrorism? Write a letter to Islamic extremists and say, "Hi Mr. Terrorist, could you please knock it off? "
Bill was supposed to protect and defend the country as CIC, he did not. He "warned".
Now, let's deal with how many terrorist attacks on US interests or on US soil has happened since Bush proclaimed a global war on terrorism and took action against the terrorists.....are those crickets I hear chirping?
I think those are crickets.
I can't help but notice you STILL have not provided even ONE Bush quote prior to 9/11 where he even MENTIONED terrorism much less did something about it!
Clinton proposed over 1 BILLION to fight terrorism. The GOP controlled Congress was more interested in Bills sex life than fighting terrorism. They denied the funding to fight terrorism. When Clinton did go after Bin Laden, the right wing nuts said he "wagged the dog". As I've already pointed out, Clinton warned BUSH, the American Citizens and the World that terrorism was a major threat. He also went after Bin Laden. Prior to 9/11 Bush did NOTHING about terrorism. Despite the Embassy bombings, the Cole and all the rest. Ya Bush kept you safe if you ignore the largest terrorist attack on US soil! 9/11 good lord Ya the crickets are you bush apologists inability to provide even ONE quote where W warned of terrorism. Despite all those attacks around the World! DESPITE being warned by Bill Clinton directly!
|September 10, 1996
WASHINGTON — President Clinton on Monday proposed $1.1 billion in new spending to tighten airline security and fight global terrorism.
The request to Congress ties together a number of long-standing anti-terror initiatives and a list of recommendations from a commission formed in the aftermath of the July 17 explosion of TWA Flight 800 to find ways to make air travel safer. http://articles.latimes.com/1996-09-...obal-terrorism
Congress REFUSED to fund Clinton's efforts! I suggest you associate yourself with the FACTS
LMAO!!!! OMG so you are saying that all of these countries are so weak and have such weak leadership that all GWB had to do was "tell" them to go to war and they listened. LOL Can you really keep a straight face when posting that?
No Blair did not start it. The US, Britain, Australia ande Poland and every other nation that was there started it. Hell I gave you a quote from Blair himself saying Britain was at war but nooooooo you have such a hate on for Bush you can't see what is right in front of you. The FACT that the US did not force any country to join us and the FACT that we did NOT go in alone.
In the first Gulf War, we did indeed have a true "coalition" and the US only footed approx. 10% of the bill. Our long time US allies paid for most of the first Gulf War. W said many times that the US would act UNILATERALLY if needed.
In August of 2002, Powell reports trouble getting U.S. allies on board for a war with Iraq and wants to consult the U.N. At a private dinner with Bush on Aug. 5, Powell warns the president that the U.S. should not act unilaterally and must fully consider the economic and political consequences of war -- particularly in the Middle East.
Ya so much for your "coalition". LMAO
In the first Gulf War, we did indeed have a true "coalition" and the US only footed approx. 10% of the bill. Our long time US allies paid for most of the first Gulf War. W said many times that the US would act UNILATERALLY if needed.
In August of 2002, Powell reports trouble getting U.S. allies on board for a war with Iraq and wants to consult the U.N. At a private dinner with Bush on Aug. 5, Powell warns the president that the U.S. should not act unilaterally and must fully consider the economic and political consequences of war -- particularly in the Middle East.
Ya so much for your "coalition". LMAO
Countries publicly committed to the Coalition involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.
There were more nations supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 than supported Operation Desert Storm in 1991. So much for your "unilateral" lie.
Countries publicly committed to the Coalition involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.
There were more nations supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 than supported Operation Desert Storm in 1991. So much for your "unilateral" lie.
Both George Bush and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have said repeatedly that America will not shy away from a unilateral approach if it deems that Iraq still poses a threat to its interests.
President George W. Bush was ready to act unilaterally against Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said. "The president will retain all of his authority and options to act in a way that may be appropriate for us to act unilaterally to defend ourselves," Powell said. - September 9, 2002
It's apparent you have not read this entire thread. Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell all did threaten to act unilaterally. He said he would with or without a "coalition". So YES George W Bush started the war in Iraq. Regardless of how many tiny "countries" he coerced into joining his "coalition".
Direct quotes from the Bush ADM, that the US WOULD act UNILATERALLY if needed!
Direct quotes from the Bush ADM, that the US WOULD act UNILATERALLY if needed!
Obviously it was not needed, and the US did not act unilaterally. Bush was quite correct in stating that the US will act in its own best interest, regardless whether other nations support that action or not. Unlike the liberal freaks who utterly despise the US and want to submit to the whims of foreign powers. Like Obama.
Obviously it was not needed, and the US did not act unilaterally. Bush was quite correct in stating that the US will act in its own best interest, regardless whether other nations support that action or not. Unlike the liberal freaks who utterly despise the US and want to submit to the whims of foreign powers. Like Obama.
The entire point is that Iraq is and always will be W's "war". Regardless of how many countries played a SUPPORT role!
In the first Gulf War, we did indeed have a true "coalition" and the US only footed approx. 10% of the bill. Our long time US allies paid for most of the first Gulf War. W said many times that the US would act UNILATERALLY if needed.
In August of 2002, Powell reports trouble getting U.S. allies on board for a war with Iraq and wants to consult the U.N. At a private dinner with Bush on Aug. 5, Powell warns the president that the U.S. should not act unilaterally and must fully consider the economic and political consequences of war -- particularly in the Middle East.
Ya so much for your "coalition". LMAO
I see you are willing to rearrange geography to fit your argument. You called these countries (Australia, Italy, Japan, Turkey and UK) tiny countries. Now are you going by military power, population, area, or what to determine tiny. I think you might find that France is not number one in any of those areas so what it tiny.
The number of countries in the coalition is what is considered not the size according to you. You have been doing so well and then you came up with this.
The entire point is that Iraq is and always will be W's "war". Regardless of how many countries played a SUPPORT role!
And Oba mao declared Afghanistan his war when he said that he would see it to the end and now he is debating for weeks whether to try to win with his self-appointed General or just pull out and come home. Very left leaning behavior, I think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OKCcowboy you may be wrong
