Posted on 12/10/2005 4:22:23 PM PST by Names Ash Housewares
I would like to see him run against Hillary, from wherever she claims to be from in 2008.
.
Great Pick, FreeKeys.
I remember talking to 'Losing Bin Laden' author Richard Miniter as he was guesting on 'The Judicial Watch Report' Talk Radio Show a couple of years ago.
Miniter CONFIRMED the fact that the CLINTONS refused 3 OSAMA Offers from the Sudan.
Don't ya just LOVE the new alternative Media..?
.
Franks/Rice '08
"The problem is the loons on the left can't see that. When you bring it up they just shout you down"
Just out of curiosity I sent it to someone on the far left and got the following answer within minutes:
",,,,I think Frank's's history is as poor as yours
Reagan was president 1983,,,,there were numerous attacks prior to 1983,,,in Clinton's time numerous raids were carried out by American forces on terrorist locations,,bombing and cruise missiles,,many of the people involved in terrorist acts in that time have been captured tried and sentenced,,,,the Khobar event was handled by the Saudi antiterrorist Organization and since then many have been captured and killed,,,,,the Cole bombing,the same by the Yemeni government,,,captured imprisoned and executed,,the first attack on the twin towers,,?,,,the people and leaders are still in jail and will be for life,,,in America-----,Mogadishu,,was sheer stupidity,,low-flying over what was in effect enemy territory when the enemy possessed American Stinger missiles,,,,,a mistake they did not make in Bosnia Iraq or Afghanistan,,,,"
Going to war on radical islam. That is what Franks is saying needed to be done. All those groups are Radical Islam.
Yes Reagan did not do this. We were fighting a Cold War with the Soviets a the time, no small endeavour. Clinton did not have a cold war. He had the so-called "peace dividend". He did not go to war against radical islam. He shook the hive. He did not strike decisively will the full force of American might. He cut and ran out of Somalia. Black Hawk Down videos were distubuted as training videos to terrorists on that one. He fired missiles at Iraq yes, but at night to reduce casualties. He failed to stop Bin Laden when it was possible to do so. He was not aggressive enough. And speaking of history to this liberal friend of yours. We now know that Able Danger was ignored.........
***Intelligence team Able Danger fingered Atta pre-9-11.*** during the CLINTON administration.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167130,00.html
They tried to tell the FBI. They were not allowed. The Gorelick wall prevented it. Clinton appointee Mary Jo Whites memo to Gorelick proves it........
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/51981.htm
August 17, 2005 -- PRESIDENT Bill Clinton's team ignored dire warnings that its approach to terrorism was "very dangerous" and could have "deadly results," according to a blistering memo just obtained by The Post. Then-Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote the memo as she pleaded in vain with Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick to tear down the wall between intelligence and prosecutors, a wall that went beyond legal requirements. Looking back after 9/11, the memo makes for eerie reading - because White's team foresaw, years in advance, that the Clinton-era wall would make it tougher to stop mass murder.
"This is not an area where it is safe or prudent to build unnecessary walls or to compartmentalize our knowledge of any possible players, plans or activities," wrote White, herself a Clinton appointee.
"The single biggest mistake we can make in attempting to combat terrorism is to insulate the criminal side of the house from the intelligence side of the house, unless such insulation is absolutely necessary. Excessive conservatism . . . can have deadly results." She added: "We must face the reality that the way we are proceeding now is inherently and in actuality very dangerous.
" ---------------------- They were warned at the highest levels......... To Janet Reno....
http://members.aol.com/kerrydanger2/maryjowhitememo.jpg
The mechanisms of 9-11 were cemented in place during the Clinton Administration. Radical islam was not engaged in full by Clinton. He was afraid to do so. He was afraid of casualties. But what do I know? Im not a General or anything. And neither is your liberal friend.
YES!!!! Talk Radio, FoxNews, The internet, and ESPECIALLY FRee Republic!
And websites like THIS!
Still serving his country.
BIN LADEN and ATEF, along with ABDULLAH MOHAMMED, ODEH, and AL-'OWHALI, are also charged with bombing the two embassies and causing the deaths of more than 200 persons and injuring more than 4,500 others. Those five defendants are also charged with murdering all of the civilians killed in the embassy bombings. The Indictment names all of the victims of the bombings and each victim is charged as a separate count of murder for a total of 224 counts of murder against BIN LADEN, ATEF, ABDULLAH MOHAMMED, ODEH and AL-OWHALI.
Eleven American embassy employees were killed in Nairobi.
You mean like, "Warmongering General Spins Iraq War for Bush?" That's about the only headline you will see from the alphabet leftstream media.
Amen. Lot's of Internet Rambos who do little or nothing to help but are plenty free with the criticism.
GOD bless Genral Franks!
bttt
"Im not a General or anything. And neither is your liberal friend."
Whatever you do, PLEASE don't think this liberal idiot is any friend of mine...far from it...I wouldn't let him darken my doorstep. He's someone I've had heated debates with on another forum. He's an avid Clinton lover and one of those that love to use the 'Bush lies' quote no matter what proof you may produce that he's not.
I've quoted all the information you've posted here many times to him but so far the truth has been unable to penetrate.
I have a great deal of difficulty understanding individuals such as this. The most depressing thing to me is this type is allowed to vote and effect all of our lives....i.e.the 8 years of Clinton and Co.
I know the type very well!
Nothing can convince them. Their myopic view of things is impossible to breach. They look at the world through a soda straw, only seeing what they want to see. Defining the whole elephant by a few warts.
But I look at it this way, someone must oppose them, and keep others from falling prey to their myopia.
As for the Bush lied bit.
Try these next time. They loved to quote Dr Kay on not finding WMD's. But they sure dont quote him on this stuff!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1615880
Kay: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president (an
explanation) rather than the president owing the American people (an
explanation). You have to remember that this view of Iraq (that it had WMD)
was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush
administration.
Kay said there was "a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic" moving
from Iraq to Syria. "We simply don't know what was moved," he said, adding,
"The Syrian government has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve
this issue."
he told NPR "I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq
posed an imminent threat."
Kay: "I must say I actually think Iraq — what we learned during the
inspections — made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we
thought it was even before the war."
Interview on "The Today Show"......................
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066068/posts
Began Lauer: "Some people have relied on your earlier statement to say
that the US misled the American people into war on the basis of a
claim that Saddam had WMDs. Do you think the US misled the American
people?"
Kay: "It wasn't only the US who came to that conclusion. The French,
Germans, and UN all thought Saddam had WMDs."
Lauer: "If you didn't find WMDs, does that mean they never existed, or
could they have been moved prior to war?"
Kay: "We looked at that possiblity but we didn't find evidence that
there were large stockpiles prior to the war."
Lauer than ran a clip from Pres. Bush's State of the Union Address
from one year ago, in which he stated that Saddam had been employing
huge resources to develop WMDs and had built up a large stockpile.
Lauer: "Was that inaccurate?"
Kay: "It was inaccurate in terms of the reality we found on the ground
now, but it was accurate in terms of the intelligence at the time.
"It was also accurate in the sense that Saddam did spend large sums of
money trying to get WMDs but he simply didn't get what he paid for.
"There was lots of corruption in the Iraq WMD development program."
Lauer: "So scientists lied to Saddam, they told him they could develop
WMDs, took huge sums of money and didn't deliver?"
Kay: "Right. There was widespread corruption, lots of money wasted.
People were concerned about the money, not about working."
Lauer: "But the intent to develop WMDs was there?"
Kay: "Absolutely, Saddam surely wanted to get WMDs and spent a lot of
money trying to do so."
Lauer then showed a clip from Colin Powell at the UN saying Saddam had
at least 500 tons of WMDs. Again, Kay explained that Powell was not
being intentionally misleading and that his statement was based on the
best intelligence available at the time.
Added Kay, responding to what some of the Dems are alleging: "To say
there must have been pressure from the White House on the intelligence
community is wrong. We've also been wrong about Iran and Libya. We
clearly need better intelligence."
Lauer then quoted from Kay's earlier interview with Tom Brokaw in
which Kay had said that "if anyone was abused (by faulty intelligence)
it was the President of the US rather than the other way around."
Kay confirmed the accuracy of that remark.
Lauer: "Is it true that in 2000 and 2001 Saddam was pushing his
nuclear progarm?"
Kay: "Yes, he was pushing hard for nuclear and long range missiles.
Look, it's clear the man had the intent. He simply wasn't successful."
"He clearly lied to UN and was in material brach."
In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything
you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"
Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was
collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was
attracting terrorists like flies to honey."
Lauer: "Are your earlier comments being exploited for political
reasons?"
"Inevitably yes, but what we have is a national security issue that
shouldn't be exploited as a political issue."
This repeats why it is essential to not let a democrat in the white house in 2008.
The WOT is the ONLY issue (along with illegal immigration)! If a democrat is elected, and appeases in Neville Chamberlain fashion, down the line it will be disaster for the country.
On the contrary, I'll continue to call you when you post your steaming pile of feces.
By the way what is that something they did that impressed you so much? And did they do it in a timely manner? I havent seen them do much except cave in to democrats.
Which is my point exactly. You're either dishonest or clueless. Both of which are tiring.
Excuse me if I ignore your post you are obviously just trying to be a pain in the ass and not lend anything to the thread. Obviously a chicken COOP full of chicken POOP
I'm heartbroken you'll be ignoring my posts. I have always strived to be your protege.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.