"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.
What Clinton did didn't phase the terrorists one bit. It didn't prevent further acts of terror in the US or against US targets. All he did was launch a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan but the results were neglible. You can't deal with terrorists because they have nothing that they can give. The world has seen what can happen when people such as this get in power. Look at Germany under Hitler, Russia, China and Cambodia under the communists (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) and Afghanistan under the Taliban. How many people were murdered because of trumped up accusations. Look at Iraq. I don't think we're aware of the extent of the brutality of the Hussein regime. He used chemical weapons on the Iranians and Kurds. After Hussein lost during Desert Storm one of the terms was he was to open his country up to UN inspectors to confirm that he had destroyed his WMD and nuclear programs. He hindered the inspectors at every turn. He was given 12 years to come clean and he refused. When a person has used chemical weapons and then impedes the efforts of people trying to confirm that he has destroyed them according to a treaty he signed he gives the appearance that he has something to hide. Just because we haven't found WMD in Iraq doesn't mean he didn't have them. He never proved to anybody that he destroyed them. If he had let the inspectors do their job he'd probably still be in power today. It would have been a lot harder to convince Congress to agree to attack him because of ties to terrorists than it was to convince them with the WMD argument. This is what the left does not understand or refuses to understand. The cost of freedom isn't cheap but the loss of freedom can be even costlier.