report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Political Chat
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 09-17-2006, 12:55 PM
pwrone's Avatar
pwrone pwrone is offline
Preserve. Protect. Defend.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,076
IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS ...
September 13, 2006


If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace — al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" — staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER


Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 09-17-2006, 07:26 PM
Phinnly Slash Buster's Avatar
Phinnly Slash Buster Phinnly Slash Buster is offline
"You will respect my authority!"
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,402
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Pwrone,
No surprise to anyone here that you would still be lapping up every ounce of fecal matter that leaks out of Ann Coulter’s arse.
Here’s some more for you to rub your nose in:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration.”

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee.”

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

She as also been repeatedly denounced by conservative groups. Those of us who have any critical thinking skills at all know that Ann Coulter is not speaking for Conservatives, Republicans or Christians. Her only supporters and the only people who consume and post her depraved and demented commentary are the most extreme and radical neo-cons, neo-nazis and card carrying members of the Aryian Nation..

EXCLUSIVE: CONSERVATIVE GROUP DENOUNCES ANN COULTER!
Coulter's greatest fault, however, is not her provocative policy ideas or discriminatory remarks. Ours is a country of free thought and free speech, and Coulter is entitled to her opinions. Coulter's offense is rather that she portrays herself as a Christian conservative, a representative of the views and principles of the Religious Right, and then uses that adopted identity to spread hate and fear, thus stigmatizing all those who embrace Christian conservatism.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1940
Attached Images
 




Last edited by Phinnly Slash Buster : 09-17-2006 at 07:30 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 09-17-2006, 07:29 PM
dchristie's Avatar
dchristie dchristie is offline
Challenge Authority
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 14,879
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS ...
September 13, 2006


If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace — al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" — staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
LOL... There's one thing you can depend on. When these low-down, treasonous right-wing cowards find themselves cornered by the exposure of their criminality, they always exhume the old "blue dress" and wave it around to deflect the attentions of their rapidly diminishing cult of comatose lemmings and retards back to Clinton's c0ck yet again.

They were feaverishly working overtime throughout the 90s to hamstring the administration with every petty and counter-productive witch hunt they could dream up inorder to assist every terrorist to attack us and get away with it. Much to their chagrin, however, the perpetrators were consistently brought to justice until The Bush Crime Gang was installed.

So never can it be said that, once they concoct a diversion for their abysmal incompetence, they won't have the hollow brazen gall to dredge it up again and again forever in their venal attempts to cover their useless treasonous butts..no matter how arcane or detached from the current state of events it may be.

Coulter's main problem is that nobody really takes a woman with an adam's apple that seriously besides the fact there will never be any stains on her own dress, no matter how brazenly the flithy deranged fascist, classless, pig-slvt exposes herself in front of every camera man she can find who can handle the stench long enough to give her the time of day.


Last edited by dchristie : 09-17-2006 at 07:34 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 09-17-2006, 08:03 PM
sojustask's Avatar
sojustask sojustask is offline
Lady Moderator- Just call me Your Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East Texas
Posts: 13,894
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Pwrone, hate to break it to you babe, BUT, beating Clinton to death will not catch Bin Laden. The past is in the past and the current president, what's his name, Bush, isn't doing anything to catch Bin Laden either, Bush has had 5 years just to focus on it. :rolleyes:

Maybe Bush has a blue stained dress hidden somewhere that hasn't been discovered yet or perhaps he's just loath to go after a friend of the family?

Lady Mod
__________________
.
When an honest man/woman who is mistaken learns the truth, at that exact moment, he/she ceases to be mistaken or he/she ceases to be honest.

When we are unable to find tranquility within ourselves, it is useless to
seek it elsewhere.
---= Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 09-17-2006, 10:13 PM
pwrone's Avatar
pwrone pwrone is offline
Preserve. Protect. Defend.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,076
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

This article was written in response to the over-the-top bleating of clinton and his maggots concerning the audacity of a TV show daring to imply that his admin. might have had some responsibility to protect the country.

As per usual, there is not a single point of this article that can be refuted. It is always enjoyable to watch the contortions of mental midgets attempting to respond to an article without actually mentioning any important part of it. Well done!

Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 09-17-2006, 11:06 PM
Phinnly Slash Buster's Avatar
Phinnly Slash Buster Phinnly Slash Buster is offline
"You will respect my authority!"
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,402
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
As per usual, there is not a single point of this article that can be refuted.
Total bullsh!t!!!!
Your statement above AND Coulters piece which is just an endless string of lies.

Take this gem for example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy,
“Tail gunner Joe” will be correctly remembered by history as a pathological liar and a truly dickless wonder. He lied about his military career and continued to lie repeatedly destroying the reputations of dozens perhaps hundreds of good Americans in the process.
Only the most extreme right wing fvcktards would ever try to defend this scumbag. No surprise Coulter is leading the pack.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.
A Disney movie that even it’s creators have been forced to admit was woven from a fabric of lies. Now billed as fiction, not even worthy of ………. made for TV Movie ‘docu-drama’ status

It goes down hill from there. I would go on but even this much is making me ill. I would likely vomit up my lunch if I continued to review this pile of sewage further.




!

Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 09-18-2006, 01:21 AM
TheWorker
 
Posts: n/a
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD A STAINED BLUE DRESS ...
September 13, 2006


If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace — al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" — staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

get your facts straight before you write someting like this...

i dont see a problem with half the quotes you have provided.

what kind of retaliation would you have liked after USS Cole??

what evidence does ANYONE have that shows Bin Laden carried out 9-11??

9-11 happened nuder BUSH. plain and simple. BUSH, not clinton, BUSH.

Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 09-18-2006, 02:38 AM
pwrone's Avatar
pwrone pwrone is offline
Preserve. Protect. Defend.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,076
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWorker
get your facts straight before you write someting like this...

i dont see a problem with half the quotes you have provided.

what kind of retaliation would you have liked after USS Cole??

what evidence does ANYONE have that shows Bin Laden carried out 9-11??

9-11 happened nuder BUSH. plain and simple. BUSH, not clinton, BUSH.


VERY well said...you have demonstrated why liberals must never have any power again. Thank you.

Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 09-18-2006, 04:46 AM
TheWorker
 
Posts: n/a
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
VERY well said...you have demonstrated why liberals must never have any power again. Thank you.
yes and you have demonstrated why republicans like Bush are the most inept leaders. you ignore things like "facts" and "evidence" and just do what you want when you want. you dodge straight quesitons and avoid touchy points that you know you have no response to.

Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 09-18-2006, 09:41 AM
lexx's Avatar
lexx lexx is offline
Most Valued Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13,951
Re: IF ONLY BIN LADEN HAD a STAINED BLUE DRESS ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwrone
VERY well said...you have demonstrated why liberals must never have any power again. Thank you.
was adolf hitler a LIBERAL or a CONSERVATIVE!?hehe!!sorry if this question TAXES your mental GREATNESS!?hehe!!just askin......


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
JFK Truth: The bunched up dress coat. danrush1966 Conspiracy Theories 15 11-01-2010 03:21 AM
First Lady Dress Code Happy Medium Political Chat 23 08-20-2009 09:57 AM
The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza Americanadian Political Chat 2 01-12-2009 08:51 PM
The Hopi Blue Star or Blue Kachina Prophecy Solve et Coagula Political Chat 1 01-08-2007 05:22 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.