Now that is out of the way, let's continue.Continue with what? Your parroting circular Moveon.org drivel? No, I will continue this debate -- you just sit there with your mirror and keep pretending that everyone is in love with you.
Just can't get over Clinton's sex life, can you? Perhaps if you got one of your own, it would help.Just can't defend Clinton's screwups, can you? Look you silly liberal, I don't care how much you kick and scream and run around this forum like an angry little communist, the fact is, 9/11 was facilitated by 8 years of Clinton's negligence. 9 months in to a new presidency simply can not hide that for you.If it were a fact that Clinton was, as you say, "negligent" on terrorism for 8 years, you should be able to prove it, in your next post. It took Clinton 2 years after the WTC bombings to finally issue a directive declaring terrorism "a potential threat to national securiy" he also pledged to "deter and pre-empt" would be terrorists. Since that time, your beloved adulterer proved ineffective in combating the following attacks:
November 1995: Van bombing at army training headquarters, Riyadh, killing 5 Americans.
January 1996: U.S. government requested Qatar's assistance in capturing Khalib Shiekh Mohammed, who was suspected of planted bombs on U.S airliners. He vanished and later became a key planner in the 9/11 attacks.
And my personal favorite: Slick Willey waving bye-bye to bin-Laden, and 150 of his top aides, while en route to Pakistan --
after the Qatar offered their refueling location. It's all there in best-selling author Gerald Posners' Why America Slept: The failure to prevent 9/11. For your reading pleasure
Oh, and let's not forget Clinton Justice Department's Jamie Gorelick, whose genius spawned "the wall of separation" -- a simply spectacular legal device which obstructed information sharing between the CIA and FBI.
At first I was surprised that you even challenged me on this. But then, I also realized that the thought of you losing an argument to me agitates the hell out of you, and makes you become irrational.
Would you like me to go on? Or will you concede that Democrats and national defense have no business working together?
OK Professor, why has liberal scrutiny always been on Bush, and never on Hussein? Because Bush started a war against a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, screwed it up royally, started a class war inside Iraq, let bin Laden get away, let bin Laden and the Taliban get stronger again, and let Iran become more powerful? Yeah, that's it.Thus making Saddam Hussein an innocent bystander after all, yes?
The point is, we've moved their fight to their own backyard, instead of on America's streets -- which is where we would be fighting them if an idiot peacenik like you were in power.Backyard? We had the fight in the Taliban and bin Laden's front yard to begin with,We've never taken our eye off Afghanistan, you silly goose.
until our dimwit-in-chief pulled the troops off to divert resources to Iraq...the country that had nothing to do with 9/11.Queue Hurtstruth tears ....
That would be because Saddam Hussein posed absolutely zero threat to U.S. national security, and was an innocent bystander after all?
Oh almost forgot. Peace, brother. Right back at'cha, Code Pink
What the hell have you been smoking Hurts?You. Big time. You're getting smoked in this little debate, just like you always do. Damn, this is fun. You clearly have some masochistic tendencies. I recommend a good psychologist. And some caffeine...your brain could use the stimulation.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! You're out of your communistic mind Let's continue kicking your pink bloomers, shall we?Let those delusions continue, zippy. BTW, why have you become so obsessed with me that you have created the following screen names to issue smites to me?
Adonis2, ArmyStrong, Gray_Mosel, and K. P. Downing. Yes, I know all about them. I have known for some time. Whenever I get you really flustered (like since yesterday), you set them loose an a smite attack. How juvenile.Actually, it's because of your intense love for this forum, and for karma points. If I take five of your points away, no problem -- they are replenished shortly after you log back in. You identify some of my monikers? No surprise on this side -- you're on here practically every day, of every week, month after month, year after year. How can you not be attuned to every ripple in this forum?
You're a cyber freak Hurts -- an obsessive through and through, and THAT is entertainment!!!
Go back to your research in Anti-Mormon History. I've found you somewhat of a challenge in that arena.Yeah, I know. Before you met me, you thought all those stories you heard in Primary and Sunday School were true.They still are. The challenge has been sifting your anti-Mormon slant from the truth.Funny, I don't remember anyone saying in Sunday School that Joseph Smith had thirty some odd wives, including numerous ones that were already married to other men. All they ever told me about was Emma. 
Maybe your Ward was different. Well, that stands to reason -- you never had a testimony of the restored gospel in the first place, so where else could you have turned but to Jerald Tanner and his ranks of apostasy?
Here is the original statement you conveniently avoided:
Who is more concerened about the safety of Muslims than they are concerned about preventing Islam's radical crusade to subjugate, or destroy, "infidels" everywhere? Right again -- America's very own Comlibs.Actually, that is just an opinion, and a warped one at that.Actually, I'm not the one who perceives George Bush as an equal threat to America, if not the primary threat.
As far as Islam's crusade, it comes straight from the Qur'an. Here, put your mirror down for a moment and scribble these verses on your Karl Marx stationery.
The Qur'an, Sura 5, verse 82; Surah 8, verse 39; Surah 9, verse 5; Sura 9:29; Qur'an 9:123; 48:29; Hadith, 4633; Hadith Sahih 4366.
When you're ready to discuss these verses, we'll talk more. Bring a Muslim apologist along if you like – you can share your conversion to Islam story with the rest of us.
And that opinion is indeed comical, as I said earlier, because Iran is stronger and the new government in Iraq has and is aligning with them. A terrorist is a terrorist. It doesn't matter WHERE the turbaned bomb aligns itself. If Iran wants to organize and assemble, then that opens the way for a conventional war, which is good news for us. Let them gather all the wacky jihadists they can find -- it'll make the target that much bigger.
Iraq even told Bush he could not use Iraq to launch an attack on Iran. Sounds like they are buddies to me. Cry me a river Weepy.
I've already told you what Iraq can expect if they turn on us.
Now, if the goal is "preventing Islam's radical crusade to subjugate, or destroy, "infidels" everywhere", then Bush sure made a hell of a mess of it. Iran is stronger, Iraq is a mess, bin Laden and the Taliban are rebuilding in Afghanistan, to name just a few. Dimwit-in-chief. That just about covers it. Actually, the real goal is to shut radical liberals up and keep you as far away from the war as possible. You heathens generate enough threat WITHIN our borders; better to just localize the problem and manage it at the domestic level.
Oh, by-the-way, don't you worry about Roger Dodger Wilco -- I'm already answering some of his idiot questions via yours.
I'll finish that Bush hating Marxist off when I'm done with you.
