Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within our grasp'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Rumhead...a real cracker jack !!!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by BettorsChat View Post
      We had him within our grasps but the previous administration wanted to go after sadam instead of Ladin.
      Wasn't this the "second best" shot???
      You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by grandmama View Post
        if they catch Bin Laden then they can't have the "war on terror," or pass the patriot act. there's more oil in Iraq, so they went in and invade them....saddam was an SOB, but bin Laden was the dude that is more of a threat....
        This is so true. You dont even need to have a legitimate threat.....just the perception of one. Govt. loves doing this as far as I know dating back to the Cold War. Perception is king in the sales business.

        PEACE

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MtrCtyPimp View Post
          This is so true. You dont even need to have a legitimate threat.....just the perception of one. Govt. loves doing this as far as I know dating back to the Cold War. Perception is king in the sales business.

          PEACE



          So we should have stayed out of Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing? Twisted man
          NBA is a joke

          Comment


          • #20
            Try CLINTON!!!!

            Clinton was contacted on "3"...... count them "3" separate occassions by foreign countries, stating THEY HAD BIN LADEN IN CUSTODY..... do you want him? And ALL 3 TIMES, CLINTON SAID "NO"!!! FACT!!

            So as far as we are all concerned, the 3000+ Americans murdered on 9/11 are on the head that cowradly whore, Slick Willie!!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by slappy's son View Post
              Try CLINTON!!!!

              Clinton was contacted on "3"...... count them "3" separate occassions by foreign countries, stating THEY HAD BIN LADEN IN CUSTODY..... do you want him? And ALL 3 TIMES, CLINTON SAID "NO"!!! FACT!!
              So as far as we are all concerned, the 3000+ Americans murdered on 9/11 are on the head that cowradly whore, Slick Willie!!
              it is true that Clinton had 3 chances to get Bin laden. he used the same excuses the Bush admin did. Its not rocket science here guys. they don't want to catch the guy. or, the already have and are not going to report it. the illusion of him being out there is more valuable to the gov't. they can justify going into Iraq or Afghanistan. Its all a joke.
              "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by flarendep1 View Post
                So we should have stayed out of Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing? Twisted man
                How was that a 'perceived threat' to American security? I am missing your point.

                Perceived threats to me would be

                1. Communist USSR
                2. Saddam Hussein & Iraq
                2. Iran with nukes
                3. N. Korea with nukes
                4. Al Qaida & Osama Bin Laden

                Whether or not they are threats or ever truly were a threat they are more valuable to our government as being perceived to be true threats by the population. Im sure there are tons more of these out there that I am not naming.

                I think the govt uses disease as a threat also but thats another story.

                Comment

                Working...
                X