Bush Hallucinating as Always

by **Riot** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:36 am

Yes, the attacks would have happened no matter who was president. Clinton had plently of intelligence too. He was told that terrorists might use airliners and crash them into landmarks.

In fact, Clinton had a ton more warning signs and intelligence about a potential 9/11 attack than the Bush administration.

by **Riot** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:42 am

This is in response to would Clinton do the same thing as Bush did if he faced 9/11. The answer is probably no.

Some things the US citizens should never forget:

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

He never kept any of those promises. Bush kept his.

EDIT: And you know what the best thing about this is? Bush is going after those responsible. He covered it. He did what Clinton promised he would do.

Another edit: Bang maybe you can give me an answer for this, why was Clinton more focused on taking out Bill Gates than Osama Bin Laden?

by **cyanide** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:29 am

Riot wrote:EDIT: And you know what the best thing about this is? Bush is going after those responsible. He covered it. He did what Clinton promised he would do.

Another edit: ... Osama Bin Laden?

Well, he hasn't quite covered one guy in particular.

by **Riot** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:34 am

...he's looking for Osama Bin Laden. Bill Clinton HAD Osama and his excat location. He could have walked in there and captured himself if he wanted to. :lol:

Bin Laden will be caught, eventually. They are looking.

by **hipn** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:37 am

Bush is a stupid motherfu**er... LOL, but seriously... America seems wrost when Bus became president.

by **cyanide** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:40 am

hipn wrote:Bush is a stupid motherfu**er... LOL, but seriously... America seems wrost when Bus became president.

It'd be nice if you can back that up.

by **hipn** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:52 am

I cant back that up 100% but let me ask you this...would you want a president that basically has no idea what he is saying? would you want a president that sniffs coke and smoke weed? would you want a president that makes dumb moves? would you want a president that makes up sh** like "God told me to start a war." and "God told me to stop the war now."....tell would you want a president that did all those stuff?

by **Cable** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:17 am

No, but can you prove any of what you said? I'm with Riot in that Bush is the best possible. I'm not saying he's really great, I'm saying it's the best they could do. At least he takes action against terrorism.

by **Riot** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:26 am

hipn wrote:I cant back that up 100% but let me ask you this...would you want a president that basically has no idea what he is saying? would you want a president that sniffs coke and smoke weed? would you want a president that makes dumb moves? would you want a president that makes up sh** like "God told me to start a war." and "God told me to stop the war now."....tell would you want a president that did all those stuff?

He knows what he is saying and I know what he's saying. So he has trouble with some words? I worry more about actions rather than words. You can have the most charismatic speaker in the world but it means shit if he isn't a great leader. President Bush is a man of action. Actions speak louder than words, correct?

He doesn't smoke or drink anymore, that was when he was a teenager and in college. Those days are long gone.

He makes "dumb moves". I'm sorry that trying to end terrorism, capturing Saddam and top terrorist leaders and ending tyranny in Iraq is considered "dumb".

And those God quotes are rumors. There is no evidence or facts that support that he really did say that. The White House is denying that he never said that yet some "sources" are saying that he did. Sounds like people just want to come up with false claims against Bush like they always do.

You got anything more to throw out of your ass? I'm all ears.

by **hipn** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:30 am

I went to a wbsite called spikehumor or spikedhumor and they had a video of bush saying things that mdae so sence at all. THe video lasted for about 5-7minutes and it had like 20 different bush quotes.

by **Riot** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:34 am

That's great, is that all you got? He doesn't speak clearly? His speaches aren't that good? That's it?

Since you live in Canada you probably don't know what the President does but he isn't an english teacher on the side. If your reason for not liking him and thinking he's one fo the worst presidents of all time is because he can't speak clearly and you say a clip of him on spikehumor then so be it.

I take into account the issues and the action he is willing to take to correct those issues. President Clinton messed up and broke numerous promises to capture and hold those responsible for their actions but he didn't. But you know what President Bush did? He did it for President Clinton and because of Bush you can safely say those responsible paid, something that Clinton vowed to the American public he'd do.

by **hipn** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:45 am

I didnt say he could speak clearly, I said he doesnt make a lot of sence when he speaks (sometimes).

by **Cable** on Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:02 pm

Did it make sense when Chrétien spoke? It's not like we've had any better.

by **cyanide** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:47 am

Hehe, it would be great to watch Bush and Chretien have a conversation on national tv.

I don't think Bush was the best choice for president, Al Gore was, but when came John Kerry the next time around, they were equally not the best choices. I'm sure there's some intelligent lawyer out there that can do a better job than Bush, but unfortunately, there's not that many people willing to run for president. How the hell did the democratic party end up with John Kerry?!

by **J@3** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:54 am

There's some black guy in Chicago who'd be an awesome president. I have no idea what his policies are, and I have no idea what his name is (something African) but he sure knows how to talk and make it sound like he actually knows what he's on about.

by **Bang** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:02 am

Riot wrote:This is in response to would Clinton do the same thing as Bush did if he faced 9/11. The answer is probably no.

Some things the US citizens should never forget:

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

He never kept any of those promises. Bush kept his.

EDIT: And you know what the best thing about this is? Bush is going after those responsible. He covered it. He did what Clinton promised he would do.

Another edit: Bang maybe you can give me an answer for this, why was Clinton more focused on taking out Bill Gates than Osama Bin Laden?

Since Bill Gates is more evil. Plus, the focus was the economy in Clinton's term.
Once again, the attacks were not as big or as devastating as September 11th. Two whole buildings fell down. It's like out of some weird movie or something, except it happened. If those attacks wouldn't have happened, I don't see why Bush would've changed his vacationing ways. Heck, do you remember ANYTHING about Bush BEFORE 9/11? He did nothing!

by **The Other Kevin** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:03 am

Jae wrote:There's some black guy in Chicago who'd be an awesome president. I have no idea what his policies are, and I have no idea what his name is (something African) but he sure knows how to talk and make it sound like he actually knows what he's on about.

Yeah, but they need to save Obbama for 2012 so he can get some seasoning, because he just got elected.

by **Riot** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:10 am

Wow? Bill Gates is more evil than Osama Bin Laden?

There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.

That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden?

Makes sense?

And John McCain should run for President in 2008.

by **Bang** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:18 am

I was just joking.
Anyhow, Bin Laden wasn't AS big of an issue until 9/11.
I mean did regular Americans really care? If you think they did, you are lying because I remember having a conversation about Bin Laden in 1999, and nobody knew who the hell he was.

by **Riot** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 3:45 am

Did Americans really know who Bin Laden was? Nope. However, the US Government knew A LOT of what he was doing. They knew he was funding billions to terrorists groups and they had intelligence saying they were planning an attack on US soil. Clinton ignored it and continued to waste time against Bill Gates.

by **-BHZMAFIA-** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:28 am

In Bush threads, Riot gets a chance to rack up his post count :lol:

by **Jackal** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:57 am

Al Gore should've been president indeed. I was so sad when he withdrew.

by **benji** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 10:40 am

Because you'd rather he stayed around and fought for power after he already lost? Winning doesn't make democracy, it's the acceptance of losing that does. That was the theory and practice in all but one year (1876) of the country until 2000. Chaos in the wake of a loss (a desire to secede, to leave ones country, etc.) is what describes the common practice in struggling nations, not (or at least should not describe) the premier nation of the world.

It turns out Bush didn't say these things after all. Not that the source was ever credible to start with. However.

Regardless of his beliefs on any issue. Bush was right for ending the Iraq War.

by **Jackal** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:35 am

You're the only one with the power to put me to sleep.

by **Bang** on Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:18 pm

Riot wrote:Did Americans really know who Bin Laden was? Nope. However, the US Government knew A LOT of what he was doing. They knew he was funding billions to terrorists groups and they had intelligence saying they were planning an attack on US soil. Clinton ignored it and continued to waste time against Bill Gates.

Yea, but Bush would've done the same if it weren't for the attacks. Did Bush do anything before the attacks? He didn't neither. Clinton had a longer time before 9/11 so OF COURSE he had more warnings that he ignored. Bush would have had the same shit happen, but 9/11 happened. You see, he needed to stay in office, so just lying around taking vacations wouldn't do the job. So saying Clinton was busy going after Bill Gates is still saying much more than Bush and his vacations. What was on the voter's minds? Bin Laden? No, it wasn't Bin Laden, it was the economy. Do you think people would've cared if Clinton was going after Bin Laden? They would've said "Why are we wasting resources on this random dude?" (Well most people would have...but not that many.) It's all about the votes, no matter what the cost.

Also do you know how much Bill Gates is potentially costing the economy in terms of productivity? Just take the fact that we all know Windows sucks but we're all using it.

Bush Hallucinating as Always

Who is online