First, let's discuss the difference between 'talking' and 'appeasing'.
Here's a video of people talking. Well; one person talking, mainly. And
this
person talks a lot. First he talks nicely to a guy in a diner to make sure
he has all the facts, then he talks to a guy on the street. Talking,
talking...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0BVT4cqGY
....and as it turns out, Inspector Callaghan was completely unarmed at the
end of it all too. He only fired when fired upon or when his life was in
danger. And he talked when he needed to, and it saved life.
You think Dirty Harry was appeasing there? No. Talking does not equal
appeasement. And if this were George Walker Bush, he would have prevented
the bank robbery by killing people in the diner. Then claiming victory
over
the bank robbers. Then he'd have claimed that his real intention was to
stop
those that didn't tip adequately, because he was going to bring a better
level of tipping to the dead patrons of the diner.
You get the idea.
Republicons like to claim that "Clinton did nothing" -- did nothing about
WTC in 1993, embassy bombings and so on.
100% wrong. And here are some links and facts to prove how it's horse****.
First off, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 happened on February 26,
1993 -- Clinton had been in office for one month. I'm guessing the
terrorists were planning it since before January 20 that year, and George
Herbert Walker Bush was in the White House before then. So if they want to
pin 1993 on Bill Clinton because he was in the White House for a month,
they'd better be prepared to blame George Walker Bush for going on
vacation
for six months as President before 9/11, because that was on his watch.
As for Clinton not doing anything, go to Google:
http://www.google.com
Now type this date in:
August 20, 1998
and see what the first link is.
It's this one:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
It says...
Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," President Clinton on
Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and
a
facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom
and
fanaticism."
It also says...
American officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who
has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in
the
bombings of the east African embassies.
In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El ****fa Pharmaceutical Industries
factory -- which U.S. officials say was housing chemical weapons -- was
also
attacked.
Pentagon sources confirmed to CNN that the attacks were made with cruise
missiles, not aircraft. The missiles were fired from ****ps in the Red Sea
and the Arabian Sea. The simultaneous attacks took place about 1:30 p.m.
EDT
(1730 GMT).
In a brief comment made before his departure, the president said, "Today,
we
have struck back."
Today we have struck back. Against Osama bin Laden. And this was in 1998.
So what do you think the Republican opinion was? I don't mean from some TV
movie that was full of inaccuracies. I mean real news from the time. What
did the newspapers of August 21, 1998 re****t as the reaction?
They re****ted this:
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm
But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of Clinton's severest critics earlier
in
the week, said, "There's an obvious issue that will be raised
internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation."
Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate in 2000,
noted "there is a cloud over this presidency."
And Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who called on Clinton to resign after his
speech Monday, said: "The president has been consumed with matters
regarding
his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the
time
to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be
given to this issue to call for military action."
Told of these criticisms, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking
Democrat
on the Foreign Relations Committee, branded them "preposterous," and noted
that Osama bin Laden, suspected of bankrolling the installations that were
bombed, "is one bad mother."
Clinton went for Osama bin Laden. It was all over the news. The newspapers
re****ted it.
And the Republicans said it was "diversionary". It threw "a cloud over
this
presidency". It was questioned whether or not a President should even
concern himself on "this issue", and even questioned whether or not we
should "call for military action."
Those are the facts, recorded forever in history. And yet nobody pulls
this
up.
So from now on, this is how we kill the Hydra.
08-20-1998
August 20, 1998. The day that Clinton went for Osama bin Laden.
August 20, 1998. The day that three Republican Senators asked for Clinton
to
resign. Because the "call for military action" was made against Osama bin
Laden.
August 20, 1998. The day that Conservatives and Republicans appeased the
terrorists. The day that concessions were granted to a group that had
already declared war on the United States. The day that terrorists were
allowed to remain alive, thanks to the Republican Party, because talking
about a stained blue dress was more im****tant to them.
The Freepers want to talk about semen stains on a blue dress? Let's talk
about semen stains on a blue dress. Let's talk about how semen stains on a
blue dress were more im****tant than killing terrorists.
|
