Safe To Release?

Finally a decent response. And I read the other one on the other post. I don't think Bush would have had a leg to stand on about invading Iraq if it wasn't for 9-11. What you have failed to remember is I always agreed that we should not have went into Iraq (atleast not when we did). My point is that 9-11 opened a pandoras box of possibilities. My problem with Clinton (and why I keep bringin it up) is that SO many people make it sound like he had no responsiblity. If ya'll want Bush to stand tall and take responsibiltiy, all I'm saying is atleast admit Clinton screwed up. But you make it sound like Bush has held 110% of the blame for 9-11. Everything is connected.

Harley....let me get this right. {As for Bill Clinton, no it's not Ok, but I don't care what Clinton did, he did not send my son to war for OIL, that was BUSH, Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks, it was a war of choice and PROFIT.}

So you don't care that other Americans (military members and civilians) were dieing for oil and NOT DO anything about it for PROFIT (first WTC, Cole etc...)? Even you admit that Clinton chose not to get Osama because of the Prince and that it was all about OIL. And by making that choice he allowed Osama and his types to continue their destruction (9-11). But some how he bears no responsiblity? So answer me this, if 9-11 hadn't happened do you think we still would have gone into Iraq? I would have to say no.

And it is a volunteer military (if your son's beliefs are anything like yours) then he could get out....nobody forced him to join, I'm sure even if he was in the Army before Iraq he has had to reenlist since then and he could have made a stand on his "principles" and gotten out.

"why was no action taken against them"...moron, dig a little deeper, there was a prince from the united arab emirates at the camp with Bin Laden, the choice was made NOT to bomb him, wrong chouice if you ask me, but we do get our OIL form them, they might be angry if we killed one of their kids...ya think...

Oh so it is okay for Clinton to do NOTHING FOR OIL, but at the same time you claim that this whole WRONG WAR is all for OIL and that Bush is horrible....come on you can't have it both ways....
And lets not forget how much money the Clintons have personally gotten all those oil rich countries in the last few years....geez a little extra for looking the other direction?

As for "my mom" I don't have one, me and my dad use yours, and she is a dirty wh0re ;)
Boy, sticks and stones....GROW UP!!!!!! IT IS NICE TO KNOW THAT YOU ATLEAST ADMIT TO BEING INBRED AND THAT YOU AND YOUR DAD HAVE TO SHARE THE SAME WOMAN (you really should leave your sister out of this)..... and trust me I know it's not my mom....she sure in the heck wouldn't have raised someone so fowl and ignorant.

Try better next time....but I'm done with you. Not going to waste MY TIME.

Oh Harleyishere tell your mom you need your panties changed....

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert.
The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ read the whole story yourself....

9-11 SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED and Clinton had years to do something about it.....but he probably was too busy making sure he could get his daily CIGAR!

As far as firing Clinton fired them all because "he was already under investigation"

"At the time, critics of the president linked the firing to an effort to stave off the prosecution of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski.
But the real truth became clearer as the scandal known as Whitewater unfolded.
The real reason Clinton fired every U.S. attorney was to save himself, not Rostenkowski.
As we now know, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock was closing in on Clinton for Whitewater-related matters and his and Hillary???s involvement in the defrauding of the Small Business Administration.
Clinton???s replacement for U.S. attorney in Little Rock was Paula Casey, a former law school student of his. She did much to protect her patron."

And not going to LA after Katrina has nothing to do with rather or not Bush was such a DICK, and if he wasn't he wouldn't have to worry about security, just goes to show what an idiot you are. Heck everyone seemed to like JFK and he still ended up with a bullet. And if you are going to hit Bush so hard on Katrina, Where was Clinton after the 1993 WTC attacks?

As far as rewriting history, no, but we have the ability to look past our own nose and see the "whole picture". You want to act like there was nothing before Bush and everything is his fault, that isn't the truth.

Me5S...I agree, as someone who was in GTMO during the Haiti issue back in early 1990s you learn alot about the difference between the truth of what is happening and how it is played out in the media. The differences were as different as night and day. So I take everything I hear from the media and know that you never hear the whole truth or a truly balanced and honest story. And you realize that even if the military takes a hit in the media there are still some things that they don't release for security reasons. Popularity isn't their main concern.

You had me until you included the CIA. Those morons can't do anything right.

The last time I checked it was primarily Special Operations Units tasked with this counter terror mission. That stated, maybe they should just return full operational command authority to the Special Operations Command, in Ft Bragg. No more FBI involvement. No Department of Homeland Security mishaps. No NYPD agents (yes, NYPD) getting in the way. Just Special Operations Forces and CIA working on these operations. They were trained for this type of mission. They have the experience and professionalism to conduct these operations effectively. They have a defined set of rules that they must follow or we face UCMJ action which can include dishonorable discharge and or inprisonment. This can address everyone's objections to the current issues.

One more thing, the Pentagon only releases information that is not classified or "need to know" only. You, the American public, do not need to know everything that goes on in this war on terror. You do not want to know what is in those intelligence reports and after action reviews. This is not about Politics, it is about keeping US Soldiers as safe as possible so that they may live to fight, for you, another day. AFN unfortunately has CNN, so deployed troops get to hear all of the negative things everyone back home says. Imagine how you would feel trying to do this job when so many of your own countrymen hate what you are doing.

"Does closing Gitmo makes you feel safer flying?"

Why the hell would it have any effect, either way?

Does closing Gitmo makes you feel safer flying?