Originally posted by DVPGSR:

Lied? Where have I lied? Clinton did nothing to prevvent Al Quaida from carrying out terrorist attacks on the US at home and abroad. Never have I ever portrayed Clinton as the devil...but I do disagree with the way he went about protecting this country. You need to get your facts straight and reread my statements.

DVPGSR 01-24-2003 04:07 PM:
Right...so 8 years of terrorist bombings on American interests around the world and Clinton did nothing to OBL. (emphasis added by me)

You went on to list several incidents that the Clinton administration did act on, and bring people to justice. You played revisionist history--you lied.

No I am not! SirSmokesAlot said it was Bush that stopped the investigation...that is what I was talking about...and it was the INS that ****ed it up once they got into the country. Again you need to get your facts straight.

Again, you need to lay off the personal attacks, and stop evading the evidence that I'm showing.

I saw the movie...do you have a point to how this is relevent?

When you said "Maybe if Clinton had had the balls to go and get these terrorists they would have not gotten to us first." you were saying that we should lock people up before they commit a crime. That was the main plot element of "Minority Report". That plan didn't work out in the movie either. Let's also remember that Bush has failed to capture Osama Bin Laden. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Yes...but we are still going after him and he does not have a place to base his operations such as Afghanistan. This is still more than previous administrations

If "going after him" means "letting him get away", then you're right. Since Al Quaeda is not gone, it is basing its operations somewhere. But this isn't a contest to see who can spend the most taxpayer dollars putting on a big show; no results means failure. Clinton did do something, and IMHO what he did quietly was more effective than the Big Bush Show.

All you need to do is keep up with current events and you would know I am right. I guess CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, USAToday, NY Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal & I am sure there are others those are just the source I have read or heard it from are all sputing the same BS. At least I know I am in good company.

The problem for your message is that I do keep up, and I do pay attention. So when the news media reports that Bush claims this and that, I know that it's nothing more than heresay. As it stands the weapons inspectors, the ones who are actually there, say they have found no weapons. But you're claiming they do, so you're calling the weapons inspectors liars. Since you're not there, and therefore you are not able to speak authoritatively, then I must conclude that it is you who is lying.

Really? It has? When? Where?

That story turned out to be heresay. There is no evidence of the meeting ever taking place.

And by making a comment like this you have not only shown that you do not know what you are talking about but that you are also an asshole. Making that comment sounds like someone that is lashing out when they know they are beaten.

What I'm reading here is you attacking me personally, but keeping far far away from my points. My points are valid, and you can't argue with them, so you attack me. Attacking the person is the sure sign of the loser, and you wear that mantle. I illustrated quite well the hypocricy in your statements; that you would never choose to live by the rules that you propose.