Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: "Vote Democrat"

**Logan13** · 11-02-2006, 04:23 PM

Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: "Vote Democrat"
WorldNetDaily.com
Nov. 02, 2006
JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu A**ullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu A**ullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

President Bush has even said he would send more troops if Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, said they are needed to stabilize the region

The debate became especially poignant following remarks by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 presidential candidate who voted in support of the war in Iraq. Earlier this week he intimated American troops are uneducated, and it is the uneducated who "get stuck in Iraq."

Kerry, under intense pressure from fellow Democrats, now says his remarks were a "botched joke."

Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi's comments on Iraqi insurgency

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu A**ullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," A**ullah said.

While the terror leaders each independently compelled American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."

Abu A**ullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."

Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.

"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."

**Phreak101** · 11-02-2006, 04:50 PM

**Tock** · 11-02-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

On the other hand, regardless of what terrorists might think of Democrat's plans for Iraq, a vote for a Democrat would be a vote for better government. A vote for a Republican would be a vote for more of Bush's plans for Iraq.

**Teabagger** · 11-03-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

On the other hand, regardless of what terrorists might think of Democrat's plans for Iraq, a vote for a Democrat would be a vote for better government. A vote for a Republican would be a vote for more of Bush's plans for Iraq.

OK. You must think more government is better, right?

**Herris** · 11-03-2006, 10:23 AM

Oh, no. This doesn't have the stink of republican propaganda all over it.

**biglouie250** · 11-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Teabagger

OK. You must think more government is better, right?

right because the bush admin is known for less govt.

biggest increase in govt EVER.

**Teabagger** · 11-03-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Herris

Oh, no. This doesn't have the stink of republican propaganda all over it.

You bet...VP Cheney has been secretly meeting with this dude in Ireland to cook up some "propaganda" against the Dems....

Lay off the crack pipe bro.

**Herris** · 11-03-2006, 12:20 PM

I guess Cheney is the only republican. ;-)

Just so you understand, I don't think the republicans or the democrats have done too hell of a good job at running things. Be that as it may I still wouldn't put it past some republican spreading fud to help themselves at the polls.

**biglouie250** · 11-03-2006, 12:23 PM

so they have all these interviews with terrorists but dont arrest them? i think we do need leadership change if they arent going to do anything about them........

**Mike Dura** · 11-03-2006, 12:34 PM

Who cares what those people say. After the backward policies of the Bush administration, the global community says....."vote democrat"

**Mike Dura** · 11-03-2006, 12:35 PM

Those who value the constitution and the basic check and balance of the three branches of government say, "vote democrat"

**Herris** · 11-03-2006, 12:37 PM

There are other parties out there. Be radical and vote for one of them.

**Phreak101** · 11-03-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Dura

Those who value the constitution and the basic check and balance of the three branches of government say, "vote democrat"

You may wanna revisit the democratic agenda outside of the war my friend!

**Mike Dura** · 11-03-2006, 12:43 PM

Lol. Hey, it seems like you have some inside information. Be generous and share!

Originally Posted by Phreak101

You may wanna revisit the democratic agenda outside of the war my friend!

**Phreak101** · 11-03-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Dura

Lol. Hey, it seems like you have some inside information. Be generous and share!

I was just teasin, but in the grand scheme of things, Republicans seem to want less government, but they want less government without sacrificing control. Democrats on the other hand want more control through MORE government. More programs, more taxes, more regulation, more everything seems to be the battle cry of the dems. However, even if Republicans do involve the government less in things like free market, welfare, taxes, etc., they still want their share just like everyone else.

Just IMO.

**biglouie250** · 11-03-2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Phreak101

I was just teasin, but in the grand scheme of things, Republicans seem to want less government, but they want less government without sacrificing control. Democrats on the other hand want more control through MORE government. More programs, more taxes, more regulation, more everything seems to be the battle cry of the dems. However, even if Republicans do involve the government less in things like free market, welfare, taxes, etc., they still want their share just like everyone else.

Just IMO.

that is the traditional view. under the bush admin the govt has only gotten bigger and govt dollars have been horribly mismanaged. the dept of homeland security being a prime example of mismanaged govt bueracracy. there was a great article in Time about what they spent their money on. among other things $30,000 for cameras in a fishing village in alaska that has less then 200 people inhabit it. All the while NYC loses terror funding. No offense to the rest of the country but bombing NY makes a statement, no one cares what goes on in Ohio.

on free markets: bush's protectionist policies hurt free trade and drive up prices. see the steel industry.

**FranKieC** · 11-03-2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

that is the traditional view. under the bush admin the govt has only gotten bigger and govt dollars have been horribly mismanaged. the dept of homeland security being a prime example of mismanaged govt bueracracy. there was a great article in Time about what they spent their money on. among other things $30,000 for cameras in a fishing village in alaska that has less then 200 people inhabit it. All the while NYC loses terror funding. No offense to the rest of the country but bombing NY makes a statement, no one cares what goes on in Ohio.

on free markets: bush's protectionist policies hurt free trade and drive up prices. see the steel industry.

Amen..I don't understand why NY's terror funding gets cut? Anyone smell conspiracy?

**Logan13** · 11-03-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

that is the traditional view. under the bush admin the govt has only gotten bigger and govt dollars have been horribly mismanaged. the dept of homeland security being a prime example of mismanaged govt bueracracy. there was a great article in Time about what they spent their money on. among other things $30,000 for cameras in a fishing village in alaska that has less then 200 people inhabit it. All the while NYC loses terror funding. No offense to the rest of the country but bombing NY makes a statement, no one cares what goes on in Ohio.

on free markets: bush's protectionist policies hurt free trade and drive up prices. see the steel industry.

The steel industry, for which I am a heavy hitter in, has gone up because Unions have driven many US mills out of business, making us rely on foreign steel to be price competitive. There are only 3 steel mills left in the US, with such little competition in the states, prices have gone up. Last I checked, unions voted Democrat..............

**Logan13** · 11-03-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Dura

Those who value the constitution and the basic check and balance of the three branches of government say, "vote democrat"

Those who make money, pay taxes, and value freedom will vote Republican. As for check and balances, last I checked it was the ultra-liberal faction of the Judiciary branch who were bypassing the will of the people in order to impose their values into the US. If the Democrats had a platform with actual ideas, I would vote Democrat again. Fact is their only platform is "We hate Bush". I want ideas, not just the bashing and arm-chair quarterbacking of those who have to make the tough calls. I voted Clinton in twice, and would vote Democrat again, if only they had some ideas. Tell me exactly what the Dems plan is for fighting terrorisim, I'll bet that you do not even know. Do not feel bad, they don't even know..............

Tell me exactly what their plan is for handling the 12-20 million illegals that we have in the US now. Tell me how much they plan on raising my taxes and what they plan on doing with this money. I am in the 25% tax bracket, I pay more than my share! Tell me what the Dems plan on doing besides passing a new minimum wage bill that will only help high school and college students. They have NO PLAN, all we know is that they hate Bush. Sorry but that does not solve the issues of today. I want results, not rhetoric. Bring facts, not theory, if you wish to reply.

**Tock** · 11-03-2006, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Teabagger

OK. You must think more government is better, right?

Um, lots of Republicans are upset with Bush because he's responsible for the sharpest increase in the size of government since FDR back in the 1930's. Lots more spending under Bush than under any Liberal Democrat in the past 70 years.

So, in essence, a vote for Bush has been a vote for bigger government.

**Tock** · 11-03-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Last I checked, unions voted Democrat..............

When is the last time you checked?

http://www.workers.org/2005/us/letter-0728/
On July 13 the Executive Board of District Council 37, AFSCME, voted to endorse the re-election of Wall Street’s candidate for New York City mayor, billionaire Republican Michael Bloomberg.

http://www.boston.com/news/education...n_senate_race/
SOUTH PORTLAND, Maine --A union representing 25,000 current and retired educators is endorsing U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe in her re-election race against Democrat Jean Hay Bright.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...f_picket_line/
Police union endorses Kerry
Cites honoring of picket line
By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | October 21, 2004

Boston's police patrolmen's union yesterday voted overwhelmingly to endorse John F. Kerry for president, months after the Democratic nominee refused to cross a police picket line during the union's bitter contract dispute.

About 50 members of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association's House of Representatives handed the endorsement to Kerry by voice vote after US Representative William D. Delahunt made a personal appeal. It was the first time the union has endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate, the union officials said.

Of course, there's more . . . just do a google search on 'UNION REPUBLICAN ENDORSEMENT' and see what comes up.

**Logan13** · 11-04-2006, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

When is the last time you checked?

http://www.workers.org/2005/us/letter-0728/
On July 13 the Executive Board of District Council 37, AFSCME, voted to endorse the re-election of Wall Street’s candidate for New York City mayor, billionaire Republican Michael Bloomberg.

http://www.boston.com/news/education...n_senate_race/
SOUTH PORTLAND, Maine --A union representing 25,000 current and retired educators is endorsing U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe in her re-election race against Democrat Jean Hay Bright.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...f_picket_line/
Police union endorses Kerry
Cites honoring of picket line
By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | October 21, 2004

Boston's police patrolmen's union yesterday voted overwhelmingly to endorse John F. Kerry for president, months after the Democratic nominee refused to cross a police picket line during the union's bitter contract dispute.

About 50 members of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association's House of Representatives handed the endorsement to Kerry by voice vote after US Representative William D. Delahunt made a personal appeal. It was the first time the union has endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate, the union officials said.

Of course, there's more . . . just do a google search on 'UNION REPUBLICAN ENDORSEMENT' and see what comes up.

Or next time, just ask me. I deal with unions on a daily basis both locally and country-wide, I know all to well where those dues go and that the individual members have no say in it. Do not pull up a few instances on a search engine in order tell me the opposite of what I already know. Pull up individual politicians donations from this year to view where they get their money, and where they don't. As I have told you before, the truth is out there.

**Logan13** · 11-04-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Um, lots of Republicans are upset with Bush because he's responsible for the sharpest increase in the size of government since FDR back in the 1930's. Lots more spending under Bush than under any Liberal Democrat in the past 70 years.

So, in essence, a vote for Bush has been a vote for bigger government.

Do you even bother to ask why? FDR's New Deal was his answer to the Great Depression. He expanded gov't to create jobs for the 25% who were unemployed and created Social Security. Bush created Homeland Security and than funded the war on terror. Anytime you create a new arm of the gov't, you spend more on it. Just because this increase wasn't used for studies that you want, does not make it any less neccesary. Even if Gore were in office, Homeland Security would have still been created. Why, because it is needed. I do agree that Bush's stance on some issues has pissed off many hardline Conservatives though, myself included. His wishy-washy actions in regard to the border have really bothered me. One more thing about FDR, they said during WW2 that he too would be regarded as one of the worst presidents in history. Guess what, they were wrong!

**mcpeepants** · 11-08-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

Do you even bother to ask why? FDR's New Deal was his answer to the Great Depression. He expanded gov't to create jobs for the 25% who were unemployed and created Social Security. Bush created Homeland Security and than funded the war on terror. Anytime you create a new arm of the gov't, you spend more on it. Just because this increase wasn't used for studies that you want, does not make it any less neccesary. Even if Gore were in office, Homeland Security would have still been created. Why, because it is needed. I do agree that Bush's stance on some issues has pissed off many hardline Conservatives though, myself included. His wishy-washy actions in regard to the border have really bothered me. One more thing about FDR, they said during WW2 that he too would be regarded as one of the worst presidents in history. Guess what, they were wrong!

How could FDR be so unpopular especially since he got elected 4 times with strong majorities of the vote.

**Snrf** · 11-09-2006, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by logan13

Those who make money, pay taxes, and value freedom will vote Republican

OH yes! the rabid american republican warcry, ohhh I love freedom so I'm a republican. You halfwit! You call the patriot act freedom? You believe the department of homeland security and all its checks on US citizens are freedom? You call Tangram freedom? you call the military commissions act freedom?

And on another note, Republicans are the most retarded thing ever, speaking from an international perspective and as someone who has lived in the US I can tell you its a pity that something as important as the American presidency is left to a bunch of thick sistershagger hicks down south to decide upon.

Look at you, most of you supported the war in Iraq to begin with "whats that you say Saddam was part of 9/11? lets go!" you morons. How come most of the world could tell you 5 years ago that it would turn out to be a massive mess but all you retards were convinced you could just walk in and turn it all around. You've destablized the world with your shitty little attitudes, you're ignorant, closed minded and its about f*cking time the rest of America woke up and sent your inbred asses back to your fcking trailers.

**Teabagger** · 11-09-2006, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Snrfmaster

OH yes! the rabid american republican warcry, ohhh I love freedom so I'm a republican. You halfwit! You call the patriot act freedom? You believe the department of homeland security and all its checks on US citizens are freedom? You call Tangram freedom? you call the military commissions act freedom?

And on another note, Republicans are the most retarded thing ever, speaking from an international perspective and as someone who has lived in the US I can tell you its a pity that something as important as the American presidency is left to a bunch of thick sistershagger hicks down south to decide upon.

Look at you, most of you supported the war in Iraq to begin with "whats that you say Saddam was part of 9/11? lets go!" you morons. How come most of the world could tell you 5 years ago that it would turn out to be a massive mess but all you retards were convinced you could just walk in and turn it all around. You've destablized the world with your shitty little attitudes, you're ignorant, closed minded and its about f*cking time the rest of America woke up and sent your inbred asses back to your fcking trailers.

Come back when your understanding of the US is beyond that of a 5th grader.

Haters

**Snrf** · 11-09-2006, 08:27 AM

Wow, thats a good response. Feel like explaining why the rest of the world predicted what Iraq would become yet you all knew you could turn it into a stable little US-style democracy? Is it because you're all thick with a 5th grader understanding of the WORLD?

Yes, I think thats it.

RA · 11-09-2006, 08:36 AM

The terrorists want Democrats in office. Why is that hard to believe? Look at all the times we got hit under Clinton and he didnt do shit. They started thinking they could hit us whenever and not pay any price. Why do you think they took a shot at the wtc?

Yeah...vote for Democrats if you want a higher taxing, bigger, terrorist friendly government.

**Phreak101** · 11-09-2006, 10:21 AM

[QUOTE=Tock] Lots more spending under Bush than under any Liberal Democrat in the past 70 years.

[\QUOTE]

Lot's more revenue too....

**Phreak101** · 11-09-2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Snrfmaster

OH yes! the rabid american republican warcry, ohhh I love freedom so I'm a republican. You halfwit! You call the patriot act freedom? You believe the department of homeland security and all its checks on US citizens are freedom? You call Tangram freedom? you call the military commissions act freedom?

And on another note, Republicans are the most retarded thing ever, speaking from an international perspective and as someone who has lived in the US I can tell you its a pity that something as important as the American presidency is left to a bunch of thick sistershagger hicks down south to decide upon.

Look at you, most of you supported the war in Iraq to begin with "whats that you say Saddam was part of 9/11? lets go!" you morons. How come most of the world could tell you 5 years ago that it would turn out to be a massive mess but all you retards were convinced you could just walk in and turn it all around. You've destablized the world with your shitty little attitudes, you're ignorant, closed minded and its about f*cking time the rest of America woke up and sent your inbred asses back to your fcking trailers.

I bet you think all black people like rap and can play basketball too...

**biglouie250** · 11-09-2006, 10:37 AM

[QUOTE=Phreak101]

Originally Posted by Tock

Lots more spending under Bush than under any Liberal Democrat in the past 70 years.

[\QUOTE]

Lot's more revenue too....

umm no. real revenue has actually decreased.

**biglouie250** · 11-09-2006, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

The terrorists want Democrats in office. Why is that hard to believe? Look at all the times we got hit under Clinton and he didnt do shit. They started thinking they could hit us whenever and not pay any price. Why do you think they took a shot at the wtc?

Yeah...vote for Democrats if you want a higher taxing, bigger, terrorist friendly government.

bush was president during the WTC attacks. Everytime Clinton made any aggresive moves to try to get osama or any terrorist he was lambasted by the republicans for making preemptive moves.

RA · 11-09-2006, 10:48 AM

[quote=biglouie250]

Originally Posted by Phreak101

umm no. real revenue has actually decreased.

Im not sure what you mean by "real revenue" but more money is coming into the treasury since the tax cuts were implemented. It does it every time. Under Kennedy, Reagan, Bush. Tax cuts work.

RA · 11-09-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

bush was president during the WTC attacks. Everytime Clinton made any aggresive moves to try to get osama or any terrorist he was lambasted by the republicans for making preemptive moves.

Name one move he made other then bombing the aspirin factory on the eve of monicagate. Hit me with it

**biglouie250** · 11-09-2006, 11:43 AM

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/m...dTerrorism.htm

**Phreak101** · 11-09-2006, 12:33 PM

[QUOTE=biglouie250]

Originally Posted by Phreak101

umm no. real revenue has actually decreased.

What do you mean by "real revenue"? Is there a fake revenue?

Both bush and Reagan have had to deal with people decrying all their spending, but no one ever credit them with having some of the best economies during their presidency.

The DOW broke 12,000 TWICE in 2006, and it's still going up. Call it what you want, there is no denying the numbers,

**biglouie250** · 11-09-2006, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE=Phreak101]

Originally Posted by biglouie250

What do you mean by "real revenue"? Is there a fake revenue?

Both bush and Reagan have had to deal with people decrying all their spending, but no one ever credit them with having some of the best economies during their presidency.

The DOW broke 12,000 TWICE in 2006, and it's still going up. Call it what you want, there is no denying the numbers,

sorry meant real household income. its adjusted for inflation/deflation. thats what the term "real" means in financial terms.

**Phreak101** · 11-09-2006, 01:19 PM

[QUOTE=biglouie250]

Originally Posted by Phreak101

sorry meant real household income. its adjusted for inflation/deflation. thats what the term "real" means in financial terms.

Ahh, ok makes more sense. Household income did decrease, but the GDP of the US IS up..a lot.

RA · 11-09-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/m...dTerrorism.htm

Ok, you got me. But I was speaking about a direct retaliation for our all the U.S. targets they hit during his presidency. It seemed they were at war with us and we were just hum-de-dum

**Logan13** · 11-09-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by biglouie250

bush was president during the WTC attacks. Everytime Clinton made any aggresive moves to try to get osama or any terrorist he was lambasted by the republicans for making preemptive moves.

He was lambasted because many in the media seen his actions in terms of "wag-the-dog". He was supported by Congress, even on the aspirin factory bombing, it was the liberal media that gave him shit.