Fear of what might happen
Find a Conversation
Fear of what might happen
| Mon, 09-22-2008 - 7:49am |
All I hear and read from John McCain is how we must fear what will happen if Barack Obama is elected.
The problem is that all the bad things that have happened over the last eight years and continue to happen came under a Republican president. Before Bush took office, 9-11 had not happened. Back then, gasoline cost about $1.50 a gallon. Food prices and everything else was pretty tolerable. But then Bush was elected and ever since that time things have been going down hill in this country.
I do not fear what might be under Obama more than I fear what has been and will be continued if McCain follows Bush into office.
McCain supports all of Bush’s policies. So voting for McCain is like extending Bush’s term for four more years.
I do not think this country can survive four more years of George W. Bush. That thought scares the hell out of me.
The problem is that all the bad things that have happened over the last eight years and continue to happen came under a Republican president. Before Bush took office, 9-11 had not happened. Back then, gasoline cost about $1.50 a gallon. Food prices and everything else was pretty tolerable. But then Bush was elected and ever since that time things have been going down hill in this country.
I do not fear what might be under Obama more than I fear what has been and will be continued if McCain follows Bush into office.
McCain supports all of Bush’s policies. So voting for McCain is like extending Bush’s term for four more years.
I do not think this country can survive four more years of George W. Bush. That thought scares the hell out of me.

Pages
Edited 9/24/2008 3:22 am ET by kateandzacksmom
Rose
Rose
Would you please provide a link to that, the 8 times he couldn't get bin laden? You know there were reasons why he couldn't.
Try reading this through from start to finish.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=james_pavitt
Clinton's always got excuses...and apparently always someone ready to apologize for him.
Documents Show State Department Warned Clinton About Bin Laden
Thursday, August 18, 2005
WASHINGTON — The State Department warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Usama bin Laden's (search) move to Afghanistan would give him more fertile ground to spread radical Islam, according to newly declassified documents.
The documents also show that intelligence analysts even then believed that bin Laden may have played a role in the Khobar Towers bombings just a month earlier. In that attack, a truck bomb destroyed an apartment building in the Khobar Towers (search) military housing complex near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 20 people, mostly U.S. service members, and wounding 372.
It was two years after this State Department warning that bin Laden's Al Qaeda (search) terrorists attacked two American embassies in East Africa, which led to failed attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Bin Laden remained in Afghanistan when Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001
The State Department report concludes that keeping bin Laden on the move might inconvenience him, but predicts his network would remain resilient, saying, "Even a bin Laden on the move can retain the capability to support individuals ... who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost worldwide."
Sudanese officials claim that they offered to turn bin Laden over to the Clinton administration before he was expelled from the Sudan, but Clinton diplomats deny it was that simple.
But Jed Babbin, a Defense Department official who served in the administration of George H.W. Bush, said Clinton mistook bin Laden as a law enforcement problem, not a terrorist threat.
"They were looking at this and Sandy Berger, the national security adviser, and the president, everybody was looking at this as — 'are we gathering information that we could actually indict this guy or what we can actually do with him?' They really didn't have a clue as to how to pull the levels of American power to deal with the problem of terrorism," Babbin said.
P.J. Crowley, former special assistant to Clinton for national security affairs, told FOX News that the State Department memo is reflective of how the administration was watching terrorism, and bin Laden, very closely in the 1990s, particularly activity in the Sudan.
That country at that time was a haven for terrorists, Crowley said, "a who's who ... for almost every nefarious group you could think of."
Bin Laden "was being watched carefully but I don't think we saw him alone as being such a significant threat," Crowley added. "Bin Laden was, in 1996, one of many figures we were watching for some time."
But after the 1998 bombings were traced back to bin Laden, the administration attempted to do more than watch.
"We tried many, many times and many different ways to capture or kill bin Laden with very little success," Crowley said.
But Ret. Air Force Lt. Col Buzz Patterson, who worked in the Clinton administration, noted that there were eight Al Qaeda-related attacks during that president's tenure.
" were very well aware of bin Laden and they were also well aware that Al Qaeda may use commercial airliners as weapons," in the late 1990s, said Patterson, the author of "Dereliction of Duty." But "it was always treated as a law enforcement issue," he added.
"I think President Clinton really failed to grasp the threat ...President Clinton met with Monica Lewinksy many more times than with his FBI or CIA director."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166004,00.html
Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, later will claim that in a one-year period starting in May 1998, the CIA gives the US government “about ten chances to capture bin Laden or kill him with military means. In all instances, the decision was made that the ‘intelligence was not good enough.’ This assertion cannot be debated publicly without compromising sources and methods. What can be said, however, is that in all these cases there was more concern expressed by senior bureaucrats and policymakers about how international opinion would react to a US action than there was concern about what might happen to Americans if they failed to act. Indeed, on one occasion these senior leaders decided it was more important to avoid hitting a structure near bin Laden’s location with shrapnel, than it was to protect Americans.” He will later list six of the attempts in a book:
bullet May 1998: a plan to capture bin Laden at his compound south of Kandahar, canceled at the last minute (see May 29, 1998).
bullet September 1998: a capture opportunity north of Kandahar, presumably by Afghan tribals working for the CIA (see September-October 1998).
bullet December 1998: canceled US missile strike on the governor’s palace in Kandahar (see December 18-20, 1998).
bullet February 1999: Military attack opportunity on governor’s residence in Herat (see February 1999).
bullet February 1999: Multiple military attack opportunities at a hunting camp near Kandahar attended by United Arab Emirates royals (see February 11, 1999).
bullet May 1999: Military attack opportunities on five consecutive nights in Kandahar (see May 1999).
bullet Also in late August 1998, there is one failed attempt to kill bin Laden.(see August 20, 1998)
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=michael_scheuer
Osama bin Laden and his terrorist related activities were well known to the United States by 1995. Clinton had an opportunity to catch him in the fall of 1998, but was unavailable. When he was finally reached, further consultation was needed with various secretaries. The two-hour window in which bin Laden could have been caught was lost.
In one of his most damning quotes Patterson opines, “This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton administration’s ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for ‘show’ than for honestly eliminating a threat.”
Hits on Americans by Islamic fundamentalists associated bin Laden continued through the decade as the price for an administration, which was indeed derelict in its duties and traitorous in its effect. The nation was at risk while the commander-in-chief golfed, cavorted, dialogued or was otherwise unavailable for the ultimate task of defense against a foreign enemy. Pray, that we may we never again be subjected to such a man (or woman) as president.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E256FFDB-5715-45FC-AD55-BCFD39837F24
Frontpage?
Pages