BUSHIES = REVISIONIST LIARS
BUSHIES = REVISIONIST LIARS
by: vordabois (22/M/New Albany, Ohio) 07/15/04 08:13 am
Msg: 2131751 of 2132059
12 recommendations
Wanna see the hypocrisy of the right first-hand?
Why, look no further than freerepublic.com!
The following are two news stories from when Clinton was "diverting attention from his legal woes" by attacking an aspirin factory and missing OBL in Afghanistan...
Get a load of the freeper responses to the articles and compare them to what's going on and what they say today.
(HYPOCRITES!!!!)
_______________________________________________
From: Tuor (tuor7@yahoo.com)
09/03/98 05:54:12 EDT
EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE: Cohen conceded to the senators that the evidence linking bin Laden to the Shifa plant "was a little tenuous, but it's getting stronger." He cited intelligence suggesting close ties between bin Laden and Osman Sulayman, the Shifa plant manager.
RESPONSE FROM HYPOCRITICAL FREEPER: Hey, Cohen! You're supposed to be sure of your target *before* you start bombing it, dumb*ss! You *said* you were sure, only now the evidence is 'tenuous'? Jerk off!
EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE: Tenet described how a field operative recruited by the CIA got into the plant grounds in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, evaded guards, went to a predetermined location and scooped up a soil sample from a specific part of the complex.
RESPONSE FROM HYPOCRITICAL FREEPER: First of all, even if I believed this (and I don't), has anyone noticed the key words here? 'recruited by the CIA'. Re-frigging-cruited! We spent how many millions of dollars bombing a factory in a country we have not declared war on, on the basis of a single sample taken by a recruited operative?
A 'recruited operative' could just be some schmuck off the street that the real CIA guys paid to do this mission. The guy was not CIA and almost certainly not an american. He 'submitted to a polygraph test'? So what? They're not infallible.
Good God. The CIA sure does have their thumbs stuck up their butts! You don't bomb factories and end up killing civilians unless you are *sure* that it is a legitimate target.
Today, I'm ashamed to call myself an American (as if I needed any more reason besides Clinton himself).
-----------------------------------------------
From: Tuor (tuor7@yahoo.com)
09/03/98 07:41:52 EDT
This strategy will do several things:
1. It will very seriously piss off the relatives of any innocents harmed or killed by our attacks. They will very legitimately want revenge or reparation.
2. It will piss off almost everyone in the country we attack: we're not at war with *them*, and so have no right to randomly bomb their country.
3. It will piss of the governments of the countries we attack: instead of individuals and small groups of fanatics, we'll end up with *real* state-sponsered terrorism, because these governments are in no position to attack us directly.
4. It will polarize the Islamic community, mostly against us. This is already happening in Pakistan. Further strikes will cause this to spread. The Islamic nations will come to view this sort of indiscriminant bombing as an attack on Islam, and will respond appropriately. (This would be bad.)
5. It will make the US appear irresponsible and reckless in the eyes of the international community. They may not be saying too much negative stuff publicly right now, but privately I'm sure they're concerned and nervous.
6. It will cause devisiveness within the US itself. This will especially be true if lots of Americans started to end up dead in foreign lands. Can we trust the President (or the government in general) about just who killed or blew up what, and where they can be found? In this most recent case, the Government screwed the pooch *big time*..on both attacks. Bin Laden is still around and we blew up a civilian factory, killing and seriously wounding a lot of civilians.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a605184.htm
Yahoo! News Message Boards World News
by: vordabois (22/M/New Albany, Ohio) 07/15/04 08:13 am
Msg: 2131751 of 2132059
12 recommendations
Wanna see the hypocrisy of the right first-hand?
Why, look no further than freerepublic.com!
The following are two news stories from when Clinton was "diverting attention from his legal woes" by attacking an aspirin factory and missing OBL in Afghanistan...
Get a load of the freeper responses to the articles and compare them to what's going on and what they say today.
(HYPOCRITES!!!!)
_______________________________________________
From: Tuor (tuor7@yahoo.com)
09/03/98 05:54:12 EDT
EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE: Cohen conceded to the senators that the evidence linking bin Laden to the Shifa plant "was a little tenuous, but it's getting stronger." He cited intelligence suggesting close ties between bin Laden and Osman Sulayman, the Shifa plant manager.
RESPONSE FROM HYPOCRITICAL FREEPER: Hey, Cohen! You're supposed to be sure of your target *before* you start bombing it, dumb*ss! You *said* you were sure, only now the evidence is 'tenuous'? Jerk off!
EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE: Tenet described how a field operative recruited by the CIA got into the plant grounds in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, evaded guards, went to a predetermined location and scooped up a soil sample from a specific part of the complex.
RESPONSE FROM HYPOCRITICAL FREEPER: First of all, even if I believed this (and I don't), has anyone noticed the key words here? 'recruited by the CIA'. Re-frigging-cruited! We spent how many millions of dollars bombing a factory in a country we have not declared war on, on the basis of a single sample taken by a recruited operative?
A 'recruited operative' could just be some schmuck off the street that the real CIA guys paid to do this mission. The guy was not CIA and almost certainly not an american. He 'submitted to a polygraph test'? So what? They're not infallible.
Good God. The CIA sure does have their thumbs stuck up their butts! You don't bomb factories and end up killing civilians unless you are *sure* that it is a legitimate target.
Today, I'm ashamed to call myself an American (as if I needed any more reason besides Clinton himself).
-----------------------------------------------
From: Tuor (tuor7@yahoo.com)
09/03/98 07:41:52 EDT
This strategy will do several things:
1. It will very seriously piss off the relatives of any innocents harmed or killed by our attacks. They will very legitimately want revenge or reparation.
2. It will piss off almost everyone in the country we attack: we're not at war with *them*, and so have no right to randomly bomb their country.
3. It will piss of the governments of the countries we attack: instead of individuals and small groups of fanatics, we'll end up with *real* state-sponsered terrorism, because these governments are in no position to attack us directly.
4. It will polarize the Islamic community, mostly against us. This is already happening in Pakistan. Further strikes will cause this to spread. The Islamic nations will come to view this sort of indiscriminant bombing as an attack on Islam, and will respond appropriately. (This would be bad.)
5. It will make the US appear irresponsible and reckless in the eyes of the international community. They may not be saying too much negative stuff publicly right now, but privately I'm sure they're concerned and nervous.
6. It will cause devisiveness within the US itself. This will especially be true if lots of Americans started to end up dead in foreign lands. Can we trust the President (or the government in general) about just who killed or blew up what, and where they can be found? In this most recent case, the Government screwed the pooch *big time*..on both attacks. Bin Laden is still around and we blew up a civilian factory, killing and seriously wounding a lot of civilians.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a605184.htm
Yahoo! News Message Boards World News
posted by Gary at 8:06 AM
<< Home