Let freedom ring.

[PatPatriot]

US Flooded With Post Saddam Tips from Sunni Triangle
World Tribune ^ | December 17, 2003 | none given


Posted on 12/17/2003 9:23:21 AM PST by sgdill


The US Military has detected an increase in Iraqi Sunni cooperation in the wake of the capture of Saddam Hussein.

US officals said military units in central and northern Iraq have been flooded by tips from Iraqis on Saddam loyalists and insurgency operatives. They said Iraqis have also been responsive to US patrols in towns and cities within the Sunni Triangle.

The US Army's 82nd Airbone Division has reported increased cooperation with Iraqi residents in the Anbar Province. The division, as part of the 'Task Force All American,' said the cooperation facilitated a search for insurgents in the Anbar province. In some cases Iraqis cooperated in locating and identifying insurgents.

Iraqi cooperation was also reported amid Operation Panther Backroads, meant to disrupt the insurgency movement and halt smuggling. The mission was launched on Monday by the airborne division's 3rd Brigade and so far two insurgents were killed and 13 others were captured.

The capture of Saddam could lead to a crisis in funding for thew insurgency, commanders said. They said although the Sunni insurgency has adequate amounts of weapons and bombs right now, Saddam loyalists are expected to encounted a funding shortfallby early 2004 as the United States excanges Iraq's currency.


Excerpted - click for full article ^

 

[codeworks]

Freedom ?

I thought you Bush wackers were fighting terroism ? WMD'S nuclear bombs, dirty bombs ?

By the way before the twin towers fell GW did not do a damn thing to fight terrorism.

I laugh at the right wingers who think Clinton did nothing to fight it.

 

[Igetp2s]

"I laugh at the right wingers who think Clinton did nothing to fight it."

Until you can prove he fought terrorism with specific examples of things he did, there is no reason to think otherwise.

 

[Igetp2s]

Still waiting for an example.

 

[Igetp2s]

Courtesy bump.

 

[PatPatriot]

I got one, Iget....Remember the pardon Bill gave those 6 P.Rican terroist in NYC to get the Puerto Rican vote for Hillary Cuntess running for senate...See Bill was thinking ahead of the curve, not only would he be securing votes for Hilary he would be sending the strong message to terroris, that democrats support of the policy of..You can fxck my sister just don't hit me.Or, the other policy of we will be nice to you if you just stop killing us more.

 

[codeworks]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Igetp2s:
Still waiting for an example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The statement does not imply that Clinton did anything.

What my statement does say however is that King George never did a thing about terrorism either. He started fighting it when the 2 towers were knocked down by a bunch of thugs running wild in the USA under his watch.

 

[PatPatriot]

Code if he did anything before 9/11, like round up suspects or kick out people with expired visas or beefed up security at airports and made people take their shoes off....there would be calls from the left for impeachment,calling him a nazi and crazy.

I remember when he gave his axis of evil speech after 9/11 and he mentioned N.Korea, Iran and Iraq...People were calling him nuts then...But they did not know that N.Korea had nuclear potential....they thought since Madeline Halfbright gave Kim Jong Ill a blow job while he was teabagging Jimmy Carter that this was the way you treat sociopathic communist dictators to keep their promises of not incinerating 100's of thousands of people at one of his psycotic and dillusional whims when he might have a bad hair day.

 

[codeworks]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.


Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

Taggants value disputed
Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.

Hatch blasts 'phony' issues
Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

 

[Igetp2s]

Code, George didnt fight terror before 9/11 because there weren't any attacks yet during his administration. It was shortly into the beginning of his presidency, and he still had to undo all the crap Clinton tried to sqeeze through in his last days in office.

Clinton on the other hand, had many, many terrorist attacks against the US during his 8 years, and therefore had just as many opportunities to respond.

 

[lander]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Igetp2s:
Code, George didnt fight terror before 9/11 because there weren't any attacks yet during his administration. It was shortly into the beginning of his presidency, and he still had to undo all the crap Clinton tried to sqeeze through in his last days in office.

Clinton on the other hand, had many, many terrorist attacks against the US during his 8 years, and therefore had just as many opportunities to respond.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me get this straight.

We'll say that Clinton was president at time A.
We'll say these several non-domestic terror attacks that didn't actually occur (aside from military psycho McVeigh) happend at time B. We'll assume that B represents the US Cole. I can't imagine your pea-brain concluding at anything else.

B occurred after A.

Bush is appointed presiden at time C, which occurs after B and subsequently after A.

9/11 occured at time D. D occured after C.

Thus we have a timeline of A B C D

You're saying that Bush isn't responsible for not stopping terrorism that occured at point D because D occurred after C, but that Clinton is responsible for B (US Cole attack) which occured after A?

So, A was supposed to be psychic and predict and prevent B, which occured after A? While, similiarly, C wasn't supposed to stop D, despite similiar event B occuring before C?

Is this what your most recent "talk out of your ass" episode is suggesting?

I certainly hope not because it defies logic, but then again - most of your theories do

 

[Igetp2s]

"Let me get this straight.

We'll say that Clinton was president at time A.
We'll say these several non-domestic terror attacks that didn't actually occur (aside from military psycho McVeigh) happend at time B. We'll assume that B represents the US Cole. I can't imagine your pea-brain concluding at anything else.

B occurred after A.

Bush is appointed presiden at time C, which occurs after B and subsequently after A.

9/11 occured at time D. D occured after C.

Thus we have a timeline of A B C D

You're saying that Bush isn't responsible for not stopping terrorism that occured at point D because D occurred after C, but that Clinton is responsible for B (US Cole attack) which occured after A?

So, A was supposed to be psychic and predict and prevent B, which occured after A? While, similiarly, C wasn't supposed to stop D, despite similiar event B occuring before C?

Is this what your most recent "talk out of your ass" episode is suggesting?

I certainly hope not because it defies logic, but then again - most of your theories do."


What the hell are you smoking. B did not come "after" A, and D did not come "after" C. B came "during" A. And D came "during" C. The difference is that Bush did something "after" D, and Clinton did not after B.

If the Cole attack is the only terrorist attack you can think of during Clinton's 8 years aside from McVeigh, it pretty much explains the moronic conclusions you come up with.
A shocking lack of knowledge.

Clinton was not responsible for the first one (the 1st WTC bombing). He IS responsible for not doing anything to prevent or decrease the likelihood of the other ones. Understand the difference chump?

[This message was edited by Igetp2s on December 24, 2003 at 10:24 AM.]

[This message was edited by Igetp2s on December 24, 2003 at 10:25 AM.]

 

[lander]

PMS,
Let me start by saying that you are one of the most intriging people that I have ever encountered. You have the uncanny ability to take a logical deduction and still fuk it up

Logic = truth.
You're delusional view = well, delusions.

D did not come "after" C. B came "during" A. And D came "during" C. The difference is that Bush did something "after" D, and Clinton did not after B.

Bush is appointed presiden at time C
9/11 occured at time D.

Bush was sworn in to office in January, 2001 after being appointed president. (C)
The towers were attacked in September, 2001. (D)

I'm quite certain that January (C) did not occur during September (D).


Clinton was not responsible for the first one (the 1st WTC bombing). He IS responsible for not doing anything to prevent or decrease the likelihood of the other ones. Understand the difference chump?
Are you saying that President Bill Clinton is responsible for stopping domestic attacks during his administration because America was attacked once before in recent history? But, that appointed President George W Bush is NOT responsible for stopping domestic attacks despite America being attacked once before in recent history.

Do you suggest that American history is a whiteboard that gets erased and redrawn upon each new inaugeration? Interesting theory, but I think it borders on delusion.

For the record, I think neither man is responsible for any of the above attacks. To the public's knowledge neither president was aware of the upcoming attacks, much unlike Pearl Harbor.

 

[Igetp2s]

The proper notification would have been A = the time period that Clinton was in office, which is the way I interpreted you to define A.

"We'll say that Clinton was president at time A."

C should therefore be the the time period that Bush is in office, not when he is inaugurated. Not that any of this changes the argument. And your little story leaves out footnotes for B. They should properly be labeled as B1, B2, B3, and B4...

"Are you saying that President Bill Clinton is responsible for stopping domestic attacks during his administration because America was attacked once before in recent history?"

Yes. A terrorist attack deserves a response, especially when it occurs on American soil. Just because other attacks against the US occurred elsewhere, that does not mean they don't warrant any response, or according to you, somehow don't count.

"Do you suggest that American history is a whiteboard that gets erased and redrawn upon each new inaugeration? Interesting theory, but I think it borders on delusion."

It takes time for a president to establish his positions, especially when he needs to clean up the mess left off from the previous administration. He probably had to spend months just cleaning up the cum stains.

"For the record, I think neither man is responsible for any of the above attacks. To the public's knowledge neither president was aware of the upcoming attacks, much unlike Pearl Harbor."

Nobody knows for certain about upcoming attacks. That does not excuse a president for not reacting when attacked to make sure the chances of it occurring again are minimized to the fullest extent possible.

 

[lander]

Can you use the quote, bold or italic features to quote? It's annoying to read this mess as one run-on after another. Thanks

C should therefore be the the time period that Bush is in office, not when he is inaugurated. Not that any of this changes the argument. And your little story leaves out footnotes for B. They should properly be labeled as B1, B2, B3, and B4..."
Actually, I meant the later. C was meant to be the time of Clinton's inauguration, but I suspect it makes little difference.

Yes. A terrorist attack deserves a response, especially when it occurs on American soil. Just because other attacks against the US occurred elsewhere, that does not mean they don't warrant any response, or according to you, somehow don't count.
I NEVER said that. I used the most compelling examples. Now, I could turn around and say Bush failed because a few embassies have been attacked, but that's grossly unfair to hold Bush personally accountable for something not even remotely close to within his control. Oh, and of course, like it or not, the same holds true for Bill Clinton. You're clearly fabricating my views here.

"It takes time for a president to establish his positions, especially when he needs to clean up the mess left off from the previous administration. He probably had to spend months just cleaning up the cum stains."
Months? Bush had NINE months. I already said that I don't think Bush or Clinton are responsible for what happened, but using your logic to blame Clinton would also hold true for Bush. Either they are both at fault or neither one is. And, further, Bush is three years along the appointed trail right now - at what point does he actually take responsibility for his own failures? I suspect "never" will beyour answer.

"Nobody knows for certain about upcoming attacks. That does not excuse a president for not reacting when attacked to make sure the chances of it occurring again are minimized to the fullest extent possible."
Interesting that you say this because it leads right into where I was going with this anyways ..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3775771/
Bin Laden's threat
NBC News has learned that the current terror alert is based on intelligence that Osama bin Laden has approved a plan for al-Qaida agents to take over foreign airliners and use them to attack U.S. targets. • FULL STORY

This is the enemy - and he is still alive and plotting the deaths of Americans as we waste the bulk of our resources in Iraq. IF this attack, or any other, is executed then the blood falls on Bush's hand FOR NOT capturing the man that killed 3000+ Americans already. If Bush sent all our resources to find Bin Laden but didn't then he did his best, BUT this is not the case - the majority of our troop are fighting and occupying a country with no apparent connection to 9/11.

This is the precise reason I call Bush a failure.

 

[BuckFush]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> they thought since Madeline Halfbright gave Kim Jong Ill a blow job while he was teabagging Jimmy Carter that this was the way you treat sociopathic communist dictators to keep their promises of not incinerating 100's of thousands of people at one of his psycotic and dillusional whims when he might have a bad hair day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or how about when the Chinese shot down our spy plane and Bush was on his knees begging them "pretty please give us our plane back". But how could you expect Bush to be tough on China at all, what with his brother Neil having bags of cash and Thai hookers delivered to him courtesy of the Chinese.