Originally Posted by: 3rd_degreeburnYou can thank the Clinton administration for imposing legal restrictions that stymied the federal government's efforts to combat terrorism

I guess clinton himself was too busy gettin a blowjob :eek: in the oral office too even care about foreign matters

Got this in an email from a military friend
"After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today."

OK.
So I'm looking at how Bush's war on terror has fared.
And the cost it has incurred.
He is NOT doing any better. In fact, on a cost benefit anlysis, he is doing a helluva lot worse than Clinton (I'm including the blow jobs in Clinton's equation, LOL).
But you guys feel he is right on the money. 59 million votes on the money (that's how many popular votes he got. If I'm wrong, insert the correct figure and move on).

The way you say Clinton didn't keep his promise, you make it sound like Bush has captured any of these terrorists. Oh, I forgot, he did, Saddam Hussein. That's the demon Clinton should have captured instead of leaving Monica to capture his you know what with her you know what.