Yep, just as bullshit as all the other allegations that Clinton ignored terrorists, as Snopes, for one, points out.
So can we assume your source for Clinton “being handed bin Laden on a silver platter” is more trustworthy than Newsweek?
As far as I’m concerned, it is inconceivable that the Bush administration lacks the intelligence (in the other sense of the term) to find Bin Laden. No bribery, deceit, or violence against al-Qaeda should be spared. Maybe it would help for Bush to think of Bin Laden as a US citizen. An atheist one. A gay atheist. A gay atheist Democrat. A gay atheist Democrat who reads forbidden books in the library. Then by god, they’d nab his ass.
Anyway, even if Clinton let Bin Ladin get away, what relevance does that have to whether Bush let Bin Ladin get away?
None as far as I can see. Clinton’s alleged failures don’t excuse Bush’s alleged failures, nor do Bush’s alleged failures excuse Clinton’s alleged failures. I’m sick of this Tu Quoque bullshit.
We didn’t send 100,000 troops to Afghanistan because there was no way to supply that number of troops. Yes, we could drop soldiers and tanks there, but they’d be out of ammunition, food, fuel, medical supplies, and spare parts within a week. An armored division cut off from supply lines is just a very expensive junkyard guarded by light infantry. We could invade Iraq with 100,000 men because we could build up vast supply depots in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia then drive across the border essentially unopposed. Where exactly were we going to do that in Afghanistan? No roads, no airfields, no friendly neighboring countries, no flat desert.
The invasion of Iraq was easy. A comparable invasion of Afghanistan would be much much more difficult, just ask the Soviet Union. They failed even though they were literally next door.
That would depend on how much you trust a multi-forwarded glurge email, wouldn’t it? :dubious:
Well … maybe if he was a gay atheist Democrat who reads forbidden books in the library and supports stem cell research and women’s rights.
But, AFAIK, IRL, OBL actually opposes all of those things. Just like GWB.
Coincidence? Well, yes, actually. But it makes for a fun conspiracy theory. 
Yep.
Dereliction of Duty , by Robert Patterson.
If that’s what you choose to trust as a source, then have at it.
I prefer the eyewitness account of someone who was there and saw it happen.
Now there’s a question for Ann Coulter (or Karl Rove): is bin Laden worse than a Democrat?
You know, we have Gaudere’s Law of spelling and grammar karma, and we have Godwin’s Law of Nazi comparisons. I propose that any knee-jerk Clinton reference in response to any criticism of Bush be from now on called “Clothahump’s Law of Clinton Irrelevancy”.
This thread’s been Clothahumped by the Clothahumper!
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Clothahump finds an obvious partisan hack-job trustworthy, and Newsweek not.
Mr. Clothahump
Most esteemed sir! I am to be writing you to offer a most excellent investment opportunity! My late father was Banking and Financial Minister here in Nigeria. As you may be knowing, he was assassinated on the orders of Mr. President Clinton to prevent the revealing of a scandal about illegal rhinoceros horn to be imported to bolster his flagging boogabooga.
At the time of his death, he had been placed 30 billion Nigerian dorku in the most scenic and illustrious Cayman Islands bank accounts, but did neglect to name an executor for this accounting. As his son, I cannot approach these accountings for fear of raising suspicousness.
There is where your most excellent financial opportunity arises!..
Wow, you guys are sure easily sidetracked. Clothahump comes in, writes paragraphs and drops the dreaded ‘C’ word and off you go. 
-XT
I suggest you not ignore your scheduled meds. That was really lame, even for a lib.
ROTFLMAO!!
At least yours was funny. It was a better effort than the drivel that Fear Itself posted. Still lame, though. You both ignore the source and concentrate on the messenger, a common problem with libs when confronted with facts they can’t refute. Have you bothered to read the book I referenced? You should. It’s an eye-opener.
OK, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt Clothahump, let’s assume the book you linked to is 100 percent blessed-by-God true.
It’s still a tu quoque fallacy to bring it up as if it means something to the discussion at hand, and does nothing to excuse Bush’s failures, which is what this thread is about.
I shall endeavor to raise the level of my drivel.
Still, to be considered in the same class of “lame” with luci is high praise indeed.
Gee, with book titles under his belt like Reckless Disregard : How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security , How could we not assume he’s a partisan hack?
Perhaps you would care to remind the peanut gallery who began this strain of the conversation by dismissing Newsweek as an unacceptable source?
That’s the bestest kind!