especially the failure to gather and interpret necessary intelligence about al Qaeda operatives living and training in this country.As a result, the CIA no longer could "recruit, train and sustain officers for our clandestine services" and "the nation's human intelligence capability was in disarray.
care to remind everyone how the republican congress did everything in their power to stop clinton at every Al Qaeda turn during his term? Originally Posted by CJ7
The “Senate.gov” you cited is invalid: "Requested Page Not Found (404)"It's not quite a copy and paste, but if you don't want to check, that's on you, you Liberal-Moronic-Asshole-Obamanite. And your comment WAS addressed. But because you have limited reading skills, it is understandable that you didn't understand.
see the ( ) scattered throughout the article ... hold your mouse on them and click ... some still work even though they are old ... iagine that
Clinton huh? .... still deflecting. Not to mention the original comment I made was from your wiki copy/paste and you want to deflect AND argue about it.
LMAO.
The End. Originally Posted by CJ7
psJohnson ran as a peace candidate against Goldwater; knowing full well he was on the verge of escalating the Vietnam War in 1964.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
I think not. Goldwater was whacko. Originally Posted by essence
BTW, your "Driventotears" website still lacks credibilityYou've been tossing around a few disparaging names yourself, so obviously you don't mind being a hypocrite. What say you post credible and relevant cites that support your arguments rather than assuming no one will call your bluffs.
so rather than whine about credibility why dont you debunk all of their comments? should be easy enough to do for the guy people deem as SMART...
or is it easier to sit in the corner, whine, and point fingers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
you Liberal-Moronic-Asshole-Obamanite
umm, Im and independent BTW.
you're a high road, name calling right winger Originally Posted by CJ7
You've been tossing around a few disparaging names yourself, so obviously you don't mind being a hypocrite. What say you post credible and relevant cites that support your arguments rather than assuming no one will call your bluffs. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
my bluffs?Face it - first and foremost, your source is not credible!
hahahahahahaha
did you click the ( ) in the article like I ask you to do SMART GUY? they take you to the source of the quotes printed in the uncredible article ... some were even fron the WSJ and we all know what direction they lean.
you want me to do it for you I suppose???
my my, how very liberal of you Originally Posted by CJ7
Face it - first and foremost, your source is not credible!Damn! You better start looking at the shit you've posted before you begin to criticize others for grammar, etc.
using first and foremost while acceptable is totally redundant
ergo discredit my source Originally Posted by CJ7
Damn! You better start looking at the shit you've posted before you begin to criticize others for grammar, etc.
Your source is "Driventotears.com" - a liberal rant. What else needs to be said, it discredits itself. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
first, grammar has nothing to do with it, redundant on the other hand does ... Einstein should know that! So whats your excuse?You have not acknowledged with a single word - per Tenet's testimony - that by 1995 Clinton had gutted the CIA crippling its ability to gather intelligence! Your cite is a liberal rant, so STFU!
Foremost, your inability to discredit anything by simply saying sources arent credible, lends no credibility to your comments ...
prove theyre not credible or STFU
see how that works, Einstein? Originally Posted by CJ7