On the other hand*

Another good one: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

Bush refused to accept bin laden's surrender... Again

Clinton received several requests from CIA and military operators to kill OBL when he was living in the Sudan. He denied them.

No one politician is at fault for OBL.

there is a difference between denying a request to have a man killed, and to threaten a war, unless you get what you want, getting a suggestion that will give you what you want, refusing it, so that you can get your war anyways.

soo, taliban was willing to hand over OBL, saddam let the weapons insperctors work. bush decided he wanted a war, and had his own PR campagin in the us, tricking the population to accept the war. he even did such a good job that most people still believe his lies.

the bodycount of these lies are already several hundred thousand iraqis and afghans, and several thousand american solidars. a national deficit, and a polarisation of the world.


you cannot defend one bad action by pointing to another one.

Ditto what Kreuz said, I'd also say there's a difference between Clinton who fox said was "obsessed with Osama" because he wanted to catch and try him and bush who wouldn't even accept him alive on a silver platter.

i think the topic should go like this

Thank you Bush for allowing us to kill Bin Laden

Reagan chillin with al-Qaeda in the white house: http://i.imgur.com/bemge.jpg

lol

http://i.imgur.com/QjexD.jpg <-- SFW

Mr K you have absolutely no proof of what you are saying. I would advise you to shut you lil trap before you say more stupid as shit things.

I love how yodel doesn't even try to defend the republicans on this one.

Gotta love the memory hole americans have.