Author Topic: 911 Commission Blockbuster! (Read 2361 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #45 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:18:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
[B
And what did he do with the CIA budget? And what did he do with the military? Besides allowing gays in the army I mean?
[/B]

Well it was the Clinton Military that kicked bellybutton in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't honestly think the troops and doctrine for those successes were developed by Bush and his team? That would be laughable.

Do I have to dig up the quote by Cheney stating that the military any administration has at its service is the result of his predecesor?

AKIron · « **Reply #46 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:21:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Well it was the Clinton Military that kicked bellybutton in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't honestly think the troops and doctrine for those successes were developed by Bush and his team? That would be laughable.

Do I have to dig up the quote by Cheney stating that the military any administration has at its service is the result of his predecesor?

BS. Clinton did nothing to improve the military he inherited. Quite the contrary, he gutted it. Not saying it wasn't due some pruning but Clinton never showed anything but contempt for the US Armed Forces.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #47 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:21:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Not sure Rip. I know he was given a blueprint for success upon entering offfice, and that he ignored it. Clinton didn't "SIT ON" the plan, he had it developed after the Cole attack. (Oct. 2000)

So do you honestly think GWB did anything constructive regarding terrorism in his 1st 8 months?

Does any incoming administration that sits on the other side of the political fence actually listen to the blueprints of the prior administrations? (With the exception of Reagan taking Carters advice on building up the military) no, I think not.

I don't think Bush did anything constructive regarding terrorism prior to 9/11 nor did any other administration during their respective reigns, IMO.(Aspirin factories don't count)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #48 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:23:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Well it was the Clinton Military that kicked bellybutton in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't honestly think the troops and doctrine for those successes were developed by Bush and his team? That would be laughable.

Do I have to dig up the quote by Cheney stating that the military any administration has at its service is the result of his predecesor?

Midnight, military spending decreased in Clintons reign. If you want to give credit for a kick-*** military in Afghanistan, Iraq, you'll have to swallow your pride and point to Reagan or Bush Sr.

midnight Target · « **Reply #49 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:24:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Does any incoming administration that sits on the other side of the political fence actually listen to the blueprints of the prior administrations? (With the exception of Reagan taking Carters advice on building up the military) no, I think not.

I don't think Bush did anything constructive regarding terrorism prior to 9/11 nor did any other administration during their respective reigns, IMO.(Aspirin factories don't count)

You don't think? Even though I cited a long list for you of Clinton's accomplishments and actions re. Terrorism. sigh....

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #50 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:24:19 AM »

MT
It was the U.S. Military that kicked bellybutton in those places. Clinton, nor Bush before him had much to do with how well they did.

Clinton made huge cuts in the military, that we had enough to do the job is nice, but the tactics and their training has nothing to do with the sitting pres, other then how he decided to fund them. Its not like clinton was making tactics up or anything.

If you want to give a pres cudos for making the US Military what it is today, that would be Reagan since he upped the funding and got some important weapons systems pushed through.

MrLars · « **Reply #51 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:38:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Like...?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Ripsnort · « **Reply #52 on:** December 18, 2003, 11:46:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
You don't think? Even though I cited a long list for you of Clinton's accomplishments and actions re. Terrorism. sigh....

You failed to provide sources for any of those accomplishments.

midnight Target · « **Reply #53 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:04:50 PM »

Well, look up one post for a little help with that.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #54 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:10:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Well, look up one post for a little help with that.

Ah, this one?

Quote

. . people maintain Clinton should have adapted Bush's policy promising that regimes that harbor terrorism will be treated as severely as terrorists themselves, and threatening to evict the Taliban from power in Afghanistan unless leaders meet his demands to produce bin Laden and associates. But Clinton aides said such a policy — potentially involving a full-scale war in central Asia — was not plausible before politics the world over became transformed by one of history's most lethal acts of terrorism.

Actually, after reading that page, it looks like Clinton PROVOKED Bin Laden into attacking the U.S. Now who is to blame again?

Yeager · « **Reply #55 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:11:17 PM »

So clinton was a savior against terrorism and bush is the devil.

right?

you guys really do suck.

Sandman · « **Reply #56 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:24:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
MT
It was the U.S. Military that kicked bellybutton in those places. Clinton, nor Bush before him had much to do with how well they did.

Clinton made huge cuts in the military, that we had enough to do the job is nice, but the tactics and their training has nothing to do with the sitting pres, other then how he decided to fund them. Its not like clinton was making tactics up or anything.

If you want to give a pres cudos for making the US Military what it is today, that would be Reagan since he upped the funding and got some important weapons systems pushed through.

The POM (Program Objective Memoranda) is the acquisition plan for the next six years and there is a new POM every two years. Like it or not, Clinton had a hand in the successes enjoyed during the Bush presidency. Certainly, there are some key weapons systems that came about during the Reagan administration, but you have to acknowledge that major advancements in informations systems and improvements to weapons themselves resulted from lessons learned during Gulf War I.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #57 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:29:27 PM »

If Bubba or Dubya had taken any real action (like Dubya is doing now) against terrorism before 9/11, there's no way the public would have supported it. Just look at the whining about Afghanistan and the Patriot Act, even AFTER 9/11.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:38:45 PM »

Sandy
Good point, and I am not trying to say Clinton did nothing, just that he was not solely responisble and that he did cut the military back alot. Frankly in many cases rightly so, there was no cold war when he was pres. He did also save the V-22 program for the Marines I think.

I am not one of the Clinton is satan guys, I think he was an ok pres, my biggest problem was he lied when he was asked about the BJ, if he had said none of your buisnes I would have been fine with it. If he has said yeah, so what I would have had no problem with it. He took the weasel route. That said it had a pretty limited impact on his presidency other then the smear his own legacy.

I have many reservations about Bush. I do not think he is satan like some jokers here, but he is not a Reagan, even with Reagans issues like Iran contra.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #59 on:** December 18, 2003, 01:39:30 PM »

Good point funked lol.