Clinton's Watch

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
so what you are saying is lets say the Japs only sank ONE battleship at pearl.  That would be considered "small scale" right?  thus not requiring a full measured response.

Yup let's not deal with it until it REALLY becomes the problem AND god forbid we bug these terrorists with silly things like "investigations" while they make their plans to destroy us.

http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/2341.html

USS Reuben James (Lt.Cdr. H.L. Edwards) was escorting convoy HX-156 with four other destroyers of the US Escort Group 4.1.3. and was hit by a torpedo at 08h34, which ignited the ammunition in the forward magazine. The explosion split the ship in two, the forward section sank immediately taking all hands on that part of the ship with her. As the stern sank the depth charges exploded and killed some survivors in the water. The destroyer USS Niblack (DD 424) rescued 36 men (one of them died of wounds on 2. November) and USS Hilary P. Jones (DD 427) picked up 10 more, but all officers were lost. In all there were 115 casualties.

Hit by U-boat
Sunk on 31 Oct, 1941 by U-552.

So as you can see, we actually did get attacked prior to Pearl Harbor, and we didnt act then because it wasnt a catastophic enough event. That is how I compare it to 9/11 and our inaction prior to it. There really is no blame, we as the people werent ready for action.

I am not justifying why it occured, I am just telling you why I think it did.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
so what you are saying is lets say the Japs only sank ONE battleship at pearl.  That would be considered "small scale" right?  thus not requiring a full measured response.

Yup let's not deal with it until it REALLY becomes the problem AND god forbid we bug these terrorists with silly things like "investigations" while they make their plans to destroy us.

Gunny,
Apples to apples.
Let's say the 9/11 attacks were done by 100% afghanistan citizens and the Afghanistan govt declared war on the US. I'd bet we'd of actually used a nuke on their capital. We would have carpet bombed the rest. Total war.

Al Quiada will never destroy the US, never. They're just not that big or powerful.
There may be some that will give this country a bloody nose, but we'll continue to survive.

Ironic thing is, civillian airtravel hasn't had a hijacking for demand since 9/11.
Guess that those potential hijackers figure the civillian passengers will actually fight back and won't allow any hijacking to be successful.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by SaburoS


Ironic thing is, civillian airtravel hasn't had a hijacking for demand since 9/11.
Guess that those potential hijackers figure the civillian passengers will actually fight back and won't allow any hijacking to be successful.

Hadn't thought of that but a great point!

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Raider179
To me its the same thing as why we didn't get involved in WW2 until Pearl Harbor. America wasn't ready to make that kind of full scale involvement until it really struck home(Pearl). But once they hit us hard enough, We jumped up shook the dust out of our eyes and went to kicking Nazi's and the Japenese all over the world. Maybe that is why we are not doing well now, we are not fighting this "war" all in. We are trying to do just enough to get by on and that isn't cutting it.

Agreed, actually "doing something" i.e. invading Afghanistan was out of the question without a 9/11 type event.

Passing info to the FBI and having them round up suspects for questioning could have been done. Would it have stopped a 9/11 style attack? I doubt it, it would have just deleayed it IMO.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Raider179
LoL not sure but think you agreed with most of my points and see why Gunslinger won't/can't respond to them.
 

Terrifying, isn't it?

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Charon
You're absolutely right. I was outraged at the time. But I didn't see many others who though Clinton's response was inadequate. Certainly didn't see any mainstream Republicans pushing form more international action at the time. I can clearly remember Republicans accusing him of "wagging the dog" with some of the missle strikes to deflect attention from Monica. And none of them were calling for anything approaching an invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq (except for the Neocons, and that was Iraq only and not related to OBL). Please cite some who were. You might find one or two, but it certainly wasn't a serious political or national issue at the time.

Charon

As bad as that was, that is why he lost the "high ground" on this issue.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Agreed, actually "doing something" i.e. invading Afghanistan was out of the question without a 9/11 type event.

Passing info to the FBI and having them round up suspects for questioning could have been done. Would it have stopped a 9/11 style attack? I doubt it, it would have just deleayed it IMO.

Exactly.

[Yeager]

What Clinton should have said is that it was a private matter and no ones business and for everyone to go to hell.  I would have respected him completely for that.  Instead he lied like a punk on crack.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Yeager
What Clinton should have said is that it was a private matter and no ones business and for everyone to go to hell.  I would have respected him completely for that.  Instead he lied like a punk on crack.

Yeah I always wondered why he didnt do that. I guess he didnt know about the dress or tapes so he figured he could lie his way through it. But if that is his worst moment then he was a pretty good president.

[Yeager]

Raider179, that was his best moment.

[Charon]

Yeah I always wondered why he didnt do that. I guess he didnt know about the dress or tapes so he figured he could lie his way through it. But if that is his worst moment then he was a pretty good president.

I don't recall the specifics (in relation to Monica) leading up to that interview. Did he know he would be questioned on that topic ahead of time, or was it a surprise?

Charon

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Charon
I don't recall the specifics (in relation to Monica) leading up to that interview. Did he know he would be questioned on that topic ahead of time, or was it a surprise?

Charon

Total surprise. I remember the video. You can probably find it on the net still. It really wouldnt have matter what he said, his facial language was enough to show he did it.

[JBA]

IF I remember right,….
During the Jennifer Flowers,Wonita Brodrick or someone, there were so many, case he was questioned under oath by grand jury, he said he didn't have any relationships during a certain time period, it turned out that Monica was during that time period, therefore he lied under oath to grand jury, that’s perjury.

[Sandman]

ac·quit    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-kwt)
tr.v. ac·quit·ted, ac·quit·ting, ac·quits
1. Law. To free or clear from a charge or accusation.
2. To release or discharge from a duty.
3. To conduct (oneself) in a specified manner: acquitted herself well during the interview.
4. Obsolete. To repay.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by JBA
IF I remember right,….
During the Jennifer Flowers,Wonita Brodrick or someone, there were so many, case he was questioned under oath by grand jury, he said he didn't have any relationships during a certain time period, it turned out that Monica was during that time period, therefore he lied under oath to grand jury, that’s perjury.

I am not sure that is true. Perhaps a link??? I looked but couldnt find anything. You put clinton and flowes into google and its almost impossible to find what you want. lol

He lied about getting laid. He is married. Cut him some slack. If you have him lying about something that is not his personal business then you might have something. Otherwise keep on searching...