Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on August 21, 2005, 09:00:58 PM
-
This is a spin off of Nash's republican thread. What do you think of Clinton's watch? Keep it appropriate, keep Bush out of it, and be respectfull of other posters.
Here's why I dislike him:
1. Changed the face of the Military in terms never seen before. Created a "sensative" force. We spent more time on "sensativity training for Homos and minorities" than we did time on the rifle range.
2. Cut DOD spending big time while deployments increased 300% on his watch.
3. Decreased our ability to recruit HUMINT in the CIA by making it illegal to recruit those with questionable backrounds as informants.
4. Gave the Chinese full access to the whithouse to include nuclear secrets. Chinese espionage increased 10 fold during Clinton's administration.
5. September 11th was mostly planned and even warned about on his watch (See no. 3)
6. AQ grew exponentially under Clinton's watch.
7. Terrorism on his watch increased (twin towers #1, Khobar Towers, Embasy's in Africa, and the USS Cole
8. Lied before a federal grand jurry
9. Becaue of his scandels he did not have the political clout to actually persue terrorists with actual force instead of lobbing missles at them
-
DELETED
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
DELETED
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Never said that gays were bad fighters I said we spent more time learning how to be sensative to them than we did at the rifle range.
I guess lying to a federal grand jury is ok huh? Maybe if he hadn't been messing with his intern he would have been in a better position to persue terrorists that flourished on his watch?
Edit:
SMIDSY, in addition, please be polite. We need to prove to the admins that we can have a civilized discussion here.
-
I think his handling of Jocelyn Elders was shameful. She gave an honest, insightful answer to a sensitive question, and his cowtowing to the religious right was a disgrace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Elders
-
If clintoon had 'fessed up about the intern it would have all blown over. Instead he drug the thing out with his lying to the nation and under oath, a felony. All he had to do is say, yup I did it, it was a mistake and I'll never do it again. Frankly I would have respected him for that had he done so, instead he denied it until faced with incotrovertable proof.
His treatment of the military was second only to carter in drawing it down. It left us on shakey ground in dealing wiht a full fsingle front never mind the contingency plan for a second area of ops if needed like we have now.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think his handling of Jocelyn Elders was shameful. She gave an honest, insightful answer to a sensitive question, and his cowtowing to the religious right was a disgrace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Elders
I forgot all about her comments. That's funny when you think about it but an honest if candid answer.
-
I think he was weak.
He should have backed Elders.
He should have never settled for "don't ask don't tell".
He should have told the grand jury to pack sand.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I guess lying to a federal grand jury is ok huh?
The whole case was totally uncalled for.
No other US presidents side leaps were taken this far, not even as far as into the newspapers. Let alone a federal grand jury...
All it was, was an attempt to drive him out of the politics and get the money hungry b****es a wallet full of cash.
For some reason it was a bigger deal than starting a war with false reasons - instead it was CIA's fault. In return the CIA got bigger budget and the person responsible of the false information somehow is still working for the CIA and received extra money! :rolleyes:
Maybe Clinton should've accused Lewinsky for raping him or someone for hiring her.
I'd just love to see Bush questioned the same way for reasons, which would actually be worth the time.
I bet he would be caught of lying as well - for several times worse crimes.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The whole case was totally uncalled for.
No other US presidents side leaps were taken this far, not even as far as into the newspapers. Let alone a federal grand jury...
All it was, was an attempt to drive him out of the politics and get the money hungry b****es a wallet full of cash.
For some reason it was a bigger deal than starting a war with false reasons - instead it was CIA's fault. In return the CIA got bigger budget and the person responsible of the false information somehow is still working for the CIA and received extra money! :rolleyes:
Maybe Clinton should've accused Lewinsky for raping him or someone for hiring her.
I'd just love to see Bush questioned the same way for reasons, which would actually be worth the time.
I bet he would be caught of lying as well - for several times worse crimes.
lying to a federal grand jury is still ilegal even if you don't agree with the questions. any other average joe would have done time for what he did. It's also my contention that he's the one who put himself in that position to begin with. Because of that he lacked the clout to act when the country need him to be presidential.
I could care less what he lied about just the fact that he did it under oath.
PS Bush doesnt have anything to do with this thread so why bring it up.
Sandy,
I agree with you on all counts. He did alot worse things to the US military than let gays in.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I agree with you on all counts. He did alot worse things to the US military than let gays in.
But he didn't let them in. They were already there.
-
The Republicans were bloodthirsty. They wasted millions of dollars and all they found was a stained dress.
Overall, I liked him and the job he did. "It's the economy, stupid."
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
PS Bush doesnt have anything to do with this thread so why bring it up.
No he doesn't, but I'm wondering why such a big mess was made out of Clinton's affairs, while no other president has been made to go through the same or why they aren't as interested in more serious allegations.
-
Best cigar advertising EVAR!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
This is a spin off of Nash's republican thread. What do you think of Clinton's watch? Keep it appropriate, keep Bush out of it, and be respectfull of other posters.
Here's why I dislike him:
1. Changed the face of the Military in terms never seen before. Created a "sensative" force. We spent more time on "sensativity training for Homos and minorities" than we did time on the rifle range.
2. Cut DOD spending big time while deployments increased 300% on his watch.
3. Decreased our ability to recruit HUMINT in the CIA by making it illegal to recruit those with questionable backrounds as informants.
4. Gave the Chinese full access to the whithouse to include nuclear secrets. Chinese espionage increased 10 fold during Clinton's administration.
5. September 11th was mostly planned and even warned about on his watch (See no. 3)
6. AQ grew exponentially under Clinton's watch.
7. Terrorism on his watch increased (twin towers #1, Khobar Towers, Embasy's in Africa, and the USS Cole
8. Lied before a federal grand jurry
9. Becaue of his scandels he did not have the political clout to actually persue terrorists with actual force instead of lobbing missles at them
1)True
2)Deployments larger than current ones?
3)Cough cough, ever hear of Curveball?
4)Speculation/blame, name the number of Chinese spies caught during Clinton's time in office please.
5)Republicans were too occupied about Clinton's sexual life and it poisened his ability to respond effectively against small scale terrorist attacks.
6)Don't even try to compare it to how it has grown under Bush.
7)Add up American deaths from all 3 of those and see if you get the same number of Americans that died in 9/11, under Bush's watch.
8)Was he convicted of Perjury? He lied about cheating on his wife.Show me 1 case where someone was charged for lying about that....
9)Again he had scandals in his administration but he was never charged with a crime or did I miss something? The republicans sapped his power by making him look "unfitting" to hold office. Not because of him and Monica but because he lied about it. pffft. The only one who had a right to question Bill about Affairs was Hillary, not the republican congress. You want to blame someone blame them because they were in office too and I didnt see any of them standing up saying lets get terrorists. They were too busy persuing Bill for his indiscretions.
10)How are we supposed to keep Bush out of it when you are comparing Clinton to him in your first post? Unless you meant the other presidents that dealt with Al-qaida:lol :lol :lol
-
(http://www.boomertime.com/4%20Character/C2650/c2650e.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
10)How are we supposed to keep Bush out of it when you are comparing Clinton to him in your first post? Unless you meant the other presidents that dealt with Al-qaida:lol :lol :lol
show me were I compared him to Bush? you could barely make one statement about him with out bringing up Bush. I've re-read my post 3 times now and still fail to see were I make the comparison.:confused: :confused: :confused:
-
hmm ya the whole monica scandle was blown WAY out of proportion and the Repubs did get overzelous with it. Of course Clinton shouldnt have lied when he decided to address it.. he should have told them to go to hell in the first place. But again, him doing what he did with her had NOTHING to do with the security of the U.S. or being the Pres. and the Repubs had NO business going after him for it in the first place. It was there attempt to WEAKEN the office for their own power plays... and as a citizen, that never sat well with me.
-
IN!
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
show me were I compared him to Bush? you could barely make one statement about him with out bringing up Bush. I've re-read my post 3 times now and still fail to see were I make the comparison.:confused: :confused: :confused:
Ummm #6? Only 2 presidents have dealt with AQ. Clinton and Bush. So by saying AQ grew exponentially under clinton I would think you would have to compare how their numbers have grown under Clinton vs under Bush. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean. You blame Clinton For terrorism and Al-qaida. That would have taken up like like 5 of your points but I guess you needed to make a long list since you don't really have a lot there in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you could barely make one statement about him with out bringing up Bush.
3 out of my 9 were comparing to Bush granted.
still doesnt account for no response on #'s 3,4,5,8,9.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Ummm #6? Only 2 presidents have dealt with AQ. Clinton and Bush. So by saying AQ grew exponentially under clinton I would think you would have to compare how their numbers have grown under Clinton vs under Bush. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean. You blame Clinton For terrorism and Al-qaida. That would have taken up like like 5 of your points but I guess you needed to make a long list since you don't really have a lot there in the first place.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.
In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.
The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/international/asia/17osama.html?ei=5065&en=8abb945bc6bab23d&ex=1124942400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Ummm #6? Only 2 presidents have dealt with AQ. Clinton and Bush. So by saying AQ grew exponentially under clinton I would think you would have to compare how their numbers have grown under Clinton vs under Bush. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean. You blame Clinton For terrorism and Al-qaida. That would have taken up like like 5 of your points but I guess you needed to make a long list since you don't really have a lot there in the first place.
I still didn't compare him to Bush or any other president for the matter. During the 90's AQ was networking out and planning the "small scale terrorist attacks ". I still don't see how you are connecting my post at all with Bush.
It's rather insulting if you ask me that you consider twin towers #1, Khobar Towers, Embasy's in Africa, and the USS Cole "small scale terrorist attacks". I work with a guy that has a purple heart. He was in the Khobar Towers when the bomb went off. He has permanent facial scares even 3 surgeries later. I don't think he considers the bomb that went off "small scale".
YOu keep bringing up republicans....well Clinton was the Chief Executive NOT the republicans. The Commander in Chief is the one that's responsible, NOT the republicans. If he would have acted aggressivly instead of taking a public opinion pole to see wich way the wind is blowing AQ could have been dismantled 10 years ago when it was still branching out.
-
1. He discouraged aggressive anti trust action to the point where many of our major industries are close enough to being monopolies that they might as well be. As a result, there is less need to actually serve customers or innovate.
2. He promoted NAFTA and globalization without any safeguards to insure a somewhat level playing field. Of course another country can make cheaper products if they can dump their waste directly into the rivers and air and use child labor (or even the local convicts) at a fraction of the cost of Western workers.
3. Significantly eroded our personal rights to prop up the failed and costly "War on Drugs." The reason the right hates him so much, IMO, is that he stole their agenda early on (when they shot down his initial personal reform efforts). How can we beat this guy if he has our own platform? (They found a way, turn him into a pariah though one of the the longest, most agressive smear campaign in political history.) Being tough on crime became important to his political success, and it came at the expense of our personal liberties.
4. He launched a number of foreign policy initiatives, but ultimately failed to close the deal (the Middle East, for example) even though he got close.
5. I see the whole Al Queda thing as a wash or at best a matter of degree. There was no Republican Congressional push for more action in the wake of those attacks. Bush didn't push for more action and was primarily concerned with "Star Wars" until 9/11. We/they were all asleep at the wheel until 9/11. Then it was time for the blame game. It wasn't even a campaign issue as I recall, and that says something right there especially since his other international efforts (where he was "taking action") were campaign issues. And the Republican position wasn't that he was doing too little abroad...
BTW, Human intel has been unpopular in Washington since the first Defense contractor shot a multi-million dollar satellite into orbit. It has been a serious issue ever since. Defense contractor dollars carry a lot more weight than low tech human intel where budgeting is concerned.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's rather insulting if you ask me that you consider twin towers #1, Khobar Towers, Embasy's in Africa, and the USS Cole "small scale terrorist attacks". I work with a guy that has a purple heart. He was in the Khobar Towers when the bomb went off. He has permanent facial scares even 3 surgeries later. I don't think he considers the bomb that went off "small scale".
If he would have acted aggressivly instead of taking a public opinion pole to see wich way the wind is blowing AQ could have been dismantled 10 years ago when it was still branching out.
Sorry but they were "small scale" attacks. Large scale would be as catastophic as 9/11.
You make it sound so easy capture/kill Bin Laden. Where is he again, why haven't we caught him now then? Clinton had most of the country against him because of his indiscretions and now I think it would be safe to say 90% of Americans want To kill Bin Laden no matter what it takes. Well guess public opinion doesnt matter cause OBL is still running around loose.
-
Clinton dropped the ball, and it lead to 9/11. When will you finally admit that?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Clinton dropped the ball, and it lead to 9/11. When will you finally admit that?
I think he absolutely droppped the ball. Sure he did.
-
You can quibble all you want about what Clinton could have or should have done about terrorism. Assignment of blame can be argued any number of ways.
THIS (http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf) is the worst thing he did, IMHO.
-
You can blame clinton for all kinds of ****, but no one thought something like 911 was going to happen here.
Not clinton, not bush not congress.
Now you can point fingers when we get another attack, because now we know it can.
Before it was unfathomable to most people.
Nafta was the worst thing he did.
-
Forgot about that one, Sandman.
Charon
-
1. Changed the face of the Military in terms never seen before. Created a "sensative" force. We spent more time on "sensativity training for Homos and minorities" than we did time on the rifle range.
(I agree when I went in we were hot off the Gulf War... By the time I left it was queens berets... I bet airborne and rangers and SF enjoyed his beret policy what a freaking crock..)
2. Cut DOD spending big time while deployments increased 300% on his watch.
(agree, I lived this crap.. it sucks being in a platoon {normally about 20-30 men} and having the workload of a platoon but only having 12 men... 6 men per squad..
3. Decreased our ability to recruit HUMINT in the CIA by making it illegal to recruit those with questionable backrounds as informants.
(This is not bad policy whats on the books and what really happens are two different things.. one is to save face, the other is reality.. I might add until 9/11 Bush was following the same policy right up to his famous My Pet Goat reading..)
4. Gave the Chinese full access to the whithouse to include nuclear secrets. Chinese espionage increased 10 fold during Clinton's administration.
(this is complete misinformation. Clinton didn't give the keys to anybody. Clinton established a open dialogue which inturn has allowed both countries to flourish or get benifit.. your current war is funded by chinese loans along with the housing bubble etc.. No clinton dialogue with China no cheap loans, no cheap loans no war.. no walmart.. no alot of things.. all nations steal from one another this is true but to allude that Clinton somehow gave them secrets is rather pathetic..such actions would warrant a treason investigation Look at the current row with the Israeli spying and they are our allies..)
5. September 11th was mostly planned and even warned about on his watch (See no. 3)
(true it was.. but the vulnrability has existed since the Olympics that the T's killed some Israel competitors.. when Israel put in reinforced pilot doors it was debated by congress/faa for us to do the same.. at the time special interest from the airlines squashed that approach by claiming it would gut the industry through expense of implementing such.. throw reagan.. Bush 1 .. carter.. etc.. into the mix.. then you have a accurate statement.)
6. AQ grew exponentially under Clinton's watch.
(I agree they did, they have exploded during the Bush Admin.. they are now globally branded / franchised with little command or control element to go after.. At least with clinton they were one entity not a hundred headed hydra.. I suggest Imperial Hubris for some reading on this..) (I might add with a 200 billion dollar war effort and climbing we still have a paltry 50 million on his head.. its clear we dont want OBL if we did he would have a 10 billion+ tag on his head..)
7. Terrorism on his watch increased (twin towers #1, Khobar Towers, Embasy's in Africa, and the USS Cole
No more so than any other time.. Beruit, Iran.. contras do your history..
8. Lied before a federal grand jurry
(his reasons for lying have more credibility {well maybe not over hilliary} than bushes preeumptive war against a foreign country under false pretenses. Blood is always thicker than govt.. any man that says otherwise is either a liar or otherwise..) a blow pales in comparisson to 1800 war dead 14000 injured not including Iraqis.. weigh the blind ladies scale of justice and tell me which crime weighs more... its a no brainer.. I have no love for clinton but his policies didn't incite the entire planet.. nor did we pay 60 bucks a barrel either..)
9. Becaue of his scandels he did not have the political clout to actually persue terrorists with actual force instead of lobbing missles at them
(this is complete fabrication, its sad when you as a soldier don't understand the capabilites of the commander and chief in times of crisis.. He may wage war as he sees fit for a limited time without congressional approval.)(a pearl harbor type event will most likely get you any support you demand as seen clearly by the repealing of constitutional protections awarded by the Bill of Rights via the patriot act with false sunset provisions clearly demonstrated by the saturday sneaking of current and new provisions into a troop funding bill.)(lets not forget the concentration camps during WW2 for japanese americans nothing has changed..)
thats all for now..
PAAAAARADE REST........
DoctorYo
-
Doctor I don't agree with you. If clinton woud have taken more action and told the rest to poiund sand when they say he's trying to avert a scandel I'd have 10 fold more respect for him. He didn't. He was the type of person that had to take an opinion pole for everything.
IMHO AQ is like a virus. The first infection was on his watch. They started a war and now we are fighting it...nuff said from me on that. As far as us causing more jihadism I dont agree. If you look at the numbers of jihadis that flooded to afgahnistan during the russian invasion it pales in comparison to iraq today.
The reason I started this thread is not because of Bush but because of history. History is currently being rewritten with Clinton having a good legacy. I whole heartedly disagree.
Raider you want to use body count as a yardstick to measure the scale of the attack be my guest. Clinton did that during his 8 years and completly igrnored the problem.
khobar towers 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded.
African Embassy Bombings: Nairobi, where the embassy was located in a busy downtown area, 213 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the embassy was further from the city center, and the attack killed at least 12 and wounded 85.
USS Cole 17 sailors were killed and 39 others were injured
Even one attack on a US interest is too much. They weren't that "small scale" to those that were there and they definatly weren't that "small scale" to those familys that lost loved ones. Now I know what you are going to do you are going to change the subject and ignore what I said because you know you're wrong and play the Iraq card so be my guest.
-
He was allright he came to Birmingham and had chips in the pub down by the canal! Not sure what watch he wore though!
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/midlandstoday/images/billclinton.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
He was the type of person that had to take an opinion pole for everything.
The reason I started this thread is not because of Bush but because of history. History is currently being rewritten with Clinton having a good legacy. I whole heartedly disagree.
Raider you want to use body count as a yardstick to measure the scale of the attack be my guest. Clinton did that during his 8 years and completly igrnored the problem.
khobar towers 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded.
African Embassy Bombings: Nairobi, where the embassy was located in a busy downtown area, 213 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the embassy was further from the city center, and the attack killed at least 12 and wounded 85.
USS Cole 17 sailors were killed and 39 others were injured
Even one attack on a US interest is too much. They weren't that "small scale" to those that were there and they definatly weren't that "small scale" to those familys that lost loved ones. Now I know what you are going to do you are going to change the subject and ignore what I said because you know you're wrong and play the Iraq card so be my guest.
Yeah really sucks to have a President do what the people
want. :rolleyes:
Maybe History see's Clinton as not that bad after the mess Bush has created.
As for the numbers on Nairobi your math is purposely misleading.
"twelve Americans were killed in Nairobi" Your same wikipedia source. And no americans in Dar es Salaam were killed.
So ALL the attacks you cite add up to 54 American deaths(including WTC #1), like I said it pales in comparison to 9/11.
Thats 54 over a 7 year period as well. That number is not high enough to spark public opinion into fighting a war on terrorism. Nor is it justification for going into a country and killing thousands just to make a point. It took 9/11 for America to have the justification to go to war. Guess that will fly right over your head though.
Dont forget that USS Cole was attacked 3 months prior to Bush coming in office. So again you can't just lay the blame at 1 person's doorstep.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah really sucks to have a President do what the people
want. :rolleyes:
Maybe History see's Clinton as not that bad after the mess Bush has created.
As for the numbers on Nairobi your math is purposely misleading.
"twelve Americans were killed in Nairobi" Your same wikipedia source. And no americans in Dar es Salaam were killed.
So ALL the attacks you cite add up to 54 American deaths(including WTC #1), like I said it pales in comparison to 9/11.
Thats 54 over a 7 year period as well. That number is not high enough to spark public opinion into fighting a war on terrorism. Nor is it justification for going into a country and killing thousands just to make a point. It took 9/11 for America to have the justification to go to war. Guess that will fly right over your head though.
Dont forget that USS Cole was attacked 3 months prior to Bush coming in office. So again you can't just lay the blame at 1 person's doorstep.
yea let's just ignore the small stuff until it get's bigger. Let's not do what's right let's do what's popular. You see were I'm goin. The head could have been cut off and the body rendered useless. THAT is why Bush is irrelevent to this conversation. THAT is why "small scale" or not the problem was ignored. And yes you can lay blame, it was his watch. The signs were there, he could have acted...and didn't.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea let's just ignore the small stuff until it get's bigger. Let's not do what's right let's do what's popular. You see were I'm goin. The head could have been cut off and the body rendered useless. THAT is why Bush is irrelevent to this conversation. THAT is why "small scale" or not the problem was ignored. And yes you can lay blame, it was his watch. The signs were there, he could have acted...and didn't.
How do you know that would have been better for us? You are just making a hypothetical situation. You have no idea if we even could have killed OBL had we made the attempt. You have no idea what killing OBL might have done to stir the Islamic community.Like I said we needed "justification" for striking at the terrorists in Soveriegn countries and we didn't have it. Not until 9/11 and that happened under Bush's watch.
They were both asleep at the wheel, difference is Bush had no political scandals keeping him from acting against AQ, perhaps you could point me to what he did prior to 9/11 to kill OBL???Bush never cared about OBL, all he wanted was Iraq.
Did you think AQ was a big threat during Clinton's presidency or just in hindsight? How many letters did you write to your Senators and Reps asking them to do something about AQ? Let me guess a big fat zero.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
How do you know that would have been better for us? You are just making a hypothetical situation. You have no idea if we even could have killed OBL had we made the attempt. You have no idea what killing OBL might have done to stir the Islamic community.Like I said we needed "justification" for striking at the terrorists in Soveriegn countries and we didn't have it. Not until 9/11 and that happened under Bush's watch.
They were both asleep at the wheel, difference is Bush had no political scandals keeping him from acting against AQ, perhaps you could point me to what he did prior to 9/11 to kill OBL???Bush never cared about OBL, all he wanted was Iraq.
Did you think AQ was a big threat during Clinton's presidency or just in hindsight? How many letters did you write to your Senators and Reps asking them to do something about AQ? Let me guess a big fat zero.
well 4 plus attacks on AMERICAN targets during his Admin I would hope that he was thinking about them. He probably thought the same way you did. "small scale" He wasn't all that good of president and his record shows it. Bush won't be that much better. He had the oppertunity and blew it. They were monitoring OBL in the Sudan and but did not have the charter to operate. If somone was responsible fore all the poeple he's killed or injured I think I would have acted on it. Of course the opinion poll at the time probably sudjested otherwise. Better to be popular and leave a legacy than to act on what's right.
-
As if Clinton knew the differance between "Scratchin his Watch or Winding his Asss"
Wuss Prez... Get it Straight, First he denied smokin herb in College..."I never inhaled.." Too "I never had sexual relations with that woman"
PaaaaLeez... if you are too frikken stupid to know if yer gettin stoned *AOL Clue Word "HIGH"* or gettin sex *AOL Clue Word "HEAD"* then maybe you need to take that last flyin Leap.
Clinton was a Moron and will always be. Hillery is just another one. Frikken Imbreds. But hell, welcome to Arkansas...
What a Country....
Mac
-
LOL, if you guys think al-queda started during clinton's watch then you really need to do some more reading/research.
I have two things to say about this issue.
1. All politicians lie, cheat etc etc. Its all about money, the world revolves around it.
2. Clinton's lieing to congress/jury/world etc did not make my friends (and lots of other people I know) go to a country to fight a war against people (who could not harm the U.S. at all) under false acusations/lies.
I have had my friends come back from OIF but still know some people over there (and now I heard the other day that even one of my squad members
is going over there soon) so I just hope that they come back real soon, unharmed, as I do for all our soldiers over there.
Peace.
-
Mosgood, ole Slick has plenty of brains. Unfortunately they're located south of the border.
A chief executive who chases skirts without regard for public opinion or the potential consequences IS a security risk. Kennedy had the same sickness. Are you not aware that the East German government hooked him up with a blonde bombshell, and that the Kennedy administration had her spirited out of the country when her connection to a communist government was discovered? That type of personal donutdello is a security agency's nightmare.
I'm sorry...but it WASN'T "...just about sex."
However, my main beef against Clinton was that he refused to learn from history. Specifically he refused to learn from the valuable lessons of the previous century, during which the U.S. became involved in three major wars dependent upon military forces that had been effectively neutered by idiotic disarmament and isolationist policies. Indeed, the nation's forces were so anemic in manpower and equipment as a result of those policies, that the first six months after Pearl Harbor proved to be nearly disastrous. Production capacity eventually pulled us out of that fiasco, but in this age of modern technology, such a miracle might not happen again.
Indeed, what sense did it make for the Clinton Administration to slash the military budget when U.S. forces are commited to defending vast stretches of the globe? The answer to that question is "none."
His attitude towards the military was shaped by the anti-war rhetoric of the 1960s. During the first two years of his administration, members of Clinton's staff displayed open hostility towards members of the military who were summoned to the White House for presidential briefings.
Clinton and his yippie staff never understood that the main task of the government is to provide security for the nation...not to redistribute wealth. Therefore, he and his staff couldn't see the necessity of accepting the offer of a middle eastern government to turn over Osama Ben Laden. One would think that after the first bombing of the World Trade Center that they would jump at the chance of capturing a major terrorist leader who openly threatened the government and people of the United States...but such was not the case. The man simply wasn't on their radar screen.
One could say, I suppose, that he had the good sense to keep his hands off of a rapidly booming economy. Yet, I doubt he would have shown such restraint if his policies had not caused his party to lose control of the House of Representitives in the congressional elections of 1994. His first two years prior to that event had all the hallmarks of being a touchie-feelie, solve all our problems with social programs, spendfest.
The economy would have grown during that period regardless of whether of not Clinton was in office.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well 4 plus attacks on AMERICAN targets during his Admin I would hope that he was thinking about them. He probably thought the same way you did. "small scale" He wasn't all that good of president and his record shows it. Bush won't be that much better. He had the oppertunity and blew it. They were monitoring OBL in the Sudan and but did not have the charter to operate. If somone was responsible fore all the poeple he's killed or injured I think I would have acted on it. Of course the opinion poll at the time probably sudjested otherwise. Better to be popular and leave a legacy than to act on what's right.
How many chances did we have to stop 9/11 and our people failed? I am talking about having Zacarias Moussaoui in custody prior to 9/11 and not being able to break him. I am talking about the female FBI agent that warned of Muslims taking flying lessons and how it should be looked into. I am talking about "Able Danger". Clinton didn't fail us, our system did.
An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command. "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project had been overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2000 in hope of tracking down terror suspects tied to Al Qaeda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/politics/23cnd-intel.html?ei=5094&en=ed47ced9232725eb&hp=&ex=1124769600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
-
Originally posted by Raider179
How many chances did we have to stop 9/11 and our people failed? I am talking about having Zacarias Moussaoui in custody prior to 9/11 and not being able to break him. I am talking about the female FBI agent that warned of Muslims taking flying lessons and how it should be looked into. I am talking about "Able Danger". Clinton didn't fail us, our system did.
An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command. "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project had been overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2000 in hope of tracking down terror suspects tied to Al Qaeda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/politics/23cnd-intel.html?ei=5094&en=ed47ced9232725eb&hp=&ex=1124769600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
yup and why do you think all of that is?
-
Clinton was a closet Republican (not the sex and lying part though as that could be from any party).
-
Mighty fine fellow!
-
if i got an report penned by some twit pentagon captain named Philpott I'd probably ****-can it too.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Best cigar advertising EVAR!
OMG Saw you gave me lady throuses :O
Did you note that ?
Anyway im back :)
Now i have to sort out my brain to speak just one language :D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think his handling of Jocelyn Elders was shameful. She gave an honest, insightful answer to a sensitive question, and his cowtowing to the religious right was a disgrace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Elders
Just unbelievable. I imagine things like that could have happened in the early 20th century, but it happened just 10 years ago!
-
Agreed. I suspect that there are people on this board who like the fact that she was asked to resign for those comments, but don't know how to say it without accidentally looking like they agree with something that Clinton the monster did.
Truly, a conundrum.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yup and why do you think all of that is?
Lawyers and our laws from what I can see.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
if i got an report penned by some twit pentagon captain named Philpott I'd probably ****-can it too.
Where is all that respect you were demanding of me for vets from the sniper thread??? This guy is active duty and you just called him a twit and made fun of his name and basically called him a liar... Figures, typical hypocritical bs.
here is your quote
"I'd like you to think about what you just posted, I'd like you to show a little respect for a vet, and I'd like very much for you to stop doing everything you can to put this guy's personal battle for his sanity and dignity in as poor a light as possible
Can you do that?"
The question really seems to be can you do that...
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
if i got an report penned by some twit pentagon captain named Philpott I'd probably ****-can it too.
Here is some background on philpott.
The statement from Captain Phillpott , a 1983 Naval Academy graduate who has served in the Navy for 22 years"
Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
No he doesn't, but I'm wondering why such a big mess was made out of Clinton's affairs, while no other president has been made to go through the same or why they aren't as interested in more serious allegations.
Because he allowed it to be. It's the same reason Nixon got screwed. It's not the act it's the coverup. If Nixon would have come out and said "yes, some in my administration broke the law and they are being punished" Watergate would have blown over. If Clinton would have said, "Yes, I got a hummer, I'm sorry to my family and to the country", he would have taken the wind out of his enemies sails.
When you give your political enemies the ammunition to shoot you they will. That's politics.
"Tell the truth, tell it early, tell it often", Lanny Davis
The Clinton admin built a culture in the government that "civil liberties/human rights" were more important than national security. If the questin was between national security and violating someones "civil liberties/human rights", national security lost. They truly believe that this is the right thing to do. They will risk lives to protect some vegue concept of civil liberties. This is why these people can never be trusted with our security again.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Because he allowed it to be. It's the same reason Nixon got screwed. It's not the act it's the coverup. If Nixon would have come out and said "yes, some in my administration broke the law and they are being punished" Watergate would have blown over. If Clinton would have said, "Yes, I got a hummer, I'm sorry to my family and to the country", he would have taken the wind out of his enemies sails.
When you give your political enemies the ammunition to shoot you they will. That's politics.
"Tell the truth, tell it early, tell it often", Lanny Davis
The Clinton admin built a culture in the government that "civil liberties/human rights" were more important than national security. If the questin was between national security and violating someones "civil liberties/human rights", national security lost. They truly believe that this is the right thing to do. They will risk lives to protect some vegue concept of civil liberties. This is why these people can never be trusted with our security again.
I agree with your points on giving your enemies ammunition. I do disagree though that somehow Clinton blew it in regards to national security.
Here is a report from CNN about how our "Passenger Aircraft" are still vulnerable 4 years after 9/11.
"Nearly four years after 9/11, Americans flying on passenger planes remain vulnerable to another terrorist attack in the air because of lax screening of the millions of tons of cargo loaded into the belly of aircraft, a three-month CNN investigation shows."
4 years after 9/11 and we still don't have secured aircraft/cargo. How was Clinton supposed to protect us prior to 9/11 when after it we still can't say its safe to fly on passenger planes?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
3 out of my 9 were comparing to Bush granted.
still doesnt account for no response on #'s 3,4,5,8,9.
3. was really congress. This was pushed through by the Senator from NJ. The guy who had to drop out of his last election for taking bribes. I'm not sure if Clinton signed it or if it was GHW but Clinton did not seek to undo it.
4. I don't think you can say "full access" there were some serious intellegence disasters regarding China. Along with some questionable campaign contributions.
5. It is the executive branch that is tasked with National Security not Congress. There is a reason those who are granted high security clearences are advised against having extra-marrital affairs. They can be used against you. Bill should have heeded this advice. Terrorism was seen as a distraction not a priority to Clinton. It would have most likely remained so if 9/11 had not happened.
8. No, because he was not charged in a Court of Law. He could not be. The Senate failed to vote in the majority to impeach him. This is not an aquittal. He lied under oath to the question of whether he had sexual relations with Monika Lewinski. It's not about the question, it'a about the answer. Any question you are asked during a Grand Jury investigation has to be answered truthfully no matter how inappropriate you feel it might be. They can ask you if your underwear is pink and if you lie about it you are committing perjury. I'm sure if I looked I could find a case for you.
9. Again, because he allowed it to happen. The opposition will always try these tactics. They are trying it now with GW. It is up to the president to defeat these tactics and Clinton failed to do that. You seem to totally misunderstand this whole issue. It's not about the BJ it's about lieing to the Grand Jury. This whole affair show the fundimental flaw in Clinton's character. He just could not bring himself to tell the truth about something so insignificant and it got his butt in a sling. I doubt it had much affect on his decisions regarding terrirists. Can you see him telling the Am. people and the rest of the world that he is going to invade Afghanistan? That just would not have happened, Monika or no Monika. Without a 9/11 event his options were very limited.
-
Originally posted by Charon
1. He discouraged aggressive anti trust action to the point where many of our major industries are close enough to being monopolies that they might as well be. As a result, there is less need to actually serve customers or innovate.
2. He promoted NAFTA and globalization without any safeguards to insure a somewhat level playing field. Of course another country can make cheaper products if they can dump their waste directly into the rivers and air and use child labor (or even the local convicts) at a fraction of the cost of Western workers.
3. Significantly eroded our personal rights to prop up the failed and costly "War on Drugs." The reason the right hates him so much, IMO, is that he stole their agenda early on (when they shot down his initial personal reform efforts). How can we beat this guy if he has our own platform? (They found a way, turn him into a pariah though one of the the longest, most agressive smear campaign in political history.) Being tough on crime became important to his political success, and it came at the expense of our personal liberties.
4. He launched a number of foreign policy initiatives, but ultimately failed to close the deal (the Middle East, for example) even though he got close.
5. I see the whole Al Queda thing as a wash or at best a matter of degree. There was no Republican Congressional push for more action in the wake of those attacks. Bush didn't push for more action and was primarily concerned with "Star Wars" until 9/11. We/they were all asleep at the wheel until 9/11. Then it was time for the blame game. It wasn't even a campaign issue as I recall, and that says something right there especially since his other international efforts (where he was "taking action") were campaign issues. And the Republican position wasn't that he was doing too little abroad...
BTW, Human intel has been unpopular in Washington since the first Defense contractor shot a multi-million dollar satellite into orbit. It has been a serious issue ever since. Defense contractor dollars carry a lot more weight than low tech human intel where budgeting is concerned.
Charon
1. true
2. Both side are guilty of this.
3. But he gave them the means to do this. There was enough smoke to make the acusation of fire stick. The same kind of smear campaign was tried against Reagan but he was to smart for them and didn't have all that smoke. While he's a good politician he wasn't very good at this, the nastiest part of the game.
4. The key word is FAILED. You can include North Korea in that list.
5. Agreed. The culture that the Clintons established in the government did help to hinder the ability to fight global terrorists. Let's not forget though, that is was GW's father who abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after the Soviets left.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
How many chances did we have to stop 9/11 and our people failed? I am talking about having Zacarias Moussaoui in custody prior to 9/11 and not being able to break him. I am talking about the female FBI agent that warned of Muslims taking flying lessons and how it should be looked into. I am talking about "Able Danger". Clinton didn't fail us, our system did.
An active-duty Navy captain has become the second military officer to come forward publicly to say that a secret defense intelligence program tagged the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a possible terrorist more than a year before the attacks.
The officer, Scott J. Phillpott, said in a statement today that he could not discuss details of the military program, which was called Able Danger, but confirmed that its analysts had identified the Sept. 11 ringleader, Mohamed Atta, by name by early 2000. "My story is consistent," said Captain Phillpott, who managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations Command. "Atta was identified by Able Danger by January-February of 2000."
His comments came on the same day that the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters that the Defense Department had been unable to validate the assertions made by an Army intelligence veteran, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, and now backed up by Captain Phillpott, about the early identification of Mr. Atta.
Colonel Shaffer went public with his assertions last week, saying that analysts in the intelligence project had been overruled by military lawyers when they tried to share the program's findings with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2000 in hope of tracking down terror suspects tied to Al Qaeda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/politics/23cnd-intel.html?ei=5094&en=ed47ced9232725eb&hp=&ex=1124769600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
Raider, this is what I'm saying when I say they created a culture that allowed this to happen. They may not have actually created the walls between the agencies but they certainly reinforced them. The results are obvious.
-
I don't think billy jeff can tell time, he has no need of a watch.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
3. was really congress. This was pushed through by the Senator from NJ. The guy who had to drop out of his last election for taking bribes. I'm not sure if Clinton signed it or if it was GHW but Clinton did not seek to undo it.
4. I don't think you can say "full access" there were some serious intellegence disasters regarding China. Along with some questionable campaign contributions.
5. It is the executive branch that is tasked with National Security not Congress. There is a reason those who are granted high security clearences are advised against having extra-marrital affairs. They can be used against you. Bill should have heeded this advice. Terrorism was seen as a distraction not a priority to Clinton. It would have most likely remained so if 9/11 had not happened.
8. No, because he was not charged in a Court of Law. He could not be. The Senate failed to vote in the majority to impeach him. This is not an aquittal. He lied under oath to the question of whether he had sexual relations with Monika Lewinski. It's not about the question, it'a about the answer. Any question you are asked during a Grand Jury investigation has to be answered truthfully no matter how inappropriate you feel it might be. They can ask you if your underwear is pink and if you lie about it you are committing perjury. I'm sure if I looked I could find a case for you.
9. Again, because he allowed it to happen. The opposition will always try these tactics. They are trying it now with GW. It is up to the president to defeat these tactics and Clinton failed to do that. You seem to totally misunderstand this whole issue. It's not about the BJ it's about lieing to the Grand Jury. This whole affair show the fundimental flaw in Clinton's character. He just could not bring himself to tell the truth about something so insignificant and it got his butt in a sling. I doubt it had much affect on his decisions regarding terrirists. Can you see him telling the Am. people and the rest of the world that he is going to invade Afghanistan? That just would not have happened, Monika or no Monika. Without a 9/11 event his options were very limited.
LoL not sure but think you agreed with most of my points and see why Gunslinger won't/can't respond to them.
5)Our entire government is tasked with national security.
http://www.house.gov/hasc/
8)HOWEVER: The issue of criminal charges against the president and the issue of impeachment exist within two separate realms, one judicial and one political.
The criminal charges, which Kenneth Starr would be responsible for, adhere to the specifics of federal law. But impeachment proceedings, which the House of Representatives would commence, have scant historical precedent as to how they would be conducted and are political -- not judicial -- acts. Now that the House has Starr's report, they must decide how to proceed and just how serious Starr's allegations are.
It is also unclear whether criminal charges against the president could be pursued while he is in office. The U.S. Supreme Court was to decide that issue in 1974 in U.S.
http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/clintoncrisis/guide.html
lol not the best source but I think fairly reliable. So whether you can try a sitting president in a "regular" court seems to be undecided. I am not sure how the supreme court would decide, but I dont see any reason why they couldnt charge him. Just because your president doesn't mean you have "free reign" to break the law for 4 years at a time.
9) I agree with ya, he could have took the wind out of the sails before they got filled.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Raider, this is what I'm saying when I say they created a culture that allowed this to happen. They may not have actually created the walls between the agencies but they certainly reinforced them. The results are obvious.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Raider179, that was his best moment.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...:aok
-
Originally posted by Raider179
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...:aok
Oh thats right it was Paula Jones,
Like I said there were so many.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
-
Never understood why Clinton's sex life was a good indicator of his abilities as a president. If he's no good as a leader by all means get rid of him but to say hes unfit for office because he had a bit on the side is realy a bit stupid. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by JBA
Oh thats right it was Paula Jones,
Like I said there were so many.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm
If I read the testimony right, he used the Reagan defense.
"JUDGE WRIGHT: I overrule the objection. I will permit it. The nature of many of the responses has been he doesn't recall or he doesn't know, and so he has not outright denied it."
In regard to being Clinton alone with Monica.
They didnt call him slick willy for no reason. lol
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Never understood why Clinton's sex life was a good indicator of his abilities as a president. If he's no good as a leader by all means get rid of him but to say hes unfit for office because he had a bit on the side is realy a bit stupid. :rolleyes:
I wonder if Monica would have been better looking, if it would have been such a big deal. Everyone lies about doing the fat ugly chicks. lol
-
:lol
well he seemed a t more normal bloke than the religious zealot idiot in power now!