Clinton on Foxnews Sunday

[sonar732]

Ok...what is your take? Does anyone know the true facts of Clinton's attempt to get OBL? I'm familiar with the TLAM attack and the flack he got for "wasting million dollar missiles to attack mud huts". If he had a chance to get OBL, then it was well worth the money.

[The Avon Lady]

Clinton rage: the morning after (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005983.htm).

[nikimcbee]

Funny stuff:oops:

"I shot, but I didn't hit":dead:

[waste gate]

The anger which Clinton showed was disporportionate to the question which everyone, certainly Clinton and his handlers, knew was going to be asked. Reminds me of the "didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski", statement while he wagged his finger at the American people. That was a lie and so is this act.

But the publicity he undeservably craves is established.

[Immacolata]

Clinton rage: the morning after (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005983.htm).

The point being?

[The Avon Lady]

Clinton rage: the morning after (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005983.htm).
The point being?
This has been an exercise in reading comprehension.

[waste gate]

The lie

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

The act

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnQ0g4BhHss

[Camaero]

It was sort of nice to see someone in the political game not just reading from a script. I guess knowing Clinton it could of all been BS.

However, I think my opinion of him went up from abysmal to low. :roll:

[waste gate]

I guess this is how he tried to get UBL.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vN1OCrRrgVw&mode=related&search=

[Immacolata]

LOL! :rotfl:

[bradclark1]

The lie

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

The act

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnQ0g4BhHss

Funny when Clinton used cruise missiles to try and get ObL people like you were saying he did it to try and swing attention away from Lewinski. I guess you forgot that Bush didn't do squat until 9/11. Must have trying to work up a strategy to invade Iraq huh?

[tycho102]

You know what really pisses me off about Clinton?

The "guy" was so worried about the fallout from the Lewenski affair that he didn't take action. He didn't take action because he couldn't risk, politically, any more negative consequences. This is why the ******* we have ethics laws. This is why the UCMJ has Article 134.

Conduct unbecoming the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

If he'd just have kept his pecker in his pants for a little while longer, he would have been "morally" and "ethically" strong enough to actually attempt to drop Osama and deal with civilian/mujahideen casualities.

[waste gate]

The lie

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

The act

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnQ0g4BhHss

Funny when Clinton used cruise missiles to try and get ObL people like you were saying he did it to try and swing attention away from Lewinski. I guess you forgot that Bush didn't do squat until 9/11. Must have trying to work up a strategy to invade Iraq huh?

Clinton didn't do it in eight years. But he tried by degrading the military to the point of uselessness, throwing TLAMs into the desert, and renting out the white house to the highest political contributor. The man was and is white trash.

[The Avon Lady]

Funny when Clinton used cruise missiles to try and get ObL people like you were saying he did it to try and swing attention away from Lewinski.
Funny you just made the same false finger-wagging accusations Clinton himself made, which is exactly one of the reasons for the disgust of Clinton's response in this interview.

Why don't you refresh your memory:

Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5888).

[waste gate]

If he'd just have kept his pecker in his pants for a little while longer, he would have been "morally" and "ethically" strong enough to actually attempt to drop Osama and deal with civilian/mujahideen casualities.

Spot on.

[The Avon Lady]

[QUOTE]Spot on.
.......... the blue dress. :lol:

[Onkel Neal]

One thing about Bush, he didn't even know Musharraf's name until after he got a pop quiz sprung on him before the 2000 election. :)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991104/aponline181051_000.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991104/aponline181051_000.htm)

[waste gate]

Perhaps Bush didn't know, but Clinton did, and this thread is about how Clinton sold this country down the river, and is now trying to re-write history to suit his 'legacy'.

BTW Why did my avitar change to the insulting/then back.

[Onkel Neal]

Conduct unbecoming the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

If he'd just have kept his pecker in his pants for a little while longer, he would have been "morally" and "ethically" strong enough to actually attempt to drop Osama and deal with civilian/mujahideen casualities.

I agree, he should have been more honest and disciplined, it would have helped him do his job. If he had not been involved in sexual harrassment grand jury investigations, he could have used more force in dealing with OBL and not been accused of wagging the dog.

I also think the prevailing PC attitudes of many in our country inhibited Clinton from doing what was necessary. We are still dealing with those attitudes today.

Small request: let's not get too carried away with calling Clinton names, he was President of the country and the office should get some respect (even if he didn't always show the office respect). Thanks :yep:

[waste gate]

Small request: let's not get too carried away with calling Clinton names, he was President of the country and the office should get some respect (even if he didn't always show the office respect). Thanks

PC attitude.?????????

[Fish]

Seems he is not the only one who tells lies. And this is from a republican.:o



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XinjJ5aa-GY&mode=related&search=

[waste gate]

many of the things this fellow is saying were never said by anyone in a position to know. The NYTimes and the media are not authoritative by any stretch of the imagination.


I guess some folks belong to 'the facts will not be used sway my opinion crowd'.

[Onkel Neal]

Small request: let's not get too carried away with calling Clinton names, he was President of the country and the office should get some respect (even if he didn't always show the office respect). Thanks

PC attitude.?????????

I like to think of it more as showing a little dignity.

[waste gate]

Small request: let's not get too carried away with calling Clinton names, he was President of the country and the office should get some respect (even if he didn't always show the office respect). Thanks

PC attitude.?????????

I like to think of it more as showing a little dignity.

I never said anything to disparage the office. Its the man who is of low/no character.

[bradclark1]

many of the things this fellow is saying were never said by anyone in a position to know.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :damn:
The blind leading the blind.

[bradclark1]

Funny when Clinton used cruise missiles to try and get ObL people like you were saying he did it to try and swing attention away from Lewinski.
Funny you just made the same false finger-wagging accusations Clinton himself made, which is exactly one of the reasons for the disgust of Clinton's response in this interview.

Why don't you refresh your memory:

Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5888).

Where am I wrong? I said people like him.
What does refreshing my memory have to do with it?

[bradclark1]

Clinton didn't do it in eight years. But he tried by degrading the military to the point of uselessness, throwing TLAMs into the desert, and renting out the white house to the highest political contributor. The man was and is white trash.
Read up on the military downsizing before you try and talk will you? Throwing a TLAM is a lot more then Bush did. Bush even cut the Predator recon flights.

[nikimcbee]

[quote=tycho102]

Small request: let's not get too carried away with calling Clinton names, he was President of the country and the office should get some respect (even if he didn't always show the office respect). Thanks :yep:


...Canceling order of popcorn, packing up lawn chair, putting stones back in bag.:nope:

I'll do my favorite movie quote then:

What's your name?

Jim. But people call me................................................ ..............Jim.

Well Jim, what do you like to do?

I like to [another word for copulate] and play chess.

(long pause)
Let's play chess.:oops:



Blazing Saddles


Clinton should have "played chess."

[Onkel Neal]

Clinton should have "played chess."

Yeah, agreed. President is a pretty serious position, and being married is a serious obligation, and telling the truth under oath is a sacred responsibility. Clinton could have done better, he should have done better.

Disclaimer: Neal Stevens voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 over the candidate who used the following pledge to win election in 1988:

And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’

[scandium]

I like to think of Clinton as the best Republican President the US has had since Reagan (didn't always agree with Reagan's policies, and his trickle down economics is no longer taken seriously by most economists, but the guy had charisma, smarts, and managed to do things his own way without alienating people at home or abroad). I know Clinton was a "democrat", but if you actually look at the bulk of what he did in office then he was, by any honest measure, either a very conservative democrat or a very moderate republican.

I'd probably give Reagan a C+ (strong foreign policy, very mediocre domestic policy, but it was hard not to like the guy anyway), Bush Sr a D (great cv, foreign policy expert, won a nearly bloodless war, at least for our side, that could have been avoided and followed it up with crippling, almost genocidal sanctions while being very unpopular on domestic issues), Clinton a B- (peace, prosperity, but generally maintained the status quo otherwise... also, like Reagan, very bright, well spoken and likable) and Bush Jr a big fat Zero; in fact, I think its time to expel him from office as he seems to have the anti-Midas touch... everything he touches turns to ****... but alas, the thread's not about Bush Jr. :D

[Sea Demon]

I watched that Clinton interview video. And it looks to me that his legacy is finally catching up to him. And he doesn't quite like it. He's upset because G.W. Bush is actually taking proactive measures to confront the threat. And that makes Clinton's 8 years of sweeping under the rug look truly pathetic. And while Bush confronts the problem, Clinton's party tells us we're creating more of the problem by confronting it. Clinton's party suggests we just sit here on our hands and die. Because we certainly don't want to make the terrorists mad by fighting them. And to top it off, these Democrats actually want to win elections and lead the nation. Just incredible.

he seems to have the anti-Midas touch...blah...blah.....blah

Since you're not an American and can't vote in my country, I'll take it easy on you, since your views of Bush are largely irrelevant. But I will say that Bush's pro-growth policies have worked as our economy is growing stronger at this point than at any time under Clinton. We currently have better unemployment numbers, lower inflation, lower taxes, and higher homeownership. We also have a President willing to confront the enemy, rather than sweep it under the rug. And the most important point is he doesn't seem to care a wit what foreign socialists have to say. Bush does what he feels is best for the national interest. But then again, yes, this thread is not about President Bush. We're supposed to be talking about Clinton here. So why bring up Bush, scandium? You're as transparent as the rest of em'. ;)

[Camaero]

Since you're not an American and can't vote in my country, I'll take it easy on you, since your views of Bush are largely irrelevant. But I will say that Bush's pro-growth policies have worked as our economy is growing stronger at this point than at any time under Clinton. We currently have better unemployment numbers, lower inflation, lower taxes, and higher homeownership. We also have a President willing to confront the enemy, rather than sweep it under the rug. And the most important point is he doesn't seem to care a wit what foreign socialists have to say. Bush does what he feels is best for the national interest. But then again, yes, this thread is not about President Bush. We're supposed to be talking about Clinton here. So why bring up Bush, scandium? You're as transparent as the rest of em'. ;)

Cheers on all points by you. :()1:

[Immacolata]

he seems to have the anti-Midas touch...blah...blah.....blah

Since you're not an American and can't vote in my country, I'll take it easy on you, since your views of Bush are largely irrelevant. But I will say that Bush's pro-growth policies have worked as our economy is growing stronger at this point than at any time under Clinton. We currently have better unemployment numbers, lower inflation, lower taxes, and higher homeownership. We also have a President willing to confront the enemy, rather than sweep it under the rug. And the most important point is he doesn't seem to care a wit what foreign socialists have to say. Bush does what he feels is best for the national interest. But then again, yes, this thread is not about President Bush. We're supposed to be talking about Clinton here. So why bring up Bush, scandium? You're as transparent as the rest of em'. ;)

Thats funny. I am very sure that american presidents at large do what they think is best for the country - AND what is within their means. I am not sure what pro growth policies you refer to, but the world at large has experienced growth in the last 5 years, and to credit bush with that is perhaps giving him a little more credit than he deserve.

But please, carry on with your president bashin. The First World War was fought in the trenches of europe. Only late did the americans join the cause. And it looks like they took that fancy trench digging with them back, because I am really surprised at how bitter people express themselves everywhere. Gallons of scalding bileful puke vomitted in every direction, be it bush or clinton. It is as if you are trying to poison your own political climate. Why? Richer than ever, but also more insufferable than ever?

[Fish]

Clinton didn't do it in eight years. But he tried by degrading the military to the point of uselessness, throwing TLAMs into the desert, and renting out the white house to the highest political contributor. The man was and is white trash.
Read up on the military downsizing before you try and talk will you? Throwing a TLAM is a lot more then Bush did. Bush even cut the Predator recon flights.

Here is someone defending him.


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/olbermanns-special-comment-are-yours-the-actions-of-a-true-american/

[Fish]

I watched that Clinton interview video. And it looks to me that his legacy is finally catching up to him. And he doesn't quite like it. He's upset because G.W. Bush is actually taking proactive measures to confront the threat. And that makes Clinton's 8 years of sweeping under the rug look truly pathetic. And while Bush confronts the problem, Clinton's party tells us we're creating more of the problem by confronting it. Clinton's party suggests we just sit here on our hands and die. Because we certainly don't want to make the terrorists mad by fighting them. And to top it off, these Democrats actually want to win elections and lead the nation. Just incredible.

he seems to have the anti-Midas touch...blah...blah.....blah

Since you're not an American and can't vote in my country, I'll take it easy on you, since your views of Bush are largely irrelevant. But I will say that Bush's pro-growth policies have worked as our economy is growing stronger at this point than at any time under Clinton. We currently have better unemployment numbers, lower inflation, lower taxes, and higher homeownership. We also have a President willing to confront the enemy, rather than sweep it under the rug. And the most important point is he doesn't seem to care a wit what foreign socialists have to say. Bush does what he feels is best for the national interest. But then again, yes, this thread is not about President Bush. We're supposed to be talking about Clinton here. So why bring up Bush, scandium? You're as transparent as the rest of em'. ;)

He Seademon, this is a American, does his words count?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/major-general-john-batiste-opening-at-the-hearing-on-rummy/

[SkvyWvr]

The lie

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

The act

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BnQ0g4BhHss

Funny when Clinton used cruise missiles to try and get ObL people like you were saying he did it to try and swing attention away from Lewinski. I guess you forgot that Bush didn't do squat until 9/11. Must have trying to work up a strategy to invade Iraq huh?

Aw christ. Here we go with the Bush bulls**t again.:damn: :damn: :damn: :roll:

[SkvyWvr]

I am not sure what pro growth policies you refer to, but the world at large has experienced growth in the last 5 years, and to credit bush with that is perhaps giving him a little more credit than he deserve.
:huh: I don't believe anyone said anything about world growth.:huh:

And it looks like they took that fancy trench digging with them back, because I am really surprised at how bitter people express themselves everywhere.
:hmm: Humm. Let me think.......nope, I haven't a clue what thats supossed to mean.

It is as if you are trying to poison your own political climate. Why? Richer than ever, but also more insufferable than ever?
Easy solution to this. If you see an American trying to spend money in one of your shops, don't take it, ignore him and let him go elsewhere. Also, never come to the US, that way you won't have to deal with us "insufferable" people. Works for me.:up:

[Immacolata]

The growth in world economy hangs together very much these days. If foreigners hadn't pined for american products, you would have to shoulder it on domestic trade only. And that wouldn't be enough for the economic upturn lately.

Trenches? I see libs shooting bush calling him the worst thing ever to happen to the uSa. The world. Mankind. And I see tories shooting at Bill giving him all the blame in the world for everything related to terrorists, the economy, crime etc.

Thats trench warfare. No one gets anywhere but a lot of shots are being fired.

Its the political climate I was talking about, which largely lives in media these days. No need to go anywhere but into your living room or onto the big internet to see that.

[SkvyWvr]

The growth in world economy hangs together very much these days. If foreigners hadn't pined for american products, you would have to shoulder it on domestic trade only. And that wouldn't be enough for the economic upturn lately.

Trenches? I see libs shooting bush calling him the worst thing ever to happen to the uSa. The world. Mankind. And I see tories shooting at Bill giving him all the blame in the world for everything related to terrorists, the economy, crime etc.

Thats trench warfare. No one gets anywhere but a lot of shots are being fired.

Its the political climate I was talking about, which largely lives in media these days. No need to go anywhere but into your living room or onto the big internet to see that.

All your points/views spring from 1 thing (see underlined above). The media is suffering from a heavy port list. No matter how much pumping it will not right itself.

[Immacolata]

I couldn't agree more with you on that. But there is no getting around the fact that a major part of the population experiences the political life by mediation. Even this little thread of caustic attacks and hostile replies is mediated politics. I am sure each and everyone of us in this thread are quite amicable and well behaved out in meatspace. Do you understand what I meant now?

[SkvyWvr]

I couldn't agree more with you on that. But there is no getting around the fact that a major part of the population experiences the political life by mediation. Even this little thread of caustic attacks and hostile replies is mediated politics. I am sure each and everyone of us in this thread are quite amicable and well behaved out in meatspace. Do you understand what I meant now?

I understood before but don't agree with much of what you have said. You are an outsider looking in through the fog of a left slanting media.

[Immacolata]

Or I am an outsider looking on a right slanting world through media :)

[Bort]

I'm absolutely sick and tired of this left wing media BS. Every time somebody brings up a bit of bad news that doesn't aid the Republican cause, its those damn commie reporters and I can't stand it. Republicans have no idea how easy the media has been on them, there was hardly any questioning of the tactics that they used in Afghanistan or the reason for war in Iraq and believe me, just a little bit of digging on either of those subjects would have found a giant cesspool of poor planning and a complete and total lack of reason or benefit for a war. The media, including those reporters that are assaulted day in and day out for being slanted against Bush spent a heckuva lot more time analyzing Bill Clinton's genitals than they ever did examining the "threat" Iraq posed to the US. And before you say that I'm just another leftie that gets his news from the major networks, for the most part I don't. The newspaper I read daily is the Chicago Tribune, a famously conservative source, the news magazine I read is the Economist which isn't really meant for the hemp wearing potheads amongst us, and the news I watch on TV is BBC World, which covers stories that our own crud news won't touch with a ten foot pole. Bill Clinton was right to lash out at Fox news and he would have been just as justified lashing out at any other US reporter- save Jon Stewart- from any other US network because they are idiots who have no interest whatsoever in the facts and only care about making a splash. :stare:

[scandium]

Since you're not an American and can't vote in my country, I'll take it easy on you, since your views of Bush are largely irrelevant. That's very kind of you.


But I will say that Bush's pro-growth policies have worked as our economy is growing stronger at this point than at any time under Clinton. We currently have better unemployment numbers, lower inflation, lower taxes, and higher homeownership.

Or so he says in his speeches, but do you have any stats to back that up? Also I'd love to hear your theories on why Americans outsource so much to Canada when we have almost currency parity and our minimum wage is double that of many US states. Could it be a better educated workforce up north? Or higher productivity because all Canadians have health insurance that the employer doesn't have to either choose between footing the bill for it (HMO) or his employees missing more work than they would otherwise because they are uninsured and can't afford to see a doctor? :hmm: By the way I used to work for one such company, an American company with its offices and employees in Canada providing tech support to customers phoning in exclusively from the US... and while this does contribute to your GNP (but more for our own GDP, it does SFA for your labour market). And this is a growing trend with no end in sight as more and more of your jobs disappear to either the 3rd world (the sweatshop stuff), Mexico (ditto but a step above), and Canada (manufacturing and technology related jobs). But keep smoking that crack pipe... :D

We also have a President willing to confront the enemy, rather than sweep it under the rug. And the most important point is he doesn't seem to care a wit what foreign socialists have to say. Bush does what he feels is best for the national interest. But then again, yes, this thread is not about President Bush. We're supposed to be talking about Clinton here. So why bring up Bush, scandium? You're as transparent as the rest of em'. ;)

More empty rhetoric, do you moonlight filling in for Rush Limbaugh when he's AWOL on Oxy? :|\\

[August]

This is a nice summation of the things Clinton was wrong about in this interview:

Wall Street Journal
September 27, 2006
Pg. 18

What President Clinton Didn't Do

By Richard Miniter

Bill Clinton's outburst on Fox News was something of a public service, launching a debate about the antiterror policies of his administration. This is important because every George W. Bush policy that arouses the ire of Democrats -- the Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, detention without trial, pre-emptive war -- is a departure from his predecessor. Where policies overlap -- air attacks on infrastructure, secret presidential orders to kill terrorists, intelligence sharing with allies, freezing bank accounts, using police to arrest terror suspects -- there is little friction. The question, then, is whether America should return to Mr. Clinton's policies or soldier on with Mr. Bush's.

It is vital that this debate be honest, but so far this has not been the case. Both Mr. Clinton's outrage at Chris Wallace's questioning and the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" are attempts to polarize the nation's memory. While this divisiveness may be good for Mr. Clinton's reputation, it is ultimately unhealthy for the country. What we need, instead, is a cold-eyed look at what works against terrorists and what does not. The policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations ought to be put to the same iron test.

With that in mind, let us examine Mr. Clinton's war on terror. Some 38 days after he was sworn in, al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center. He did not visit the twin towers that year, even though four days after the attack he was just across the Hudson River in New Jersey, talking about job training. He made no attempt to rally the public against terrorism. His only public speech on the bombing was a few paragraphs inserted into a radio address mostly devoted an economic stimulus package. Those stray paragraphs were limited to reassuring the public and thanking the rescuers, the kinds of things governors say after hurricanes. He did not even vow to bring the bombers to justice. Instead, he turned the first terrorist attack on American soil over to the FBI.

In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said "no one knew that al Qaeda existed" in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden "sometime in 1993," when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden's agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed's men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.

By the end of Mr. Clinton's first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.

*In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched "Operation Bojinka" to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

*In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

*In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the "no-fly zones" over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

*In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: "If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." No response from the Clinton administration.

*In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton's critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

Still, "Operation Infinite Reach" was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan's army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan's links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

*In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda's Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke's objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

*In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"

There is much more to Mr. Clinton's record -- how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

[Konovalov]

Is this another blame game Democrats vs Republicans thread? :roll:

[Bort]

I also get my news from the news, not from the opinion columns written by left or right wing wackos in the back of the paper. Anybody can take a jumble of largely unrelated and incoherent facts and put them together to make them look like anything they want. The bottom line is that whatever Clinton's shortcomings might have been, the absolutely pale in comparison to Dubya.

[August]

* Bort']I also get my news from the news, not from the opinion columns written by left or right wing wackos in the back of the paper. Anybody can take a jumble of largely unrelated and incoherent facts and put them together to make them look like anything they want. The bottom line is that whatever Clinton's shortcomings might have been, the absolutely pale in comparison to Dubya.


Show me "the news" that isn't someones opinion. Do you dispute the facts mentioned in that WSJ article i posted?

[sonar732]

* Bort']I also get my news from the news, not from the opinion columns written by left or right wing wackos in the back of the paper. Anybody can take a jumble of largely unrelated and incoherent facts and put them together to make them look like anything they want. The bottom line is that whatever Clinton's shortcomings might have been, the absolutely pale in comparison to Dubya.
It is well known that CNN has a slightly left side and FOX News leans to the right. :roll:

Do I dare bring up the Dan Rather incident that basically got him canned?

[ReallyDedPoet]

What we need are more credible new programs, something CNN and especially Fox!! are not.

[The Avon Lady]

What we really need is to lighten up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u_HuqllpQw)! :p

[ASWnut101]

Clinton didn't do it in eight years. But he tried by degrading the military to the point of uselessness, throwing TLAMs into the desert, and renting out the white house to the highest political contributor. The man was and is white trash.
Read up on the military downsizing before you try and talk will you? Throwing a TLAM is a lot more then Bush did. Bush even cut the Predator recon flights.


After how many years in counrty?

1?
2?
3?
4?
maby even five?

:stare: you may also be forgetting the boots on the ground still there too.

[bradclark1]

:hmm: I really don't know what you are saying.

[ASWnut101]

hmph, figures...

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE THE PREADATORS BEEN IN USE IN AFGANASTAN?


(the boots on the ground means that we STILL have the troops, special forces or not, in the country.):up:

[bradclark1]

hmph, figures...

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE THE PREADATORS BEEN IN USE IN AFGANASTAN?


(the boots on the ground means that we STILL have the troops, special forces or not, in the country.):up:

I'm sorry I failed the Subsim school of mind reading.:damn:
Okay. I'll play your silly game!
HOW MANY YEARS HAVE THE PREADATORS BEEN IN USE IN AFGANASTAN?

(the boots on the ground means that we STILL have the troops, special forces or not, in the country.):up:
Exactly what does this comment have to do with the price of tea in China?:roll:

[ASWnut101]

hmph, figures...

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE THE PREADATORS BEEN IN USE IN AFGANASTAN?


(the boots on the ground means that we STILL have the troops, special forces or not, in the country.):up:

I'm sorry I failed the Subsim school of mind reading.:damn:
Okay. I'll play your silly game!
HOW MANY YEARS HAVE THE PREADATORS BEEN IN USE IN AFGANASTAN?


As long as I remember, since 2001.

[ASWnut101]

What we really need is to lighten up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u_HuqllpQw)! :p

hey, the youtube video is no longer available...
just a heads up:)

[The Avon Lady]

What we really need is to lighten up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u_HuqllpQw)! :p
hey, the youtube video is no longer available...
just a heads up:)
Stupid NBC. Bits like that are one of their hopes for improving ratings. I bet their attorneys get a commision for every copyright infrigement they succeed in yanking off the web. :yep:

[HunterICX]

:shifty: My question is ''When does the USA gets a decent President that does more fo the USA itself ,then having an fool that likes to play with his War toys in the sand''

[Immacolata]

What we really need is to lighten up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u_HuqllpQw)! :p
hey, the youtube video is no longer available...
just a heads up:)
Stupid NBC. Bits like that are one of their hopes for improving ratings. I bet their attorneys get a commision for every copyright infrigement they succeed in yanking off the web. :yep:

You just described why there are so many corporate lawyers in USA :) It is also the reason why suddenly normally docile companies are in the news after a volley of Cease and Desist letters sent to umpteen website owners for infringement of copyright and trademark violations. Their number of nastygrams per month is reflected in their reviews. Really idiotic, kind of like paying policemen per number of fines given per month :rotfl:

[Immacolata]

While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

Would anyone have believed the seriousness of this untill the 9/11? Could anyone truly say we are at war and make the majority of people believe it? It is easy to say bureaucracy stopped it from happening. Sometimes people forget that bureaucracy is here to make sure things happen BY the book. It is really nasty to be at the receiving end of someone who dodges the books. You have no protection. After 9/11, everyone saw that the books might need some new text, however.

[August]

While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

Would anyone have believed the seriousness of this untill the 9/11? Could anyone truly say we are at war and make the majority of people believe it? It is easy to say bureaucracy stopped it from happening. Sometimes people forget that bureaucracy is here to make sure things happen BY the book. It is really nasty to be at the receiving end of someone who dodges the books. You have no protection. After 9/11, everyone saw that the books might need some new text, however.

We'll never know the answer to that question as his administration made every attempt to ignore and minimize the publics understanding of the true seriousness of the threat. Still the indicators, as listed in that article, were there and hard to ignore, especially to someone who gets daily security briefings.