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.

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:

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?

Here is someone defending him.


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/0...true-american/

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

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/0...ring-on-rummy/

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

:huh: I don't believe anyone said anything about world growth.:huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata 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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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:

That's very kind of you.


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

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

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.