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.

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

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?

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?

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

What we really need is to lighten up! :p

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.

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

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?

Exactly what does this comment have to do with the price of tea in China?:roll:

As long as I remember, since 2001.

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:

: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''

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: