Here's the so-called "imminent attack" brief.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
Not hardly an indication of an "imminent attack", or even of an actionable threat. The media sure did spin it that way, though.
Note the April 10, 2004 date is the timestamp from when it was de-classified.
It was Clinton who was Prez when OBL declared war upon the US. And Clinton, not wanting to lose .000001% points of popularity, didn't do a thing about it, when he should have been in front of the camera's 24/7 telling America about it.
It was Clinton who created the so-called "barrier" between our intel agencies thus preventing a free flow of information that might have allowed us to stop 9/11 before it happened.
But worst of all when it comes to islamic terrorism, it was good ole Clinton himself that made the decision that "human assets" weren't necessary and the same quality info could be gained from technological means only, and thus, our human intel plummeted, and we are still trying to recover from that disaster of a choice.
Go ahead and read OBL's declaration of war....
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. "
I don't give a dang if he got a blow job or not. what I care about is that he A) Took an oath in front of a grand jury to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and then lied.
But that's not as bad as the fact that he lied to the person he gets naked with every single night, the woman that knows more about him than any other person in the world, the woman that is the one rock he can lean when times are bad.... and if you lie to *that* person, then there is no way in hell I'll ever believe you when you speak to "me", who "you" don't get naked with
You are right though, for the US President to bring such shame upon his office because he couldn't keep his pecker in his pants, that's definitely not a sign of a "good" president.
Waco.
What was their crime? Possession of so-called "illegal firearms", which as defined by the US Constition, is an oxymoron.
Actually, one must understand the nature of "New Product Development" to understand that Reagan's policies are what LEAD to the economic boom of the 1990's. Ya see, the SDI was the "new product", and money was pumped into this "new product", which, by the time SDI became a marketable and sellable "product", became the tech boom of the 90's. Clinton's economic policies took time to have an effect, which lead to the bubble bursting in the late 90's, just in time for him to leave office with this 'myth' that he was good for the economy, when in fact his economic policies of "increase taxes 300bn$$" lead to the economic downturn that Bush 2 inherited, which was compounded by 9/11. And the facts are quickly bearing out that Bush 2's tax policies saved our economy. Not to mention that Reagan's SDI and defense spending won the cold war, which everyone seems to forget that we were indeed in a war, when talking about Reagan's presidency
Clinton's "cutting spending" is a word play that is an oxymoron. He didn't "cur spending", he merely decreased the amount of spending * increases * that were regularly scheduled. Clinton "increased revenue" by raising taxes, which again is a faulty argument, as Bush Jr's tax cuts - and the revenue being generated for the US Gov't by the US citizens having more $$ in their pockets - bears out this fallacy that "Clinton was good because he increased US Gov't Revenue". And that myth is based on the belief that "higher taxes = good thing".
Well first off, Clinton didn't represent a majority. The best he did was 46% in 1996. Second, I'd advise reading Plato's Republic to understand the duty of an elected official in a democracy.
Sticking your finger in the political winds, and doing whatever the current popularity poll says, is called "mob rule", and the primary reason the democracy of ancient Greece didn't survive but a few years.
I disagree that Clinton was good in leading the nation. Don't get me wrong, though, he did end up doing a couple good things like reform Welfare and getting Egypt and Jordan to recognize Israel... but all in all, he was very bad for our nation, and history will judge him so, once everyone with a vested emotional interest in his presidency has passed away, and his presidency can be viewed objectively.
