Clinton freaks out!

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Erm, no. Everything he said was supported by history and facts.

Umm no it wasn't he was lying through his teeth as I have already demonstrated on this thread.

A) There was no comprehensive plan for dealing with AQ given to the incoming administration.

B) There was no GOP blocking of his attempts to go after bin-Laden or AQ.

C) He had not one, not two, but 10 chances to kill and capture bin-Laden.

I thought the whole reason the right wants the patriot act approved was so that the intelligence organizations can work together to share info, something that they weren't able to do during Clinton's admin, and therefore classify terrorists quicker. If you admit that wasn't around when Clinton was in office then you also admit that doing anymore than he did would have been illegal,

It wasn't around back then because of the Clinton-Gorelick wall which was established upon executive order by Clinton's deputy attorney general Sandy Gorelick in order to stop probes into the Chinese fundraising scandal. The reason why our foreign intelligence agenicies were unable to talk to the FBI was because of Clinton.

 

[Stinger]

I don't know if it's true or not, but that's what he claimed. I saw it myself on TV.

I recall there were lots of cases back during the heyday of welfare of people collecting checks for years for dead relatives and made up names. Stories like that were not unusal at all.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Geez no wonder you're so ignorant about this issue. You don't even know who Gorelick is.

Yes, I am so ignorant!:roll: It is the truly enlightened that resort to namecalling.

I didn't call you a name, I noted you lack of knowledge of this subject. You don't even know who Gorelick is and she was a key player. And that goes with some of the other statements you have posted.

 

[Thorgasm]

I recall there were lots of cases back during the heyday of welfare of people collecting checks for years for dead relatives and made up names. Stories like that were not unusal at all.

Well, I don't have the textbook anymore. But it was in a textbook from an anthropology course I took. Wood was the author.

 

[Thorgasm]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Geez no wonder you're so ignorant about this issue. You don't even know who Gorelick is.




I didn't call you a name, I noted you lack of knowledge of this subject. You don't even know who Gorelick is and she was a key player. And that goes with some of the other statements you have posted.

Okay, then please point me to where the CIA had certified UBL.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually, this country is full of liberals. It's a little known secret.

so are the prisons-that's a well known fact to those of us who deal with them

 

[Thorgasm]

so are the prisons-that's a well known fact to those of us who deal with them

"a well known fact"? I love it when people make unsubstantiated claims. Lawyers get sloppy because they are used to easily convincing people who lack critical thinking skills. I am sure it is so well known that you will have no problem supporting this claim.

 

[nogoodname]

I hate both sides. Both republicans and democrats keep blaming each other and don't look for solutions. How are we supposed to go forward in life if our leaders just blame each other like children?

 

[Thorgasm]

I hate both sides. Both republicans and democrats keep blaming each other and don't look for solutions. How are we supposed to go forward in life if our leaders just blame each other like children?

Learn the Canadian Anthem?:lol:

 

[nogoodname]

Learn the Canadian Anthem?:lol:

You have lol smile so are u kidding or not? Confused :doh

 

[Thorgasm]

You have lol smile so are u kidding or not? Confused :doh

A little of both. If you are concerned about yourself, move to Canada. If you want to improve the USA, stay here and speak out at every opportunity.

 

[nogoodname]

A little of both. If you are concerned about yourself, move to Canada. If you want to improve the USA, stay here and speak out at every opportunity.

I want to improve the us but step1 )need car step 2 need job to pay for supplys or to get to a place were i can protest. I really would just like to go to the senate or something stand outside with a speaker phone and rally people up in protest it be fun if u ask me .

 

[akyron]

I really would just like to go to the senate or something stand outside with a speaker phone and rally people up in protest it be fun if u ask me .

What's not to like about being dumb, young, idealistic, and taking over a major thoroughfare for amateur theatrics on a sunny afternoon?
Good times.

Be sure to go to the potty first though in case the cops show up with tasers.. Shatting in your pants in front of your homies aint cool.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is an absolute, unarguable, irrefutable fact:

9/11 HAPPENED WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT!

It did not happen when Clinton was President. And when Clinton did try to do something about UBL, the fanatical right wing zealots kept distracting this entire country with Lewinsky nonsense. Then when Bush took over, he did absolutely nothing to try to prevent an attack on this country.

Absolutely nothing!

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

This is also irrefutable fact:

"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."

- Richard Miniter

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is an absolute, unarguable, irrefutable fact:

It did not happen when Clinton was President. And when Clinton did try to do something about UBL, the fanatical right wing zealots kept distracting this entire country with Lewinsky nonsense. Then when Bush took over, he did absolutely nothing to try to prevent an attack on this country.

Absolutely nothing!

lmfao it seems that you bought that pathological liers bullshit hook line and sinker let's set the record straight right ****ing now Clinton was lying through his teeth.

A) The GOP never blocked Clinton's efforts from getting OBL infact there was massive GOP support in going after OBL.

B) There was no "comprehensive plan," given to the incoming administration.

C) The reason why we weren't able to catch these ****ers before they struck us yet again was because of the Clinton-Gorelick wall which was erected by executive order through deputy attorney general Sandy Gorelick in order to block probes into the Chinese fundraising scandal of the Clinton campaign.

D) It is now a known fact that Clinton had not one, not two, but 10 chances to get OBL. Between 1998 and 1999 he had 8 opportunities to kill him and 2 opportunities to capture him every time either he, Clarke, or Berger called it off.

 

[easyt65]

This is an absolute, unarguable, irrefutable fact:

It did not happen when Clinton was President. And when Clinton did try to do something about UBL, the fanatical right wing zealots kept distracting this entire country with Lewinsky nonsense. Then when Bush took over, he did absolutely nothing to try to prevent an attack on this country.

Absolutely nothing!

"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."
- Richard Miniter

Clinton didn't grasp that he was at war?
- His 1st clue should have been OBL broadcasting his declaration of War against the U.S. nd his illegitimate call for a JIHAD against us!
- His 2nd clue should have been the Kobar towers, the Cole, the marine Commander.....all the murders and bombings being carried out By OBL/Al Qaeda...
-- This remark is ridiculous because it declares Clinton was stupid. (Then againb, maybe it ISN'T ridiculous!)

If the man didn't KNOW we were at war, then why would he strike back at an enemy he didn't even know we had? that would explain why he didn't do a d@mn thing, but it directly contradicts Bill's claim that he did ANYTHING after the attacks.

The quote then goes on to say that Clinton was not qualified for the job as president, saying "Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy's natural reluctance to use force" , meaning he had no idea how to do his job to affect the defense of this nation! To put it bluntly, the man was inept and was not only oblivious to the fact that when someone declares war on your nation then begins killing your people that it means youare at war but did not know how to do his job.

I especially love Bill's last sentence or 2: 1st he laughably implies Clinton did ANYTHING after all the attacks and murders of U.S. personnel abroad, then he blames Conservatives for distracting him by noticing/making an issue of his adultery in the white house, not to mention his sexual harrassment trial, perjury, witness tampering, etc! Clinton was just a victim! :roll: :rofl

No wonder he was playing with cigars, having affairs in the White House, and committing crimes - if he was too stupid to realize we were at war after OBL declared war on us and then our troops began being stalked and slaughtered abroad, his focus was that of a child - satisfying his own desires without thinking about what he was doing or the consequences!

 

[Captain America]

Anybody remember who was president when Iraq stabbed the USS Stark with two Exocet missles? And what we did about it?

 

[Iriemon]

Billo,

This is also irrefutable fact:

"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."

- Richard Miniter

If you ask me, history's lesson is that you do not commit forces to a long term military action unless you have overcome democracy's natural reluctance to use force, meaning you better have a pretty clear-cut reason for using force and be fully justified in the action.

History shows the American public (or any democracy) in general will not support a long term war based on dubious justification.

It was a lesson those who were paying attention in Vietnam learned the hard war. Unfortunately is is a lesson we are having to relearn again.

 

[easyt65]

In Viet Nam, you had politicians who thought they could run the war better than the pros whose career it is to wage war. we were filing flight plans for our bombers through the North vietnamese capitol, for Peete's sake, so they knew where we were going well before we ever got there! :doh

Most of the guys I know are ticked because we could have won that war but were never given the opportunity to do so!

One of the best lessons, IMO, that we learned from Viet Nam was that politicians learned that 'war' was best left to the pros when they finally got around to deciding that was the way they wanted to go. Diplomacy fails, decide to send in the military, then let the military handle it, giving them clear, measurable goals/guidance without trying to tell them how to do their business!

 

[Deegan]

I think the most important lesson we can learn is this, once you wage a war, don't expect to control it very well, because it will never go as planned, and will often disappoint you. You have to be ready for this when you decide to take this step, all you can do is hope to learn from your mistakes, and to do that much more quickly then your enemy.

 

[easyt65]

Great point. War should be left to the professionals. even the professionals can not plan for every possibility. Flexibility is the key to success.

I think in Iraq, the military planned for defeating Hussein/Iraq ONLY.
The war went exactly as planned. The majorityof Iraqi troops did not want to fight for Hussein but did so anyway because hussein told them he would kill their families if they didn't fight. As soon as we crossed the border, these guys were throwing down weapons and heading back home, wherever home was. this is why we cut through Iraq to Baghdad wuickly like corn thru a goose. The only hardcore guys were the Republican Guard, who weren't that hard to defeat, either. The U.S. failed to account for and plan for the great number of Iranian Special Ops and Intel troops that flooded into Iraq prior to the war. They did not think about closing the borders to prevent Syrians, Iranians, and other insurgents from flooding in and re-supplying resistance fighters/insurgents with weapons, IEDs, etc.

Accomplishing our mission and defeating Hussein/Iraq was easy! The follow-on war we are now in, asgainst Iran/Syria/Al Qaeda/Islamic Extremists was unexpected and has proved more difficult than we planned for. The Insurgents' tactics have evolved, causing us to have to adapt and change often. It is a constant, fight, though. Meanwhile, Iraqs new military divisions are continuing to evolve and take over more and more of their own country's defense! The faster that happens, the better!

 

[mpg]

50% is still higher than Bush is now!

Not by much, and who said anything about Bush?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If you ask me, history's lesson is that you do not commit forces to a long term military action unless you have overcome democracy's natural reluctance to use force, meaning you better have a pretty clear-cut reason for using force and be fully justified in the action.

History shows the American public (or any democracy) in general will not support a long term war based on dubious justification.

It was a lesson those who were paying attention in Vietnam learned the hard war. Unfortunately is is a lesson we are having to relearn again.

Well the reasoning behind WW1 and the Vietnam was exactly the same IE in World War I the reasoning for our entrance into the war was that a German u-boat sunk the Lusitania and the reasoning for the Vietnam war was because the Vietnamese attacked one of our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin.

I think the real lesson of Vietnam is that there are many anti-American elements within America herself and these people for what ever reason are more than willing to spread the enemies propaganda and that while our enemies abroad can never defeat us on the battlefield the 5th column here at home is capable and willing to submit the U.S. to defeat.

To bad it seems that many people still haven't learned that lesson or maybe they have and don't care.

 

[Thorgasm]

Well the reasoning behind WW1 and the Vietnam was exactly the same IE in World War I the reasoning for our entrance into the war was that a German u-boat sunk the Lusitania and the reasoning for the Vietnam war was because the Vietnamese attacked one of our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin.

It depends on who you ask about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

I think the real lesson of Vietnam is that there are many anti-American elements within America herself and these people for what ever reason are more than willing to spread the enemies propaganda and that while our enemies abroad can never defeat us on the battlefield the 5th column here at home is capable and willing to submit the U.S. to defeat.

To bad it seems that many people still haven't learned that lesson or maybe they have and don't care.

NO, the lesson we learned was that you can't win a civil war as a third party.