• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

John Bolton UN Ambassador!!!

NoobieDoobieDo said:
John Bolton should NOT be a rep to the UN..

Incorrect

NoobieDoobieDo said:
Bush put him there because he knows that he has no respect for the UN...
Correct. And that is the first step to reform. To make it something worth respecting.



NoobieDoobieDo said:
It's total idiocy to put bolton in any position that has to do with the UN.
Incorrect

Akyron said-
06-21-2005
The President will end up giving him a recess appointment eventually if the wasting of time...err obstructionist policies continues.
Lo and behold...

Bush names Bolton as U.N. ambassador

It is not uncommon and occurs when opposition parties waste taxpayers dollars excessively.
 
I saw this quote from Senator Edward M. Kennedy,

“It’s a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton’s credibility at the U.N.,” Kennedy said.”

Am I the only one to see such massive irony, and incorrect assertions in this quote?
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

cnredd said:
When was Clinton good at his job? Be specific...What bills or legislation was enacted by him that made made him so good?

The only one I can think of is the Welfare Reform Bill....other than that, I contend he schmoozed his way through a time where he was nothing more than a caretaker President.
How about these little tidbits....you can compare them to Rove if you have that ability....
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

In 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore launched their economic strategy: (1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad. After eight years, the results of President Clinton's economic leadership are clear. Record budget deficits have become record surpluses, 22 million new jobs have been created, unemployment and core inflation are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, and America is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our history.

President Clinton's Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.

-- Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

-- Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.

-- Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).

-- Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.

-- Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.

-- Highest Homeownership Rate on Record: The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.

-- 7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.

Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt

President Clinton's Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America's history.

-- Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion -- the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

-- Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion -- the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.

-- Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000 -- the lowest level since 1966.

-- Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt: In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected.

-- Americans Benefit from Reduced Debt: Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut.

-- Double Digit Growth in Private Investment in Equipment and Software: Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth and fuel private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth since 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992.
That's just the economy....how about this:
Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.
Or this:
Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.
Or this:
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: Between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time.
 
Originally Posted by cnredd
When was Clinton good at his job? Be specific...What bills or legislation was enacted by him that made made him so good?

The only one I can think of is the Welfare Reform Bill....other than that, I contend he schmoozed his way through a time where he was nothing more than a caretaker President.



His book was an interesting read. He did very well for the country financially.
Unfortunately nothing comes without a cost and we suffered in other areas. Hindsight is 20/20 and if he had taken care of some foreign policy issues we would not be having a hard time now but you really cannot fault him for not seeing the future.
How he would have handled current issues just mere speculation.
 
superskippy said:
I saw this quote from Senator Edward M. Kennedy,

“It’s a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton’s credibility at the U.N.,” Kennedy said.”

Am I the only one to see such massive irony, and incorrect assertions in this quote?

Not at all.
 
cnredd said:
When was Clinton good at his job? Be specific...What bills or legislation was enacted by him that made made him so good?
Family medical leave act.
 
gordontravels said:
I know there are those here that oppose his nomination and the President that appointed him but even those should have suggestions on how we can improve the U.N. since he is going to be in the office until at least January of 07. Maybe we could be constructive for a change. John Bolton isn't going away.
Sadly, you are correct, he's not going away.

Who knows? Maybe he'll keep his big mouth shut and show some respect for the institution?

Maybe he will succeed? Maybe he will not? Maybe Rove will come to regret this appointment if it negatively effects the Repubs in the 2006 elections?

Time will tell.
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

26 X World Champs said:
How about these little tidbits....you can compare them to Rove if you have that ability....
Nice cheap-shot...unsolicited, but nice.....

The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

In 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore launched their economic strategy: (1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad. After eight years, the results of President Clinton's economic leadership are clear. Record budget deficits have become record surpluses, 22 million new jobs have been created, unemployment and core inflation are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, and America is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our history.

President Clinton's Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.

-- Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.

-- Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.

-- Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).

-- Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.

-- Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.

-- Highest Homeownership Rate on Record: The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.

-- 7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.

Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt

President Clinton's Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America's history.

-- Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion -- the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.

-- Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion -- the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.

-- Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000 -- the lowest level since 1966.

-- Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt: In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected.

-- Americans Benefit from Reduced Debt: Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut.

-- Double Digit Growth in Private Investment in Equipment and Software: Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth and fuel private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth since 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992.
I don't know who wrote this trinket, but I'm assuming they do it for a living, because that's the biggest amount of crap I've seen since "Burrito Night" down at Chili's...

My contention is that the US surged economically, not because of, AND not in spite of, Bill Jeff....He gets the credit simply because he was THERE. I see stuff like this...The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years...Well?...What did Clinton have to do with it? Where is the peice of paper with his signature on it that made all of these jobs appear?????

I contend that the business's would have done it anyway, with OR with out him in office. Again...not ONE piece of hard evidence in this whole thing...

That's just the economy....how about this:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.

Or this:

Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.
These two are great...THIS is the "meat" I was looking for. Eeverything else could easily be dismissed because he was just "there", but these two tibits are the real goods....

Or this:

The Most U.S. Exports Ever: Between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time.
Back to speculation...Not one bill or piece of legislation that shows how....

I went to school for Computers...worked in the field since...one job from '94 to '96....one from '96 to'97....one from '97 until present. All during Clinton years, so I am a positive asterisk in his employment statistics. Now who did the work?....Clinton or ME? He didn't open any doors...He didn't sign legislation...in fact, as anyone can tell you, rarely does the President EVER effect the economy. The businesses I went to needed me; they didn't say, "We don't really need you right now, but the President created a loophole, so we CAN hire you".


BTW Champs - Been to "Bias In The Media - Air America" lately....I know you have....you still haven't "put up or shut up" have you?...:twisted:

You know how to find sources...unless you just make facts up on your own....and YOU don't do that....right?????????????
 
Yes 26 X WORLD CHAMPS I read your list of President Clinton's achievements but I will have to side with many others here and say "where is the signature on the piece of paper" that unleashed surplus and jobs. I won't just leave it a question though but add two things of substance.

Most of the jobs created during the Clinton Administration fell under what was called the "Dot Com Bubble". This is a fact as any viewer of CNBC would have known during these years. The Dot Com companies proliferated and provided numbers that hadn't been seen in years. The problem was speculation. Jobs built on speculation are bound to wither when the speculation is over and those jobs began to disappear in late 1998. The slide accelerated during 1999, 2000 and continued after President Bush took office.

You will remember that Amazon.com didn't make a profit for the first 5 years.

President Bush is experiencing excellent job growth as well. Just in case you think I sing a Republican song I don't. Many of the jobs created in the last 3 years under the Bush Administration fall under what is called the "Housing Bubble", some 400+ thousand. This is a fact as any viewer of CNBC would have known during these years. Jobs in the Real Estate industry have outpaced all others as the price of new and existing homes have skyrocketed throughout the country. The problem is speculation as well as over 60% of those sales being on shaky financing such as "higher than the equity loans", 100% financing and Adjustable Rate Mortgages. Interest rates are going up and as home sales stall prices will drop leaving many homeowners with homes valued at less than they paid for them and less than they owe on them. It's called no way out and then hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost throughout the Real Estate industry (loans, building, materials, sales). It will then be the "Foreclosure Bubble" and will hurt the individual homeowners worse than the economy in general although a recession could accompany it very easily. We're due for one. Could be the Dot Com Bubble all over again but not as severe. Inflation anybody?

YOU DEFINITELY BLOW IT ON CLINTON AND THE SURPLUS THOUGH. Where did all that surplus money come from? Dot Com companies that weren't making a profit and not paying taxes? NO. It began when President Clinton proposed in 1994 and the Democrat controlled House and Senate passed THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY. 563 Billion Dollars. It was the next year, 1995 when the Republicans took control of the House and Senate and began deny spending. Surplus? You betcha. We all should strive to take in more than we spend. Creates a surplus in your wallet after the spending is done.

Remember? Republican controlled House and Senate from January 1995 through January 2001 under President Clinton? He submitted his budgets each year but they went to the Republican controlled Budget Committee and came back for his signature once they were passed as a bill. Sorry, the surplus was more the law makers creation other than President Clinton's huge tax increase. I think the Democrats lost the House and Senate because of President Clinton's version of "read my lips".

No 26 X WORLD CHAMPS. Bubbles happen under both Republicans and Democrats and when a Democrat is President and the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans then it's impossible to give credit where some isn't due. Even President Bush with a Republican House and Senate can't take full credit for the Real Estate Bubble just as President Clinton couldn't the Dot Com. Still, they do get credit for the jobs even when those jobs come and go beyond their control.

NOTE: Other than the Real Estate Bubble jobs the next best sector for job growth now and over the last 4 years has been in Manufacturing which has surged in both new factory construction and associated jobs. Check the Manufacturers Index since 2000 for figures. Credit for something is a tricky thing even when one single person is supposed to get it. It just doesn't work that way. It's really only a political tool to be used for political purposes just as you and I are doing now. Good exercise though. Let's just call it the Greenspan Factor shall we?

A post follows on John Bolton.
:duel :cool:
 
A media that uses anonymous sources is helping our cause with the U.N. Here's just a little snip from that friend of the White House called the New York Times from todays edition:

QUOTE: "Most of the reforms sought by the United States are well on their way to completion," said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid undercutting the rationale for the Bolton appointment. Another said that because so much had been achieved, there was little concern that Mr. Bolton's combative personality would jeopardize the agenda. END QUOTE.

Do these two people exist? Does the word "journalist" still have a basis in integrity or even basic honesty? Do these two people, if they do exist, sound like Senior Administration officials that would have been hand picked by the President for their "senior" status? And doesn't this read that "A senior Administration official spoke anonymously so he wouldn't undercut the President's rationale while he undercut the President's rationale?" This is journalism?

The man the President wants; the man the President appointed himself; the man that is the President's man won't be hurting anything because "there was little concern that Mr. Bolton's combative personality would jeopardize the agenda."?

So according to the New York Times and the President's own "Senior Administration Officials", John Bolton will make no difference? Did you read what the New York Times was saying just last week? Sheesh. Who can you trust to give you the news.
:duel :cool:
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

shuamort said:
Kennedy, Clinton, Lott, and Santorum.

:shock:

I'm glad I don't live in any of those states and have to watch the mudslinging commercials that are gonna happen.


LOL I'm used to the mudslinging... PA has been a hotbed of it for so many years now LOL I suspect we'll stop watching television with commercials... hmmmm On Demand in '06.. here we come :rofl
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

cnredd said:
gordontravels, I'd like your opinion(and anyone else's) on this...

I wrote this a couple of weeks ago...

I think Clinton was wrong for not doing enough to fight terrorism....
He let small acts of terrorism go by, which led the terrorists to
get bigger nads and go further, Clinton still did nothing, the
terrorist acts got larger, still nothing...

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed...the intention was
not to kill 6 people...it was to take down the whole damn thing!...
Problem was, it was poorly scripted by the terrorists and it's
objective wasn't acheived. If it did, there would have been NO
extra hour for the building collapse; it would have been immediate
(seeing how it would've taken out the foundation).There would
have been hardly any time to evacuate, and the death toll would
have EASILY reached tens of thousands...thousands MORE if the
tower fell in a certain direction.

Clinton doesn't get hammered by most on the left SIMPLY because the PLAN DIDN'T WORK RIGHT.

I said it then.. I'll say it now. Clinton spent so much time trying to find those who planted the bomb, that he missed the mark. The Al Quaida network could have been busted 12 years ago, had he used ALL the resources, and used intelligence wisely.

Clinton's lack of action, gave Osama bin Laden a green light for further attacks because he believed he was safe from prosecution. Clinton only wanted to know who planted the bombs, and didn't go higher. So Osama says... well hell I can send my cronies to attack anywhere, and the US will not go after me. They only want the perpetrators. Thus, followed the embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole(which by the way docked in Philadelphia about a month ago, and there wasn't a dry eye on the port), and Osama had 8 years to perfect his craft in bringing down the towers.
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

debate_junkie said:
Clinton's lack of action, gave Osama bin Laden a green light for further attacks because he believed he was safe from prosecution. Clinton only wanted to know who planted the bombs, and didn't go higher. So Osama says... well hell I can send my cronies to attack anywhere, and the US will not go after me. They only want the perpetrators. Thus, followed the embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole(which by the way docked in Philadelphia about a month ago, and there wasn't a dry eye on the port), and Osama had 8 years to perfect his craft in bringing down the towers.

You are really playing Monday morning quarterback here. If you hold Clinton accountable for this, then you should hold Reagan and Bush 1 accountable for selling Al Quada arms and putting Saddam Hussein into power. You're living in a retrospect world.
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

debate_junkie said:
LOL I'm used to the mudslinging... PA has been a hotbed of it for so many years now LOL I suspect we'll stop watching television with commercials... hmmmm On Demand in '06.. here we come :rofl
What are your thoughts on Santorum, is he going to make it back in easily or is it going to be a fight?
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

Mikkel said:
You are really playing Monday morning quarterback here. If you hold Clinton accountable for this, then you should hold Reagan and Bush 1 accountable for selling Al Quada arms and putting Saddam Hussein into power. You're living in a retrospect world.

Actually I agree with this more than one side or the other. I believe that our decisions from all our administrations have contributed to the terrorists ability to carry out attacks. I also believe that our Homeland Security and the War in Iraq have prevented more attacks here in the United States by freezing assets in that region. You see how quickly the British rounded up those responsible for the terror attacks in London. Will there be more attacks here or abroad? I think so.

From JFK to George W. Bush our administrations have had failure as well as successes. In regard to what helped the terrorists the most I think it was the Clinton Administration deciding to be nice with our intelligence. Had to get rid of all those unseemly informants in Middle Eastern countries. You know, the ones that hung out with the bad guys? That is a fact. I never did understand that and I don't think it was President Clinton himself that came up with that approach. Still, it abolished many of the informants that would have been privy to those connected to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Quaida.

Listen to Jimmy Carter lately. He wants Gitmo shut down because we are guilty of torture. Scores of politicians and media have gone there along with investigators and although the treatment has been harsh, I haven't seen any hard evidence of torture. Abu Graib? Yes, definitely and a price was paid although not high enough on the chain of command. I don't believe for a minute that torture was authorized by other than those on the scene that were out of control.

Osama could have been ours after Kobar Towers and the U.S.S. Cole not to mention any connection with the bombing of the World Trade Center. I think if you blame anyone you have to blame everyone but that doesn't help for those diehard Clinton/Bush haters. What a waste they are.
:duel :cool:
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

shuamort said:
What are your thoughts on Santorum, is he going to make it back in easily or is it going to be a fight?


I think there will be a small fight... PA has some glaring statistics on the state spending... taxpayers are footing alot of bills in this state, and it was discovered a few months ago, Santorum's kids were attending a virtual school.. no harm no foul, right? Wrong... the kids lived in Virginia... and the taxpayers of one of the Pittsburgh school districts was footing the bill. That didn't go over very well. But for the most part... he's been pretty clean.

Notice I didn't put his voting record in? LOL that's because most people haven't a clue what his voting record is, and just vote for him because he's republican. Sad but true.
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

Mikkel said:
You are really playing Monday morning quarterback here. If you hold Clinton accountable for this, then you should hold Reagan and Bush 1 accountable for selling Al Quada arms and putting Saddam Hussein into power. You're living in a retrospect world.

You would be correct ONLY if you weren't so wrong...

Here's the dif....

When Reagan & Bush41 helped Saddam Hussein, two things were unknown at the time.....

1) Saddam would turn on the country that helped him against Iran, a country which, at the time, was a greater threat...
2)Saddam would attack Kuwait and drop SCUDS on Isreal.

We knew we weren't dealing with a peace hippie, but at the same time, we didn't know he'd turn into an international dickweed either.

Clinton KNEW Bin Laden was a dickweed BEFORE he had the chance to get him.

Bin Laden's first strike against the United States was the December 29, 1992 bombing of the Gold Mihor Hotel in Aden, Yemen that killed a Yemeni hotel employee, an Austrian national and seriously injured his wife. About 100 US soldiers, part of Operation Restore Hope, had been staying at the hotel for two weeks but had left two days earlier for Somalia. Bin Laden and the Indonesian militant known as Hambali allegedly funded, then aborted Operation Bojinka conspiracy when police discovered the plot in Manila, Philippines on January 6, 1995.

In 1998, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri (a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad) co-signed a fatwa (binding religious edict) in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, declaring, "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.'" For more information, see Osama bin Laden Fatwa.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Don't sit there and say that Clinton didn't know he was going to turn out to be such a bad guy...It was already known to the world...Osama even made his threats public while Clinton was still in office....yet Bill Jeff let it slide....

So there's the difference between the two...

I got a BETTER question for all those out there that like to play the "Reagan/Bush helped Saddam" game....

How come you're more than willing to accuse past American Presidents for helping Saddam Hussein BEFORE he tried to invade Kuwait and had UN sanctions on his country....

But are EERILY SILENT about France's CURRENT President, Jackie "the whacky" Chiracky for helping Saddam Hussein AFTER he tried to invade Kuwait and had UN sanctions on his country?
 
Last edited:
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

cnredd said:
You would be correct ONLY if you weren't so wrong...

Here's the dif....

When Reagan & Bush41 helped Saddam Hussein, two things were unknown at the time.....

1) Saddam would turn on the country that helped him against Iran, a country which, at the time, was a greater threat...
2)Saddam would attack Kuwait and drop SCUDS on Isreal.

We knew we weren't dealing with a peace hippie, but at the same time, we didn't know he'd turn into an international dickweed either.

Clinton KNEW Bin Laden was a dickweed BEFORE he had the chance to get him.

Bin Laden's first strike against the United States was the December 29, 1992 bombing of the Gold Mihor Hotel in Aden, Yemen that killed a Yemeni hotel employee, an Austrian national and seriously injured his wife. About 100 US soldiers, part of Operation Restore Hope, had been staying at the hotel for two weeks but had left two days earlier for Somalia. Bin Laden and the Indonesian militant known as Hambali allegedly funded, then aborted Operation Bojinka conspiracy when police discovered the plot in Manila, Philippines on January 6, 1995.

In 1998, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri (a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad) co-signed a fatwa (binding religious edict) in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, declaring, "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.'" For more information, see Osama bin Laden Fatwa.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Don't sit there and say that Clinton didn't know he was going to turn out to be such a bad guy...It was already known to the world...Osama even made his threats public while Clinton was still in office....yet Bill Jeff let it slide....

So there's the difference between the two...

I got a BETTER question for all those out there that like to play the "Reagan/Bush helped Saddam" game....

How come you're more than willing to accuse past American Presidents for helping Saddam Hussein BEFORE he tried to invade Kuwait and had UN sanctions on his country....

But are EERILY SILENT about France's CURRENT President, Jackie "the whacky" Chiracky for helping Saddam Hussein AFTER he tried to invade Kuwait and had UN sanctions on his country?

And also if I were not mistaken, wasn't Reagan/Bush's help to Sadaam to combat the attacks waged against Iraq by Iran? After all they were in an 8 year long war, I believe. And furthermore here's an interesting little ditty, Mikkel, on the 1993 WTC Bombing. I will link the source, but please notice the comments in bold.

"In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of conspiracy charges to bomb several New York City landmarks (see New York City landmark bomb plot), and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers - no one was ever convicted for the actual bombing. When Ramzi Yousef was brought back to America, he was flown over the still intact twin towers, making a statement to the FBI that the next time they would bring down both towers. Another man named Eyad Ismail was tried alongside Yousef for the bombing. Another conspirator in the plot was Nidal Ayyad."

Notice the bold? Was that a threat? A threat made directly to the FBI? Was that not grounds to dig deeper into the network Mr. Yousef was affiliated with? tsk tsk


"FBI foreknowledge
In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem asserts that the original plan was to have the plotters build the bomb using a harmless powder instead of actual explosive, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiates his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings.

Salem says he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has not explicitly denied Salem's account.
"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing


Such valuable information. All wasted in JUST the prosecution of the conspirators to the bombing. Clinton had some of the info he needed to rip a hole in the terror network THEN... and he didn't.

So Mikkel... before you talk about armchair quarterbacking... remember that it takes proof to back up assertions.
 
Re: John Bolton Un Ambassador!!!

debate_junkie said:
So Mikkel... before you talk about armchair quarterbacking... remember that it takes proof to back up assertions.

"cnredd & debate_junkie...Pennsylvanians fighting for truth."
piadforbythecommiteetoelectcnredd&debatejunkiethedevilhimselftreasurer
 
I notice that the elite media is now playing down the role that John Bolton will play at the U.N. He is being painted as a man that is a "lame duck" appointee and someone that since it took him over 5 months from seeking approval to actual appointment, most of what he would have done has already been done.

I thought he was going to be taking stuff to the U.N. that was going to be bad for our continuing acceptance from all those other countries. Now I hear in our media that reforms such as at the top in the office of the Secretary General have already been accepted by those in the U.N.

Here's what I think the U.N. and our elite media miss: Ok, we have reform and don't need John Bolton to force it through. Now. What about seeing to it that that reform is actually taken seriously and that the spirit of that reform is done?

You do remember Food for Oil don't you? Remember how it has been the profit center for the likes of France and Russia? It was an approved program that no one on the Security Council voted against. Then what happened. It seems that no one gave it another thought and corruption settled in.

I think the U.N., our elite media and those opposed to John Bolton have misread President Bush and his intentions toward the U.N. That's why he chose John Bolton in the first place.
:duel :cool:
 
I just hope Bolton kicks some butt at the UN.......
 
galenrox said:
right, they're really gonna take a guy seriously that couldn't get the support of the senate, and is a lame duck appointee from a lame duck president.

You are wrong, he had the support of the Senate........The problem was the obstructionist left would not give him and up or down vote.........If they had done that he would have been confirmed easily.......

The dems obstructionist tactics will kill them in the 2006 mid term elections.............The American people don't like those tactics whether it be by dems or republicans..........

Stay tuned...
 
galenrox said:
right, they're really gonna take a guy seriously that couldn't get the support of the senate, and is a lame duck appointee from a lame duck president.

The business of the U.N. will go on and those in the U.N. can't project whether a Republican or Democrat will be the next President of the United States. Do you seriously think the member states of the U.N. don't know of the disatisfaction of the American people for the U.N.?

Recent elections in the United States have shown what a majority of the American people want as far as who is the majority in their government. A major talking point of the Democrats and their media in the last Presidential Election was that the vote would be a referrendum on the war in Iraq. Why do you think the media is touting what Senator Clinton is attempting to do; a move to the center which only means closer to the right and farther from the left?

I seriously doubt that the U.N. will follow the obstructionist position that the Democrats have. Nor will they scold President Bush for every single decision he makes. It would seem to me they would want to try something that might work.

I've been both a Republican and a Democrat and supported the party because of my own beliefs and my belief in what they stood for. I really don't understand the Democrats at this point in history. John Kerry? Howard Dean? Hillary Clinton? Where is a consensus candidate? Where is the Democrat Party?
:duel :cool:
 
galenrox said:
Right, is that why the republican run congress has an approval rating below 40%, and over 50% considering voting for a new candidate? Dems don't hold enough seats to represent over 50% of the nation, so even if every single person who voted democrat is now gonna vote republican, there are still republicans who are abandoning the republicans. And I think that it's fairly obvious where the American people are placing the accountability for the failure of this congress, the people who are RUNNING IT!

I am not much of a poll guy because I remember how you liberals were gloating prior to the 2004 election because the presidents approval rating was below 50 percent and he won by 3,000,000 votes.........

That said a lot of the disapproval of the congress is with the democrats because of their obstruction tactics on every issue without offering any alternative solutions..........The American people are fed up with those tactics.............
 
gordontravels said:
You do remember Food for Oil don't you? Remember how it has been the profit center for the likes of France and Russia?
Your post implies that the governments of France & Russia were directly involved, can you please prove this allegation with real facts, not supposition?
 
Back
Top Bottom