Making It Bad For 2008

[GeorgeDumbyaBush]

The CPI is doing good and unemployment is only at 5% and has been dropping. All that with massive job loss because of Katrina. So ya the economy is doing good. Not great but good.

What terrorist attacks? Are you kidding..

1993 World Trade Center Bombing

1996 Khobar Towers Bombing

1998 Embassy Bombings

2000 USS Cole Bombing

Lets not forget Mogadishu. Not a terrorist attack but a waste of American lives when we cut and run

Your jumping all over the place with healthcare and everything else. None of which were taken care of under your poster boy.

As far lying and other things to tarnish a presidency. Your looking at impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice... Thats lying for y'all in the cheap seats. Although acquitted he agreed to a 5 year law suspension to end the investigation.

Whitewater
Multiple sexual attack accusations 3-4 i believe

Lets also remember that Clinton's approval rating was as low as 36% at one time in his first term.

None of them are going to be perfect. But until the Dem's can come with anything better your chances of a ouster are mighty slim.

First off wasn't 2000 and USS Cole Bush's first year??? Who agreed to a 5 year law suspension? If Clinton's approval rating was so low, as you claim...why was he voted to a second term? And I do believe that the people who committed the World Trade Center bombings are either dead or in prison aren't they? What did you want Clinton to do? Burn them at the stake and take pictures of them like our troops are doing right now? How can you say Clinton is my poster boy? You don't read do you??? I said that I didn't even vote for him but that I believe his administration was far better than anything this one has achieved...which to date has been nothing!! Oh yeah he's managed to get 2500 Americans killed and countless Iraqi's...there you go George!!! What a presidency!!!

 

[tecoyah]

OK....How about a deal struck here...with the Bush supporting crowd. I think we all can agree Clinton was a Dog, not the best President, unethical, depraved, played a lousy Sax, and married a horse.....is that good enough, is it out of our collective system. No...not yet, Monica was butt ugly, so he had bad taste even in a mistress, he dropped the ball on Osama, sucked at chess and didnt change his underwear enough....Done.

Now Back to what was so masterly avoided, as usual. Lets talk about George Walker Bush. You know....the guy who is making the descisions Right Now, and the mistakes (for want of a less antagonistic term) he is making, has made, and is likely to be about to make. Without fail the supporters of this man DO NOT DISCUSS HIS ERRORS, as in Never. Do you honestly think this guy smells of Lilacs in spring, or is it merely too unpleasant to actually talk about what is happening in this country you so love?

 

[Kelzie]

**Taking Deep Breaths**

36% IN 93 i believe

Liar. LIAR! :rofl

43% according to abc. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

Pretty close though, eh? Not bad considering it was from your obviously faulty memory.

Seriously though, I was 10 in 93. What happened?

 

[Kelzie]

OK....How about a deal struck here...with the Bush supporting crowd. I think we all can agree Clinton was a Dog, not the best President, unethical, depraved, played a lousy Sax, and married a horse.....is that good enough, is it out of our collective system. No...not yet, Monica was butt ugly, so he had bad taste even in a mistress, he dropped the ball on Osama, sucked at chess and didnt change his underwear enough....Done.

Now Back to what was so masterly avoided, as usual. Lets talk about George Walker Bush. You know....the guy who is making the descisions Right Now, and the mistakes (for want of a less antagonistic term) he is making, has made, and is likely to be about to make. Without fail the supporters of this man DO NOT DISCUSS HIS ERRORS, as in Never. Do you honestly think this guy smells of Lilacs in spring, or is it merely too unpleasant to actually talk about what is happening in this country you so love?

I don't really see Bush wearing lilac cologne. Maybe that's just me though.

I like Hillary. I think she's pretty. SO THERE!

 

[cnredd]

Quality over quantity my dear righty. What were the death tolls under Clinton?

From an earlier post of mine...

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 its
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.

So the "during his watch" is inadequate...Clinton doesn't get
hammered by most on the left SIMPLY because the PLAN DIDN'T WORK RIGHT.

 

[Kelzie]

From an earlier post of mine...

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 its
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.

So the "during his watch" is inadequate...Clinton doesn't get
hammered by most on the left SIMPLY because the PLAN DIDN'T WORK RIGHT.

I don't quite understand what your point is. If 9/11 hadn't worked right either, Bush wouldn't have it happen during his presidency. But it did. And 93 didn't. Life sucks sometimes.

I think the lesson everybody should take away here is NOBODY knew how dangerous OBL was. NOBODY. Bush had the same info Clinton had when he became president. If OBL was such a clear threat as you're making out, then he could have done something about it.

And I'm sure you know, but the guy in 93 wasn't an al qaeda member at the time.

 

[tecoyah]

**Taking Deep Breaths**

36% IN 93 i believe

Correct....as noted:

While Clinton's job approval rating varied over the course of his first term, ranging from a low of 36% in 1993 to a high of 64% in 1993 and 1994[20], his job approval rating consistently ranged from the high 50s to the high 60s in his second term[21], with a high of 73% approval in 1998 and 1999[22]. A CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll,[23] conducted as he was leaving office, revealed deeply contradictory attitudes regarding Clinton. Although his approval rating at 65 percent was higher than any departing president since polling began more than seven decades earlier, only 45 percent said they would miss him. While 55 percent thought he "would have something worthwhile to contribute and should remain active in public life", and 47 percent rated him as either outstanding or above average as a president, 68 percent thought he would be remembered for his "involvement in personal scandal" rather than his accomplishments as president, and 58 percent answered "No" to the question "Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy?" 47% of the respondents identified themselves as being Clinton supporters.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

First off wasn't 2000 and USS Cole Bush's first year???

NO.. sorry Billy was still in office

Who agreed to a 5 year law suspension?

Clinton did.

If Clinton's approval rating was so low, as you claim...why was he voted to a second term?

Cant tell you.. Because it went back up again. I didn't say that it stayed there forever

And I do believe that the people who committed the World Trade Center bombings are either dead or in prison aren't they?

So again.. nothing happened.. So attack us kill our people and we do nothing.. Sounds like a plan. DO SOMETHING. Go after those that helped, aided, financed, assisted, planned, plotted and trained those that attacked the country and it's people.... Don't sit back and do nothing so as to give the animals even more confidence that there will be no retirbution

What did you want Clinton to do? Burn them at the stake and take pictures of them like our troops are doing right now?

Do you have proof of our troops going around burning people at the stake. Your making the aqusation so I would like proof of this action occurring in iraq. I haven't heard of a rash of burnings going on..maybe I missed something

How can you say Clinton is my poster boy?

It's a term of endearment... Get over it!!!!:roll:

You don't read do you???

I like the picture books a little better

I said that I didn't even vote for him but that I believe his administration was far better than anything this one has achieved...

Well see .. your wrong either way ....:lol:

Oh yeah he's managed to get 2500 Americans killed and countless Iraqi's...there you go George!!! What a presidency!!!

Guess Bill should have paid a little attention to Able Danger when they all but handed him the 9/11 terrorists. Guess he was to busy getting blown by a fat woman in the oval or selling secrets to the chinese...:lol:

 

[Kelzie]

Correct....as noted:

While Clinton's job approval rating varied over the course of his first term, ranging from a low of 36% in 1993 to a high of 64% in 1993 and 1994[20], his job approval rating consistently ranged from the high 50s to the high 60s in his second term[21], with a high of 73% approval in 1998 and 1999[22]. A CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll,[23] conducted as he was leaving office, revealed deeply contradictory attitudes regarding Clinton. Although his approval rating at 65 percent was higher than any departing president since polling began more than seven decades earlier, only 45 percent said they would miss him. While 55 percent thought he "would have something worthwhile to contribute and should remain active in public life", and 47 percent rated him as either outstanding or above average as a president, 68 percent thought he would be remembered for his "involvement in personal scandal" rather than his accomplishments as president, and 58 percent answered "No" to the question "Do you generally think Bill Clinton is honest and trustworthy?" 47% of the respondents identified themselves as being Clinton supporters.

[mod mode]

*cough* source *cough*

[/mod mode]

 

[Kelzie]

Do you have proof of our troops going around burning people at the stake. Your making the aqusation so I would like proof of this action occurring in iraq. I haven't heard of a rash of burnings going on..maybe I missed something

Hello? Get with the program! You haven't heard about it? It's all over truthout.org!

It's a term of endearment... Get over it!!!!:roll:

Not that I'd ever dare to question you, but...term of endearment? I can just see it now: "Who's my little poster boy? You are! That's right my cutie little poster boy." I dunno. Seems a little weird to me. But whatever gets you through the night.

Guess Bill should have paid a little attention to Able Danger when they all but handed him the 9/11 terrorists. Guess he was to busy getting blown by a fat woman in the oval or selling secrets to the chinese...:lol:

Okay. I really hate this. She wasn't fat. Pudgy maybe. Big boned, chunky could've stood to lose a few pounds...but fat's a little mean.

 

[GeorgeDumbyaBush]

LMAO... BUSH? The sudanese offered him Osama and they didn't want him..
How bout the USS Kole. Guess an attack on a US millitary ship is no big deal. OOO the embassy bombing and the base bombing and the WTC bombings...... If he would have handled any of them correctly this may have never have happened. I think your definition of dropping a ball is completely screwed. Considering also that the information gathered by able danger and ignored by the clinton white house would have essentially cut the heart out of the 9/11 attackers. OOPPS guess thats another thing they missed.

USS Kole was in 2000...Bush was pres. in 2000, how can you say that was Clinton's fault? Clinton did not have enough information to take Bin Laden then. He actually did something right. You have to be cautious when it comes to diplomatic affairs. Of course Bush doesn't think so. That's why we rushed into this war without thoroughly looking at the evidence. Now on top of 3000 Americans in the WTC attacks, there are an additional 2500 and counting from this war, not to mention 10,000 Iraqi people. Bush had all the information about Bin Laden back in 2000 when he ran for office as Clinton did. The World Trade Center happened in Sept. of 2001. That is 1 year and 9 months to do something. But Bush did'nt have enough to go on either. It's ludicrous to think Clinton could have stopped the WTC attacks all by himself.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Okay. I really hate this. She wasn't fat. Pudgy maybe. Big boned, chunky could've stood to lose a few pounds...but fat's a little mean.

Hell I don't care.... All I want to know is did she swallow......:rofl

 

[Calm2Chaos]

USS Kole was in 2000...Bush was pres. in 2000, how can you say that was Clinton's fault? Clinton did not have enough information to take Bin Laden then. He actually did something right. You have to be cautious when it comes to diplomatic affairs. Of course Bush doesn't think so. That's why we rushed into this war without thoroughly looking at the evidence. Now on top of 3000 Americans in the WTC attacks, there are an additional 2500 and counting from this war, not to mention 10,000 Iraqi people. Bush had all the information about Bin Laden back in 2000 when he ran for office as Clinton did. The World Trade Center happened in Sept. of 2001. That is 1 year and 9 months to do something. But Bush did'nt have enough to go on either. It's ludicrous to think Clinton could have stopped the WTC attacks all by himself.

Didn't the clinton preidency run out in Jan 2001....HMMMMM????

Cole-Oct 2000

Clinton did **** accept allow multiple attacks on the country and it's interests. Did nothing and by doing so encouraged more and greater attacks. Ignored the ABLE DANGER info to eliminate the 9/11 terrorist..

 

[cnredd]

I don't quite understand what your point is. If 9/11 hadn't worked right either, Bush wouldn't have it happen during his presidency. But it did. And 93 didn't. Life sucks sometimes.

8 months vs. 8 years...AND 911 was hatched under "He whom shall not be blamed"...OBL would not have thought, "Oh...they chose Gore instead of Bush...nevermind"...

I think the lesson everybody should take away here is NOBODY knew how dangerous OBL was. NOBODY.

They were smatterings of people saying otherwise, but overall, I agree with this assessment...None of the voices shouting this were loud enough...

There are people here who claim that Clinton told Bush that OBL was America's biggest threat...Maybe you should talk to them...

Bush had the same info Clinton had when he became president. If OBL was such a clear threat as you're making out, then he could have done something about it.

Another claim I agree with that you should mention to the Liberal Left...Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998...The left remains silent...GWB uses the info gathered for this and attacks Iraq, and the left starts yelling "Liar!"...:roll:

And I'm sure you know, but the guy in 93 wasn't an al qaeda member at the time.

According to the US, Bin Laden was involved in at least three major attacks - the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

Not having an "Al Qaeda" nametag doesn't mean much...

OBL didn't start Al Qaeda, and then begun attacking...He attacked first, and THEN started Al Qaeda...That doesn't make those attacks before the creation any less significant...

 

[Kelzie]

According to the US, Bin Laden was involved in at least three major attacks - the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 killing of 19 US soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the 1998 bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

Not having an "Al Qaeda" nametag doesn't mean much...

OBL didn't start Al Qaeda, and then begun attacking...He attacked first, and THEN started Al Qaeda...That doesn't make those attacks before the creation any less significant...

"In 1997, Osama bin Laden said during an interview that he did not know Yousef. Yousef's uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed allegedly took part in launching the September 11 Terrorist Attacks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

 

[tecoyah]

I remeber well the terrorist attacks during the Clinton Administration, and also remember wishing we would hit back in some way....mostly for revenge (I was not a happy camper). Then clinton did this....and at the time he was beat up by the republican party for doing so:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," President Clinton on Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

I felt it was a measured response, and that we could deal with the backlash from Sudan and Afganistan, as we were a far more respected military power at that point. I also remember getting a bit Riled at the Dissenters (again mostly republican) for slamming Clinton because he blew up some stuff. I actually found this situation to be one of Willys more presidential moments, and believe it or not....he did it knowing the republicans would use it against him.

My point is....a bit of selective memory is in play here....if indeed those old enough to even remember this time, decide to think back on it.

 

[cnredd]

"In 1997, Osama bin Laden said during an interview that he did not know Yousef. Yousef's uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed allegedly took part in launching the September 11 Terrorist Attacks."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

As I've pointed out, the US believes otherwise...are you calling the US Government in 1997 a bunch of liars?...I think there should be an investigation...Harry Reid should close the Senate and have a discussion...

You din't respond to anything else in my post...I think you either didn't find anything "respondable" or you agreed with it...I'm hoping the latter...

 

[Kelzie]

I remeber well the terrorist attacks during the Clinton Administration, and also remember wishing we would hit back in some way....mostly for revenge (I was not a happy camper). Then clinton did this....and at the time he was beat up by the republican party for doing so:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," President Clinton on Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

I felt it was a measured response, and that we could deal with the backlash from Sudan and Afganistan, as we were a far more respected military power at that point. I also remember getting a bit Riled at the Dissenters (again mostly republican) for slamming Clinton because he blew up some stuff. I actually found this situation to be one of Willys more presidential moments, and believe it or not....he did it knowing the republicans would use it against him.

My point is....a bit of selective memory is in play here....if indeed those old enough to even remember this time, decide to think back on it.

I can already tell you what they're going to say.

He was just doing it to distract from the slightly-pudgy Lewinsky scandal.

Of course, ask them to prove it...

 

[Kelzie]

As I've pointed out, the US believes otherwise...are you calling the US Government in 1997 a bunch of liars?...I think there should be an investigation...Harry Reid should close the Senate and have a discussion...

This is what the article said he was wanted for:

"He [OBL] and his associates were already being sought by the US on charges of international terrorism, including in connection with the 1998 bombing of American embassies in Africa and last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen."

Nary a mention of 93 in there. Everything I've read says that Yousef was a lone terrorist.

You din't respond to anything else in my post...I think you either didn't find anything "respondable" or you agreed with it...I'm hoping the latter...

Well, you agreed with me. Why would I not agree with that? :lol:

 

[Calm2Chaos]

I can already tell you what they're going to say.

He was just doing it to distract from the slightly-pudgy Lewinsky scandal.

Of course, ask them to prove it...

Blowing up a building in the middle of the night killing a couple janitors.. Ya .. that sends a message.. It says were ******s and feel free to attack us whenever you have a free moment.

 

[Kelzie]

Blowing up a building in the middle of the night killing a couple janitors.. Ya .. that sends a message.. It says were ******s and feel free to attack us whenever you have a free moment.

He missed. So sue him. It's not like Bush has managed to find OBL either.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Since when did an attack on a military vessel not constitute an act of war?

Nothing was done.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

He missed. So sue him. It's not like Bush has managed to find OBL either.

Not sure what they have in common.

The point is it was a pathetic at best response to an attack on this country.

 

[Navy Pride]

Calm down there. Don't have a coronary. I never said that Clinton was perfect.

And there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute OBL at that time. Or so I heard. It's on another thead...don't really feel like looking. Was Clinton's rating really at 36%? What year? I thought it was such a big deal that Bush is at 36% cause the last president to go that low was Nixon?

Regardless. 9/11 happenned on Bush's watch. If OBL was so bad and Clinton was just ignoring the evidence, Bush had 6 months to do something about it. He didn't. Guess nobody really knew what he was capable of.

Wow President bush had 6 months and Clinton had 8 years.....:roll:

 

[tecoyah]

Since when did an attack on a military vessel not constitute an act of war?

Nothing was done.

OK...you are not much younger than me....perhaps you remember the Climate of the time in question. We were in diplomatic mode as a country (read peace), and an all out war was not in the cards. Hell,the Republicans would have ***** a gold Brick has Slick Willy so much as Mentioned the word War. At the time, there were checks and balances in this country that made invasion, let alone a full blown declaration of war virtually impossible without someone hitting the U.S. damn hard. I dont suppose you remember how hard it was to go into Bosnia....and the crap thrown at Clinton for that one....do you?

You are old enough to remember this stuff.....I will simply have to guess at why you dont.