A true Patriot

[minors]

Fact is Clinton screwed up and now he has the blood of 2500 people on his name

[KipWellsFan]

Fact is Clinton screwed up and now he has the blood of 2500 people on his name

 

You're f***ed up.

[Texsox]

Fact is Clinton screwed up and now he has the blood of 2500 people on his name

 

Pesky US laws. You are also making a supposition that with Bin Laden in custody his evil empire would have died with it. Playing "what if" is an innaccurate game at best and a dangerous game at worse. We could say if he was taken into custody that the world's terrrorists would have laid down their arms and begged for mercy, or we could say that the terrorist would have been driven to even bigger plans and a sporting event with 80,000 fans was spared. Imagine a crash at a sold out UM football game.

 

I will say that Clinton not keeping his zipper up started a chain of events that led to his final couple years to be less than effective. If he had made Bin Laden a huge issue, the GOP would have been screaming tail wagging the dog. There is plenty of blame to go around and both parties have "blood on their hands".

[kapkomet]

Fact is Clinton screwed up and now he has the blood of 2500 people on his name

Dude, whatever. It's not like everyone has a little blame to go around.

[Texsox]

Dude, whatever.  It's not like everyone has a little blame to go around.

 

Ain't that the truth.

 

Whenever that decision is mentioned, I wonder who we should be worried about today, who may do something evil in 5, 10, or 15 years. And of course, there will be near misses, etc.

 

Damn cold in Texas today. 46 at the beach.

[samclemens]

yeah, there is of course blame to around to everyone involved on both sides of the eisle. but hidsight is 20/20, my friends. clinton REALLY f***ed it up with his "get ready U.S., grease up and bend over" policy towards terrorism. he should have nabbed bin laden when he had the chance. so he gets more blame than anyone else in my opinion.

 

i do have to tip my hat to clinton for keeping his f***in' mouth shut with criticism in areas where he was totally deficient when he was in office. at least he has the decency not to be a pot calling the kettle black (cough...carter...cough).

 

p.s. carter sucks

[Rex Kickass]

You know so little about this issue, it's stunning that you'd make a comment yourself. Bill Clinton did start the work of transforming the way government responds to threats - his work was by no means complete, or in some cases enough, but to say he did absolutely nothing or had a "grease up and bend over" policy is just wrong.

[samclemens]

You know so little about this issue, it's stunning that you'd make a comment yourself. Bill Clinton did start the work of transforming the way government responds to threats - his work was by no means complete, or in some cases enough, but to say he did absolutely nothing or had a "grease up and bend over" policy is just wrong.

 

what is it i'm missing? please enlighten me then. what work was it that clinton did? perhaps you should change the description of what he did from "not complete" (not complete in the sense s*** was done) and "enough" (but not apparently enough to stop any terrorist acts, ramifications climaxing on 9/11) to "completely deficient".

 

clinton did not do even close to enough to quell terrorism- at least with the current prez you can complain that he is doing too much (at least thats the trendy liberal complaint nowdays, isnt it?).

 

dont forget to insult me again in your response, since im as wrong and stupid as you say and imply. after all, since i dont agree with you, i must be wrong.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

what is it i'm missing? please enlighten me then. what work was it that clinton did? perhaps you should change the description of what he did from "not complete" (not complete in the sense s*** was done) and "enough" (but not apparently enough to stop any terrorist acts, ramifications climaxing on 9/11) to "completely deficient".

 

clinton did not do even close to enough to quell terrorism- at least with the current prez you can complain that he is doing too much (at least thats the trendy liberal complaint nowdays, isnt it?).

 

dont forget to insult me again in your response, since im as wrong and stupid as you say and imply. after all, since i dont agree with you, i must be wrong.

Actually, to Clinton's credit, his administration did break up Project Bojinka (a plot to use a dozen airliners to blow up the White House, Pentagon, WTC, kill Clinton, kill the Pope, etc.) in 1995. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Bojinka

 

And you may want to give http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/Cl...ndTerrorism.htm a read.

 

While Clinton's efforts, in hindsight, could have been better -- it is factually inaccurate to say that he did nothing. (And this is coming from a guy who didn't really like a whole lot of what Clinton did as Prez)

[Rex Kickass]

Google search it. You'll find that Bill Clinton was trying to bring counter terrorism efforts to the forefront of his administration in 1995, before the Oklahoma City bombing, but it was blocked repeatedly by Republicans. In 1996, the Clinton administration introduced a counter-terror initiative that sought to increase funding for counter terrorism programs. It actually included enhanced wiretapping capabilities so that the US could be more flexible in pursuing non-state actors who were threats to national security. (FISA was amended in 1995 to give the administration a 72 hour window after the beginning of wiretapping to allow the government more flexibility in pursuing terror suspects.) The Clinton administration actively sought to upgrade security at US interests including its embassies during the 1990s, so much so that they actually got into an argument with Germany that delayed renovation of the Brandenburg Gate because Germany objected to blast walls and 20 foot high fences in the center of Berlin. (The bulk of embassy operations were later moved to an old US military base in the Southern region of the city where security measures could be more easily used.) Clinton actively tried to dry up economic assets of known terror suspects, including Bin Laden in 1998. Under his watch, he had the FBI reorganize itself to devote at least part of its resources specifically to counter terror organizations. His administration also chartered a blue ribbon investigation panel chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, and who included former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. They delivered a comprehensive study of recommendations that could have been implemented (some of them immediately) but when introduced fell flat because it just wasn't the interest of the people in charge at the time.

 

What's my point? The Clinton administration actually did quite a bit to combat terror during its term. But because it did so without drawing attention to itself over and over and over again, when something major happened - it was all about how the Clinton administration screwed up. The truth is that we live in a free society. And with freedom comes a degree of vulnerability. We can do whatever we can to protect ourselves and maintain our way of life - ideals and all. But that means that sometimes some mean people with box cutters can slip through the cracks and cause us a world of pain. Because we value our freedom, we also have to accept the possibility that others who don't may use our freedom against us.

 

So terrorism happening isn't Bush's fault. It isn't Clinton's fault. But I can say that ignoring specific threats can be a President's fault. And I haven't seen any evidence to show that the Clinton administration did just that.

[minors]

I mispoke let my emotions get the best of me, What I was meaning to say is blame goes to everyone from Newt Gingrich to Bill Clinton.

[Rex Kickass]

The fault lies with people who would take matters of national security and politicize it. People's whose opinions change about what is necessary based on who's in what office. And with people in our government who have a fundamental disconnect with what a "war" on terror actually has.

[samclemens]

Google search it. You'll find that Bill Clinton was trying to bring counter terrorism efforts to the forefront of his administration in 1995, before the Oklahoma City bombing, but it was blocked repeatedly by Republicans. In 1996, the Clinton administration introduced a counter-terror initiative that sought to increase funding for counter terrorism programs. It actually included enhanced wiretapping capabilities so that the US could be more flexible in pursuing non-state actors who were threats to national security. (FISA was amended in 1995 to give the administration a 72 hour window after the beginning of wiretapping to allow the government more flexibility in pursuing terror suspects.) The Clinton administration actively sought to upgrade security at US interests including its embassies during the 1990s, so much so that they actually got into an argument with Germany that delayed renovation of the Brandenburg Gate because Germany objected to blast walls and 20 foot high fences in the center of Berlin. (The bulk of embassy operations were later moved to an old US military base in the Southern region of the city where security measures could be more easily used.) Clinton actively tried to dry up economic assets of known terror suspects, including Bin Laden in 1998. Under his watch, he had the FBI reorganize itself to devote at least part of its resources specifically to counter terror organizations. His administration also chartered a blue ribbon investigation panel chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, and who included former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. They delivered a comprehensive study of recommendations that could have been implemented (some of them immediately) but when introduced fell flat because it just wasn't the interest of the people in charge at the time.

 

What's my point? The Clinton administration actually did quite a bit to combat terror during its term. But because it did so without drawing attention to itself over and over and over again, when something major happened - it was all about how the Clinton administration screwed up. The truth is that we live in a free society. And with freedom comes a degree of vulnerability. We can do whatever we can to protect ourselves and maintain our way of life - ideals and all. But that means that sometimes some mean people with box cutters can slip through the cracks and cause us a world of pain. Because we value our freedom, we also have to accept the possibility that others who don't may use our freedom against us.

 

So terrorism happening isn't Bush's fault. It isn't Clinton's fault. But I can say that ignoring specific threats can be a President's fault. And I haven't seen any evidence to show that the Clinton administration did just that.

 

thats really great that he had initiatives and tried to freeze some bank accounts. but practically, what did he accomplish? not a damn thing. the reason is that hugging and singing koombya and appeasing terrorists instead of physically stopping them isnt going to make them stop trying to pull s*** off like 9/11.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I will say that Clinton not keeping his zipper up started a chain of events that led to his final couple years to be less than effective. If he had made Bin Laden a huge issue, the GOP would have been screaming tail wagging the dog. There is plenty of blame to go around and both parties have "blood on their hands".

 

 

 

Did he do anything meaningful to attack Bin Laden? No. He lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty terrorist camps then bragged how he was getting tough on terrorism. PLEASE!

 

 

He could have had the CIA kill Bin Laden when they knew where he was. He could have gotten him friom Sudan and failed. He could have done a million things but like was the norm for Clinton, he did just enough to take the focus off his impeachment.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Did he do anything meaningful to attack Bin Laden?  No.  He lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty terrorist camps then bragged how he was getting tough on terrorism.  PLEASE!

He could have had the CIA kill Bin Laden when they knew where he was.  He could have gotten him friom Sudan and failed.  He could have done a million things but like was the norm for Clinton, he did just enough to take the focus off his impeachment.

Yet it was Gingrich and the rest of the people thirsting for him to drop trow on the floor of Congress so they could see the distinguishing characteristics of his wang saying that his efforts were "wagging the dog".

 

And actually the CIA admitted (if you read my previous posts with Bojinka and my citations) that the CIA had doubts about the intel and therefore didn't want to go through with the hit. Clinton authorized it but the CIA wasn't sure it was him.

 

The Sudan thing -- it was up to Bush's favorites, the House of Saud, to take him into custody and then be given to the US. But the US/Sudan couldn't convince the Saudis to do it. Hence, the US couldn't get him.

 

Your anti-Clinton hackery is quite hilarious and really devoid of anything called "Facts". Hell, I don't even like Clinton but I won't admit that he did nothing because he actually did combat terrorism.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yet it was Gingrich and the rest of the people thirsting for him to drop trow on the floor of Congress so they could see the distinguishing characteristics of his wang saying that his efforts were "wagging the dog".

 

And actually the CIA admitted (if you read my previous posts with Bojinka and my citations) that the CIA had doubts about the intel and therefore didn't want to go through with the hit.  Clinton authorized it but the CIA wasn't sure it was him.

 

The Sudan thing -- it was up to Bush's favorites, the House of Saud, to take him into custody and then be given to the US.  But the US/Sudan couldn't convince the Saudis to do it.  Hence, the US couldn't get him.

 

Your anti-Clinton hackery is quite hilarious and really devoid of anything called "Facts".  Hell, I don't even like Clinton but I won't admit that he did nothing because he actually did combat terrorism.

 

 

Whats hilarious is that you defend his INaction and act like he was some sort of crusader against the Islamo-fascist movement. His gutting of the CIA and the military, combined with his unwillingness to respond to several terrorist attacks opened the door nice and wide for Bin Laden to hit WTC.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Whats hilarious is that you defend his INaction and act like he was some sort of crusader against the Islamo-fascist movement.  His gutting of the CIA and the military, combined with his unwillingness to respond to several terrorist attacks opened the door nice and wide for Bin Laden to hit WTC.

Gee -- first it is "Clinton did nothing!"

 

That gets proved wrong.

 

Then it's "Clinton do as much!"

 

That gets proved wrong.

 

Then it's this new one.

 

This is hilarious how much blame you want to put on Clinton without having the factual basis to back up your irrational hatred. Does he have some blame? Of course. But not nearly the amount you're wanting to heap upon him merely because of the D after his name.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Gee -- first it is "Clinton did nothing!"

 

That gets proved wrong.

 

Then it's "Clinton do as much!"

 

That gets proved wrong.

 

Then it's this new one.

 

This is hilarious how much blame you want to put on Clinton without having the factual basis to back up your irrational hatred.  Does he have some blame?  Of course.  But not nearly the amount you're wanting to heap upon him merely because of the D after his name.

 

 

What are you smoking?! He didnt do a damn thing to stop terrorism and thats what Ive been saying all along. What he did do ( gutting the CIA and Military ) helped facilitate it. Pay attention to whats being said before you make smartass comments.

[Texsox]

Did he do anything meaningful to attack Bin Laden?  No.  He lobbed a few cruise missiles into empty terrorist camps then bragged how he was getting tough on terrorism.  PLEASE!

He could have had the CIA kill Bin Laden when they knew where he was.  He could have gotten him friom Sudan and failed.  He could have done a million things but like was the norm for Clinton, he did just enough to take the focus off his impeachment.

 

He could have violated US and International Law, but didn't. I am hard pressed to condem someone for following the Constitution he took an Oath to uphold.

 

On the impeachment part, I agree it became the focus and rendered him ineffective. Was it worth it? Was the Starr investigation and the hearings worth it? Was the crippiling effect on our government worth it?

 

Why was it so easy for Clinton to get him, but Bush hasn't been able to in 5 years? Perhaps we are thinking it would have been easier then than it actually was?

[Texsox]

Just wondering, if these are the lowest increases in military wages, does it mean that during the Clinton years, the military received higher increases every year? That is surprising me, based on all the Clinton gutted the military and moral being low.

 

We could always use more soldiers, I don't think we ever could really have enough. But how could a million soldeirs have prevented 9/11?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Just wondering, if these are the lowest increases in military wages, does it mean that during the Clinton years, the military received higher increases every year? That is surprising me, based on all the Clinton gutted the military and moral being low.

 

We could always use more soldiers, I don't think we ever could really have enough. But how could a million soldeirs have prevented 9/11?

 

 

For years there has been a law in place that mandated a military pay hike of .5% more than the average civillian worker got. I dont know how far back it dates but its been a long time. During the early years of the Bush Administration pay went up huge. 7+% I think in 2001 and 2002's was right behind it.

 

Thats not the point though. The bad morale in the Military during the Clinton years is VERY real. I was personally there for the end of it ( I went in in 1998 ) and a whole lot of people openly despised Clinton and how he dismantled the Army ( I can only imagine what the Air Force thought of him since they got it worse from what I heard ) .

 

There was a massive brain drain of experienced leadership during that period too due to early-outs being offered to pretty much anyone who was within shouting distance of their 20 year mark with a lot of folks allowed to retire at 15 years. We've only in the last few years gotten over that one and it took going to war to replace the experience pool.

 

On your last point. Im not saying a million soldiers would have prevented 9-11 ( had Clinton not trashed the CIA that would have helped ) but all the time I hear about how we dont have enough troops to fight the wars that followed. Had we been focused on transforming that Cold War force instead of gutting it we'd be in far better shape to handle whats on our plate now.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Why was it so easy for Clinton to get him, but Bush hasn't been able to in 5 years? Perhaps we are thinking it would have been easier then than it actually was?

 

 

Now that Bin Laden is actually a marked man he went into hiding in nowhere Afghanistan/Pakistan. Not hard to figure out. He could afford to be out in the open when nobody was gunning for him.

[samclemens]

Yet it was Gingrich and the rest of the people thirsting for him to drop trow on the floor of Congress so they could see the distinguishing characteristics of his wang saying that his efforts were "wagging the dog".

 

And actually the CIA admitted (if you read my previous posts with Bojinka and my citations) that the CIA had doubts about the intel and therefore didn't want to go through with the hit.  Clinton authorized it but the CIA wasn't sure it was him.

 

The Sudan thing -- it was up to Bush's favorites, the House of Saud, to take him into custody and then be given to the US.  But the US/Sudan couldn't convince the Saudis to do it.  Hence, the US couldn't get him.

 

Your anti-Clinton hackery is quite hilarious and really devoid of anything called "Facts".  Hell, I don't even like Clinton but I won't admit that he did nothing because he actually did combat terrorism.

 

your anti-bush hackery is blinding your reasoning. you blame everything on republicans and bush. was that you in the bolton thread too who i said that to about an hour ago? even if its not, think about the issue and talk it out, instead of just blaming the president. please!

[Rex Kickass]

Why? You don't seem to have any problem blaming Bill Clinton, even if you're without any facts whatsoever. Then presented with them you just wave them off.

 

Who needs the truth to back up an opinion when its right to begin with. Reality be damned!

 

The bulk of CIA and military dismantlement came from the Bush 41 years if I remember correctly. All that fun peace dividend talk.

[Texsox]

Had we been focused on transforming that Cold War force instead of gutting it we'd be in far better shape to handle whats on our plate now.

 

The mistake there was when Congress and the American people, were sold on a Peace Dividend. The plan was, we could increase the military to win the cold war, then decrease with all the savings after the Evil Empire was brought down. It sounded great coming from the Great Communicator, but was lost in translation when Bush I and Clinton actually started to impliment the plan.

 

There has to be a balance between unchecked military spending and an effective standing military to protect us. It is interesting when we receive s***ty service from some government clerk, we never blame the President for budgetary issues, but military moral seems to be tied to the President and the benefits and working conditions. I still believe we can't pay our front line Troops nearly enough for what they do. In some ways, I think we have the pay inversed. The highest pay should be for the 18 year old kid who is sent into harms way and then it decreases as you move further away from the "theater" until some old guy in Washington shuffeling papers and admiring his ribbons earns $18,000 per year.