NOTE the difference

[Phil Ayesho]

8 years of republican rule... not one republican sponsored investigation into Republican corruption. In fact, the justice department was partisanized and anyone, republican or Democrat who was investigating republican corruption was fired.


compare that reality to today's... still a month and a half BEFORE Democrats come to power...

And the Democratic chief of staff NOMINEE drops a dime on the Democratic Governor of his home state, the minute he becomes aware that the Governor is acting unethically.

No "partisan investigation".... He CALLED the COPS on the guy.


Wow... The return of civic virtue to national politics... I can hardly wait...



PS- Also note the cynical ideological agenda of the Republicans in the senate in trying to OVERTLY destroy the UAW, even if it means plunging the entire nation into a HOOVERESQUE depression... ( Dick CHENEY said killing it meant Hoover-times)

That is how much republicans hate the working class. They would throw the whole nation under the bus to end organized labor.

The only loyalty republicans have is to business ownership... and they don't care how the pursuit of profit impacts the American people.
As a party, as a perspective, the republican party has abdicated any claim to patriotism, abdicated any claim to moral virtue.

People who hate government CAN NOT GOVERN.

 

[Principessa]

8 years of republican rule... not one republican sponsored investigation into Republican corruption. In fact, the justice department was partisanized and anyone, republican or Democrat who was investigating republican corruption was fired.

compare that reality to today's... still a month and a half BEFORE Democrats come to power...

And the Democratic chief of staff NOMINEE drops a dime on the Democratic Governor of his home state, the minute he becomes aware that the Governor is acting unethically.

No "partisan investigation".... He CALLED the COPS on the guy.


Wow... The return of civic virtue to national politics... I can hardly wait...

PS- Also note the cynical ideological agenda of the Republicans in the senate in trying to OVERTLY destroy the UAW, even if it means plunging the entire nation into a HOOVERESQUE depression... ( Dick CHENEY said killing it meant Hoover-times)

That is how much republicans hate the working class. They would throw the whole nation under the bus to end organized labor.

The only loyalty republicans have is to business ownership... and they don't care how the pursuit of profit impacts the American people.
As a party, as a perspective, the republican party has abdicated any claim to patriotism, abdicated any claim to moral virtue.

People who hate government CAN NOT GOVERN.

njqt466 hides from the lightning which she is sure will strike her any minute for agreeing with Phil Ayesho. :biggrin1:

 

[pym]

I've lived through the same reality too. I'm pushing 47 now and have seen it just as described too many times.

 

[ZOS23xy]

ah--I hope to see the revelations unfolding when Bush's veil of secrecy peels off and the records can be looked at.

I think major corruption charges can be filed.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Every party feels this way about their own party and the opposing party. Nothing new about denial its been around every since 2 people existed on earth at the same time.

 

[HazelGod]

Every party feels this way about their own party and the opposing party. Nothing new about denial its been around every since 2 people existed on earth at the same time.

Maybe so, dollface, but those who claim no party affiliation tend to observe the pendulum of corruption, hypocrisy and self-interest swinging in the conservatives' direction a disproportionate percentage of the time in both frequency and severity.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Maybe so, dollface, but those who claim no party affiliation tend to observe the pendulum of corruption, hypocrisy and self-interest swinging in the conservatives' direction a disproportionate percentage of the time in both frequency and severity.

QFT.

Note- Clinton complied to a senate subpoena. AND actually AUTHORIZED the investigation into his dealings.
Bush and Cheney and Rove have refused to comply to senate subpoena and Administration appointees and underlings who have been subpoenaed have been fired or had their careers destroyed if they do comply.
Sarah Palin instructed her staff to refuse to comply with State subpoena... and that fact did not even HINT that she might be removed as VP nominee.

Republicans spent 40 million dollars investigating a blowjob, and undermined Clinton's attempts to blow up Bin Laden.... and yet, less than two years later, republicans tried their best to STOP an investigation into 9/11.
Cheney has taken the legal position that he is NOT a member of the administration, and therefore his records are not subject to the archival act. Seeking the right to DESTROY all evidence of his actions as VP.

The evasion of accountability, and the suborning of justice seems to be entirely running in one direction only.

Democrats may have a lot of faults... but they, by and large, seem to hold compliance to the law in more esteem.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

, and undermined Clinton's attempts to blow up Bin Laden...

Explain to me how it was the Republicans that got in the way when Clinton dropped the ball on this

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

8 years of republican rule... not one republican sponsored investigation into Republican corruption. In fact, the justice department was partisanized and anyone, republican or Democrat who was investigating republican corruption was fired.

After so many "read my lips" and "I'm not a crook" GOP administrations, I think corruption was pretty much accepted from the Republican party by the time Bush took office. Hell, it was corruption that got him into office in the first place, so why would anyone be shocked at everything else that followed?

According to Gallup polls taken yearly since 2000, roughly 50 percent of Americans believe that the election of George W. Bush was either "won on a technicality" or "stolen." Only 34 percent are "very confident" that the vote will be counted accurately in November. (source)

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Explain to me how it was the Republicans that got in the way when Clinton dropped the ball on this

Try reading up on it.

Clinton IDENTIFIED Bin Laden as a threat ( the same Bin Laden that Bush 1 and Reagan had ARMED and trained )
And he launched missiles at Bin Laden's camps.

The Republicans were ALL OVER the airwaves moaning about how Clinton was only trying to DETRACT from the Whitewater investigation into his sex life...

The term the republicans used was calling it a "Wag the Dog" scenario... ( the movie release closely coincided with the events ) implying that the "threat" of Bin Laden was 'INVENTED' as political cover for the nefarious blowjob.

Clinton's attempts to convince the public and republican controlled congress that Al queda was a real threat were drowned out by republican "Wag the Dog" Spin.
The same republican senate who refused to support any Clinton response to the Cole bombing....

This explains why, despite being HANDED intelligence detailing al queda operatives movement in the US and warning of BOTH plans to attack the US AND of imminent highjackings... Bush and Condi pretty much IGNORED the intelligence reports BECAUSE they had come from Clinton and they just ASSUMED the republican SPIN was the truth...
From the day they took office, till 9/11- Bush and Rice had NOT ONE MEETING to discuss the threat posed by the intelligence. Not together... and not with ANYONE else, either.

Who dropped the fucking ball?

For 8 years Clinton IMPOSED the sanctions on Iraq- result, NOT ONE FUCKING WMD in the whole fucking country.

TODAY- Bush signed a NUCLEAR development deal with the United Arab Emirates... whose primary trading partner is Iran. ( the UAE is the second largest stronghold and funder of Wahabist madrassas- where the anti American terrorists come from ) And he is gonna HAND them nuclear technology.

Who the fuck dropped the Ball?

What alternate reality are you living in where Dubya is the hero?

The guy who FIRED the entire Iraqi military and made it a hard rule that former soldiers could not be hired? Throwing half a million ARMED men into unemployment and CREATING the insurgency?
The guy who FIRED the General who WARNED him that pacifying iraq would take a LOT more men... and that NOT sending a lot more men would encourage an insurgency?

The guy who hired a FAILED horse show promoter to head an agency CRITICAL to national security and response? Who Hired ENRON'S attorney as his AG?

Really? at THIS point in history... with what has come to light... you are honestly gonna claim that Clinton was the one who fucked up because he actually took bin laden seriously BEFORE the WTC fell?


I thought Steve Jobs had a reality distortion field.... but man, you take the cake.


Believe what you want... but I remember... the only thing that outraged me MORE than Clinton getting blown by an intern... was the Republicans USING it to undermine a genuine attempt to thwart a REAL threat.



Oh... and the REASON Clinton never was able to "get" bin laden?

Because a REPUBLICAN on the intelligence committee wanted to impress a Reporter by telling him HOW we were tracking his movements...

Bin Laden disappeared literally WEEKS before Clinton had plans to take him out, thanks to that minor act of treason.



So seriously... peddle your revisionist history to someone with a much poorer memory, or someone too young to have lived thru it.

 

[HyperHulk]

What alternate reality are you living in where Dubya is the hero?

Hmmm, I find myself asking this question all the time when I read the pro-Bush posts.

You forgot to mention though one of the worst things I've ever witnessed from a politician: the outing of Plame by the Bush administration as revenge because her husband was saying that Iraq had WMD. I will never understand how they survived this? To me, this is the worst betrayal and most egregious acts ever committed. How do the pro-Bush people ignore this and yet launch their venom at Obama I'll never know or understand.

 

[houtx48]

if clinton would have wanted to blow up the devil himself the republicans would have put up a stink about it. stop your whining.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

Try reading up on it.

Clinton IDENTIFIED Bin Laden as a threat ( the same Bin Laden that Bush 1 and Reagan had ARMED and trained )
And he launched missiles at Bin Laden's camps.

The Republicans were ALL OVER the airwaves moaning about how Clinton was only trying to DETRACT from the Whitewater investigation into his sex life...

The term the republicans used was calling it a "Wag the Dog" scenario... ( the movie release closely coincided with the events ) implying that the "threat" of Bin Laden was 'INVENTED' as political cover for the nefarious blowjob.

Clinton's attempts to convince the public and republican controlled congress that Al queda was a real threat were drowned out by republican "Wag the Dog" Spin.
The same republican senate who refused to support any Clinton response to the Cole bombing....

This explains why, despite being HANDED intelligence detailing al queda operatives movement in the US and warning of BOTH plans to attack the US AND of imminent highjackings... Bush and Condi pretty much IGNORED the intelligence reports BECAUSE they had come from Clinton and they just ASSUMED the republican SPIN was the truth...
From the day they took office, till 9/11- Bush and Rice had NOT ONE MEETING to discuss the threat posed by the intelligence. Not together... and not with ANYONE else, either.

Who dropped the fucking ball?

For 8 years Clinton IMPOSED the sanctions on Iraq- result, NOT ONE FUCKING WMD in the whole fucking country.

TODAY- Bush signed a NUCLEAR development deal with the United Arab Emirates... whose primary trading partner is Iran. ( the UAE is the second largest stronghold and funder of Wahabist madrassas- where the anti American terrorists come from ) And he is gonna HAND them nuclear technology.

Who the fuck dropped the Ball?

What alternate reality are you living in where Dubya is the hero?

The guy who FIRED the entire Iraqi military and made it a hard rule that former soldiers could not be hired? Throwing half a million ARMED men into unemployment and CREATING the insurgency?
The guy who FIRED the General who WARNED him that pacifying iraq would take a LOT more men... and that NOT sending a lot more men would encourage an insurgency?

The guy who hired a FAILED horse show promoter to head an agency CRITICAL to national security and response? Who Hired ENRON'S attorney as his AG?

Really? at THIS point in history... with what has come to light... you are honestly gonna claim that Clinton was the one who fucked up because he actually took bin laden seriously BEFORE the WTC fell?


I thought Steve Jobs had a reality distortion field.... but man, you take the cake.


Believe what you want... but I remember... the only thing that outraged me MORE than Clinton getting blown by an intern... was the Republicans USING it to undermine a genuine attempt to thwart a REAL threat.



Oh... and the REASON Clinton never was able to "get" bin laden?

Because a REPUBLICAN on the intelligence committee wanted to impress a Reporter by telling him HOW we were tracking his movements...

Bin Laden disappeared literally WEEKS before Clinton had plans to take him out, thanks to that minor act of treason.



So seriously... peddle your revisionist history to someone with a much poorer memory, or someone too young to have lived thru it.

Phil,

That's a lot of words that doesn't take away from the fact that we had OBL in our SIGHTS on THREE occasions. Bubba Clinton didn't pull the trigger on two of the occasions due to collateral damage. Once was due to civilians the other was due to OBL was standing next to a Prince of the UAE.

Policy makers, including Bubba passed the word to not take him out due to this, it has NOTHING to do with Republicans stopping him. You need to do more research.

And show me were in any of my posts on these forums I've defended Bush. You're talking about Iraq now in your rebuttal, I'm not talking about Iraq or what Bush did or didn't. I'm talking about your claim that Republicans got in the way of Bubba taking out OBL, which they didn't. So before you start jumping around to other topics to try and stick to the question and do some more research.

Nothing the Republicans did would have stopped Bubba from doing his job. We had him, we were looking right at him, just sitting there waiting for the order and he said NO THREE TIMES.

Also I love how if someone calls out a Democrat they are a Bush supporter, get a grip man and learn your history, you need to dig a little deeper than Blogs, youtube, CNN etc. More happens behind the scenes than what you see at the surface, you may want to scratch beneath it once in a while.

Again for the record, I'm not a Bush supporter.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Phil,

That's a lot of words that doesn't take away from the fact that we had OBL in our SIGHTS on THREE occasions. Bubba Clinton didn't pull the trigger on two of the occasions due to collateral damage. Once was due to civilians the other was due to OBL was standing next to a Prince of the UAE.

So... you are saying that Clinton fucked up because he DIDN'T kill the the Prince of a nation we have an ALLIANCE with? Or because he was reticent to kill a bunch of civilians?

The fact was, the potential fallout, both collateral, and from Republican histrionics caused to Clinton decide against trying to kill him in favor of CAPTURING him and putting him on trial.
He was trying to arrange that capture when the method we were using to track was leaked.


Seriously, tho... he was TRYING to do something about it... he had people on it and was paying lcose attention to it.

He WARNED Bush about it.

What did Bush do?

What did Condi do?

Not one fucking thing. They see a report on Bin Laden determined to attack in the US... AND they see intelligence indications of imminent hijackings AND they have reports of Arabs on student visas taking flight training...

Dod any of that spark any interest? No.
Why? because the Arabs taking training were Saudis... that's why, and Bush had a strict hands off policy on Saudi's from day one.

Policy makers, including Bubba passed the word to not take him out due to this, it has NOTHING to do with Republicans stopping him. You need to do more research.

Sorry, buddy, I don't accept republican disinformation and self exculpatory spin as research.
The Republicans put together a team to fuck up Clinton BEFORE he even took the oath.... they perpetrated an 8 year long series of attacks and investigations that came up with NOTHING but a blowjob....
And, once they had the majority, they acted to cripple him politically.

A LAW ABIDING president who shows respect for the will of the public does not act unilaterally when throwing force around.
If he got accused of Blowing up an al queda encampment for political reasons... how the fuck do you think he would have been treated by republicans for killing an emirate prince?

Clinton was not acting ALONE.. he was acting in a sphere politicized and partisanized by republican anti-clinton rhetoric.

And stop pretending you don't know that and that it didn't play a role.

The FACTS are the facts. When Clinton was trying to focus a republican congress on the threat of Al Queda, the Republicans were too busy painting our own democratic president as the REAL threat.
Republicans utterly IGNORED terrorism for 8 years... and it took an attack on the WTC to wake them up... and even THEN.... they over-reacted, reacted ineffectually, and literally made the situation FAR worse.

And, managed to turn the real threat of terrorism into a graftapalooza war in the wrong country, killing the wrong people, for reasons having nothing to do with al queda and everything to do with oil.

And show me were in any of my posts on these forums I've defended Bush. You're talking about Iraq now in your rebuttal, I'm not talking about Iraq or what Bush did or didn't. I'm talking about your claim that Republicans got in the way of Bubba taking out OBL, which they didn't. So before you start jumping around to other topics to try and stick to the question and do some more research.

Don't pull that innocent noise on me. When you claim that it was CLINTON who dropped the ball on Bin Laden, you are acting as an apologist for Bush.

No one has 20 20 foresight. I don't condemn Bush for the 9/11 attacks... by defintion a sucker punch is one you didn't see coming.
No one had ever pulled a stunt like that before...


However, when you invite comparison of the two administrations' response to terrorism, I CAN condemn him for disregarding Clinton intelligence on Al Queda, I can condemn him for not having even ONE meeting on the issue of terrorism.... on Condi for not ONE follow up question regarding hijackings or all queda... for assuming Saudi nationals were no threat.

And I can absolutely condemn the republican repsonse to everything Clinton did to TRY and address the Bin laden issue. I watched unfold.

They did not take Bin Laden seriously as a threat and they were bound and determined to destroy the Clinton presidency by ANY means.

And, dude, I voted for Bush1 his first term, so I am hardly a liberal brain donor.

Nothing the Republicans did would have stopped Bubba from doing his job. We had him, we were looking right at him, just sitting there waiting for the order and he said NO THREE TIMES.

Bullshit.
HE ACTED. that's the diametiracl opposite of what the republicans did under the exact same circumstances.
Where was their support for action against bin laden? They were part of the government, they were on the intelligence committees and defense committees... were they pounding the podium demanding action agsint al queda?
no.
They decried all actions Clinton took.
And sorry.. we DIDN'T have him. CLinton had to evaluate how defensible an assassination would be on the world stage.
HE did not ascribe to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.
( lookee how well that turned out.)

You wanna talk when we HAD him?
It was when we had an ACTUAL war on to GET him... had him corralled in a small range of mountains.... and the general in charge asked the Bush administration for just 3,000 lousy troops to effectively cut off any escape.

This was less than a year after 9/11-AFTER the towers fell... we were AT WAR with Al queda... and the Bush Administration REFUSED to allocate 3 fucking thousand troops to secure Bin Laden's capture....

A TRILLION dollar war... AIMED at and justified by bin laden and these dumb fucks couldn't spare 3,000 troops to get the job done?

WHO dropped the ball?
Makes perfect sense form the republican point of view, cause capturing bin laden that early on would have pulled the rug out from under their OIL grab in Iraq.


Look, I can find a lot to criticize Democrats over... but Republican failures belong to them and I won't accept bullshit arguments about how Clinton fucked up because he had to exercise better judgement than Bush.

Another key difference? Clinton fought terrorism far more affordably and judiciously, and DID NOT bankrupt the nation. He did more, with less, than Bush has managed to accomplish... AND balanced the budget.

He had three imperfect opportunities to kill Bin laden... and the one actual strike he carried thru on, the one that was unlikely to kill innocents or important allies missed Bin Laden very narrowly...


Bush has had a trillion dollars and the FULL employment of the entire military over SEVEN years.... and has not so much as FOUND bin laden... much less defeated him.

Why? because republicans are too busy lining their fucking pockets at the expense of the nation to be bothered with actually thinking about how to wage a war.



Excuse yourself all you want... your rhetoric is lifted off FOX news malarky verbatim.
Its partisan and aimed at blaming democrats for the war the NeoCons wanted even before 9/11 gave them an excuse.

If you want to blame someone for Al Queda.... blame the republicans who ARMED him to fight the soviets.
Or blame the republican ( Bush 1) who put a US military base in Saudi Arabia... because, truly. THAT is why Bin Laden is attacking us.

He has vowed to stop the minute US troop are OUT of Saudi Arabia.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

That's a lot of words that doesn't take away from the fact that we had OBL in our SIGHTS on THREE occasions. Bubba Clinton didn't pull the trigger on two of the occasions due to collateral damage. Once was due to civilians the other was due to OBL was standing next to a Prince of the UAE.

After the Cole situation, Clinton tried to go after the al-Qaeda and OBL. He drew up battle plans to enter Afghanistan, overthrow the al-Qaeda and then go after Bin Laden.

The CIA (Presided by George Tenet, appointed by Bush Sr) and the FBI refused to acknowledge that Bin Laden was responsible for the African embassy and Cole bombings.

Clinton then tried to send special forces into Afghanistan in a few helicopters to quickly and quietly decapitate AL-Qaeda. Due to the short range of these choppers, he needed rights to refuel at bases. He couldn't get the base rights, so the operation didn't happen. He tried his best to handle the situation--and with minimal civilian casualties.

YouTube - Clinton smacks down Fox News!

Once again, Clinton set a good example for Bush to follow, and Bush dropped the ball.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

So... you are saying that Clinton fucked up because he DIDN'T kill the the Prince of a nation we have an ALLIANCE with? Or because he was reticent to kill a bunch of civilians?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The responsibility of the POTUS is to protect the citizens of the US and our interests. It's not like this stuff never happens, the Prince knew who he was that hunting trip with. I would trade a prince and a couple civilians for our nations freedom.

Seriously, tho... he was TRYING to do something about it... he had people on it and was paying lcose attention to it.

But when the time to act came, he didn't want bloody hands. Cruise missiles are great for show but get nothing done. Just like pulling out of Mogadishu and not letting us finish the job, we bled and died for nothing.

He WARNED Bush about it.
They see a report on Bin Laden determined to attack in the US... AND they see intelligence indications of imminent hijackings AND they have reports of Arabs on student visas taking flight training...

Not going to argue that point. I'm just as pissed about the lack of effort pre-9/11 by the Bush administration.

Bush had a strict hands off policy on Saudi's from day one.

Source?

Sorry, buddy, I don't accept republican disinformation and self exculpatory spin as research.
The Republicans put together a team to fuck up Clinton BEFORE he even took the oath.... they perpetrated an 8 year long series of attacks and investigations that came up with NOTHING but a blowjob....
And, once they had the majority, they acted to cripple him politically.

Psssssst, I'm not Republican. It's not spin, the events I'm talking about are fact. Your statement that Republicans kept him from getting OBL, which is complete bullshit.

A LAW ABIDING president who shows respect for the will of the public does not act unilaterally when throwing force around.
If he got accused of Blowing up an al queda encampment for political reasons... how the fuck do you think he would have been treated by republicans for killing an emirate prince?

Did you just say Bubba was Law Abiding? Phil you disappoint me.

And stop pretending you don't know that and that it didn't play a role.

If we are still on the same topic about Bubba giving the order to execute OBL then no, Republican rhetoric has nothing to do with it. He would have been praised as hitting the man behind the USS Cole, 93 WTC, Embassy bombings etc, the citizens of this country would have praised him for it, and nothing the Republicans could have done would have put a dent in that.

The FACTS are the facts. When Clinton was trying to focus a republican congress on the threat of Al Queda, the Republicans were too busy painting our own democratic president as the REAL threat.
Republicans utterly IGNORED terrorism for 8 years... and it took an attack on the WTC to wake them up... and even THEN.... they over-reacted, reacted ineffectually, and literally made the situation FAR worse.

Clinton also had 8 years, he say on his hands and passed it to the next administration.

And, managed to turn the real threat of terrorism into a graftapalooza war in the wrong country, killing the wrong people, for reasons having nothing to do with al queda and everything to do with oil.

Not arguing that, again this is about Bubba, not Bushy. You're defecting.

Don't pull that innocent noise on me. When you claim that it was CLINTON who dropped the ball on Bin Laden, you are acting as an apologist for Bush.

And you're deflecting by pushing off Bubba and his mistakes and speaking to Iraq.

However, when you invite comparison of the two administrations' response to terrorism, I CAN condemn him for disregarding Clinton intelligence on Al Queda, I can condemn him for not having even ONE meeting on the issue of terrorism.... on Condi for not ONE follow up question regarding hijackings or all queda... for assuming Saudi nationals were no threat.

Bush didn't act, and Bubba also sat on his hands. Both of them have the stink of 9/11 on them. If you want to have a different conversation regarding Bush and his debacle of Iraq and the like, you will find I probably agree with you more than you think.

And I can absolutely condemn the republican repsonse to everything Clinton did to TRY and address the Bin laden issue. I watched unfold.

They did not take Bin Laden seriously as a threat and they were bound and determined to destroy the Clinton presidency by ANY means.

Again, this has nothing to do with Republicans. We WERE SITTING at OBL's front door. We are not talking cruise missiles here, not talking a Battalion of troops. We are talking about a quick get in get out strike that nobody even in Congress would know about until they read about it in the morning's Post. Bubba would have been hailed as a hero as I said, if nothing else THAT would have trumped any mud the Republicans were trying to stick to him.

And, dude, I voted for Bush1 his first term, so I am hardly a liberal brain donor.

Good for you. I didn't.

Bullshit.
HE ACTED. that's the diametiracl opposite of what the republicans did under the exact same circumstances.
Where was their support for action against bin laden? They were part of the government, they were on the intelligence committees and defense committees... were they pounding the podium demanding action agsint al queda?
no.
They decried all actions Clinton took.
And sorry.. we DIDN'T have him. CLinton had to evaluate how defensible an assassination would be on the world stage.
HE did not ascribe to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.
( lookee how well that turned out.)

Defensible? Are you serious? He is not a head of state lol, man you're reaching now. Nobody would have been shocked if we took him out, he wasn't the only country hunting him down, do some more research.

You wanna talk when we HAD him?
It was when we had an ACTUAL war on to GET him... had him corralled in a small range of mountains.... and the general in charge asked the Bush administration for just 3,000 lousy troops to effectively cut off any escape.

Yes Phil I know, I was there.

But again, I'm not arguing the fuck ups of the Bush administration. I am talking to how the Bush/Clinton era didn't do anything to help, it wasn't Bush alone.

When Bubba was in office we could have counted the amount of whiskers his beard had. I would call that having him, do more research. I won't argue Bush dropped the ball too, but saying that Clinton didn't is just being ignorant.

This was less than a year after 9/11-AFTER the towers fell... we were AT WAR with Al queda... and the Bush Administration REFUSED to allocate 3 fucking thousand troops to secure Bin Laden's capture....

A TRILLION dollar war... AIMED at and justified by bin laden and these dumb fucks couldn't spare 3,000 troops to get the job done?

WHO dropped the ball?
Makes perfect sense form the republican point of view, cause capturing bin laden that early on would have pulled the rug out from under their OIL grab in Iraq.[/quote]

It's not a Republican point of view, it's mine, I'm not Republican. And regarding the 3,000 troops, I know I was there.

Look, I can find a lot to criticize Democrats over... but Republican failures belong to them and I won't accept bullshit arguments about how Clinton fucked up because he had to exercise better judgement than Bush.

Another key difference? Clinton fought terrorism far more affordably and judiciously, and DID NOT bankrupt the nation. He did more, with less, than Bush has managed to accomplish... AND balanced the budget.

And it failed as well. We've been let down by our government for decades now, Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter etc all screwed us on this one. I am not trying or will try to keep blame from Bush, but I will also not allow blind support of Clinton by people that don't have a true understanding of what happened during the 90s and terrorism.

He had three imperfect opportunities to kill Bin laden... and the one actual strike he carried thru on, the one that was unlikely to kill innocents or important allies missed Bin Laden very narrowly...

Bush has had a trillion dollars and the FULL employment of the entire military over SEVEN years.... and has not so much as FOUND bin laden... much less defeated him.

IMPERFECT? Ok, now you're just getting silly. I would call having a shot that deer hunters would drool over a little better than imperfect, come on Phil your bias is showing, you may want to fix it. Now you're just looking for excuses.

Why? because republicans are too busy lining their fucking pockets at the expense of the nation to be bothered with actually thinking about how to wage a war.

Excuse yourself all you want... your rhetoric is lifted off FOX news malarky verbatim.
Its partisan and aimed at blaming democrats for the war the NeoCons wanted even before 9/11 gave them an excuse.

I'm not blaming Clinton for the current war, far from it. This whole thing was just stating the fact that Clinton had his shot and denied it. I don't blame anyone but Bush for Iraq. But again, that wasn't what started this whole discussion.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

After the Cole situation, Clinton tried to go after the al-Qaeda and OBL. He drew up battle plans to enter Afghanistan, overthrow the al-Qaeda and then go after Bin Laden.

The CIA (Presided by George Tenet, appointed by Bush Sr) and the FBI refused to acknowledge that Bin Laden was responsible for the African embassy and Cole bombings.

Clinton then tried to send special forces into Afghanistan in a few helicopters to quickly and quietly decapitate AL-Qaeda. Due to the short range of these choppers, he needed rights to refuel at bases. He couldn't get the base rights, so the operation didn't happen. He tried his best to handle the situation--and with minimal civilian casualties.

YouTube - Clinton smacks down Fox News!

Once again, Clinton set a good example for Bush to follow, and Bush dropped the ball.

That is an untruth. That is NOT how the operation in Afghan went, not even close. Clinton is making excuses for his mistakes, just like present politians are doing regarding Iraq.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

After the Cole situation, Clinton tried to go after the al-Qaeda and OBL. He drew up battle plans to enter Afghanistan, overthrow the al-Qaeda and then go after Bin Laden.

The CIA (Presided by George Tenet, appointed by Bush Sr) and the FBI refused to acknowledge that Bin Laden was responsible for the African embassy and Cole bombings.

Clinton then tried to send special forces into Afghanistan in a few helicopters to quickly and quietly decapitate AL-Qaeda. Due to the short range of these choppers, he needed rights to refuel at bases. He couldn't get the base rights, so the operation didn't happen. He tried his best to handle the situation--and with minimal civilian casualties.

YouTube - Clinton smacks down Fox News!

Once again, Clinton set a good example for Bush to follow, and Bush dropped the ball.

What's funny, is that Bubba himself says he failed. I have more respect for him admitting it than everyone that defends him. He KNOWS he didn't do enough, he made some attempts THAT WERE NOT ENOUGH. If he can admit it, why can't everyone else that is arguing that he didn't fail.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

That is an untruth. That is NOT how the operation in Afghan went, not even close. Clinton is making excuses for his mistakes, just like present politians are doing regarding Iraq.

Well, there was no operation. I highly doubt that Clinton lied about what he contributed to the 9/11 commission report. This would be a serious lie, indeed. He was the first president to implement anti-terrorism laws and he was the first president to actually attack al-Qaeda (bombing training camps), and he was criticized by the GOP for going overboard. Oh the irony.:frown1:

What's funny, is that Bubba himself says he failed. I have more respect for him admitting it than everyone that defends him. He KNOWS he didn't do enough, he made some attempts THAT WERE NOT ENOUGH. If he can admit it, why can't everyone else that is arguing that he didn't fail.

He admitted that he failed and didn't try hard enough. He seems to have genuine guilt over this. He made a bad judgment call, in my opinion. Maybe he should have ignored the CIA and FBI (and the GOP-led house) and just used the bases anyway. At any rate, he admitted his failure... which is something that Bush has never done and will never do. It's not the Republican way because America does not fail.

Wartrac, as an expert, I'm sure you'd agree that a quick and painless surprise attack by a small special forces unit would have been far more effective than a frontal assault involving thousands of troops. Not only could they have actually gotten to OBL, but there would have been much less, if any, collateral damage. Agreed?

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

Well, there was no operation. I highly doubt that Clinton lied about what he contributed to the 9/11 commission report. This would be a serious lie, indeed. He was the first president to implement anti-terrorism laws and he was the first president to actually attack al-Qaeda (bombing training camps), and he was criticized by the GOP for going overboard. Oh the irony.:frown1:

I know how this will sound, but I can't comment on this.

He admitted that he failed and didn't try hard enough. He seems to have genuine guilt over this. He made a bad judgment call, in my opinion. Maybe he should have ignored the CIA and FBI (and the GOP-led house) and just used the bases anyway. At any rate, he admitted his failure... which is something that Bush has never done and will never do. It's not the Republican way because America does not fail.

That I don't disagree with. My only point is when people (from either side) blindly support someone without really understanding what's going on. I don't blame Clinton for 9/11, I do think he mishandled the situation as a whole, like I said, a few cruise missiles don't effect terrorists.

However, he is not even close to being the only one that didn't do enough. I give Bush a little more slack, very little, because he had less time. I'm not convinced he could have stopped it, however there are things he could have done to make things safer, or at least took a couple of steps for F sake.

I just can't figure out why you can't call out shortcomings of a Democrat without being labeled a Bush sympathizer. Bush and other policy makers have screwed the pooch regarding Iraq more that I thought possible. However, that's not what was being discussed, I was just making a point that OBL could have went away a while ago. Even then, I'm not sure that stops 9/11, it's all speculation.

Wartrac, as an expert, I'm sure you'd agree that a quick and painless surprise attack by a small special forces unit would have been far more effective than a frontal assault involving thousands of troops. Not only could they have actually gotten to OBL, but there would have been much less, if any, collateral damage. Agreed?

Don't disagree at all, however, Clinton speaking to not having the ability to refuel helicopters so Spec Ops couldn't go get him is bunk. We could have got him on the ground or killed with air strikes without the use of said bases. That's the point, we knew where he was, we didn't need permission to kill him if we really wanted him dead.

Here is a clip, take it for what it's worth....

http://fora.tv/2008/04/21/Michael_Scheuer_on_Missed_Chances_to_Get_Bin_Laden