user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Yes, I know, I just threw my 'no politics' out the window. But I have a hard time sitting by idly as people talk about what a great president Clinton was, when there is so much to suggest otherwise. You have to realize something, 9/11 didn't just happen with a few days planning, al-qaida and bin ladin planned this attack for more than 5 years, so if you are going to put blame on a president who was in office for less than nine months at the time of the attacks, you damn sure better lay down some blame at the president who was in office while more than 4 YEARS of planning for 9/11 was going on, in this country and abroad.
Obviously, you get your history from a different source. It's CLINTON's fault that 3000 Americans died? Please, give me a break. What about the Al Qaeda "chatter" going on for months before 9/11, that was ignored by the Bush administration? A CIA man repeatedly approached them with dire warnings about suspicious young Saudi men learning to fly planes but not interested in landing protocol. This guy was ignored and then fired. That happened on BUSH's watch.
by mojo on Sat Jun 26, 04 5:49pm
[+]
And Reagan's shortcomings led to Saddam Hussein having WMD's and being Military Power, by selling him enough arms to invade Kuwaitt.
The US sold iraq about 1% of their total weapons imports during that era. If you're looking for someone to blame for iraqs militarization check out the former USSR and france, they sold saddam the vast majority of his weapons.
Yessiree, damn americans, selling iraq all those ak-47s and 1950's era t-52s and bmps, yep, that must have been one major arms deal there.
** karma **
Okay, question: What is it that you disagree with, and if it's all untrue rhetorich, dispute it with fact. And another thing, tell me why Clinton was a wonderful president, and leave out the economy okay, because if anything is bullshit and rhetorich, it's the economy, you fucking idiots that believe the president controls the economy thru taxes and legislation, you need to have your heads examined. I've said this before, take a macroeconomics class, you will learn SO much about how the economy actually works, and how little the government can actually do to control it.
Jappy, live a little longer and learn a bit about life through experience in addition to your book knowledge. It might change the way you see some things.
And then again, it might now.
I'm not going to argue politics, for once, because Jappy is my friend. Thus, I don't feel like getting into a political argument with a friend, because it's unproductive. That said, read "Against All Enemies," by Richard Clarke.
questions people should ask Richard Clarke: At the time of your leaving the Bush administration, there was no mention of the "grave concerns" you claim to have had pursuant to the president's directing of the war on terrorism. In 2002 you told Jim Angle of Fox News and a handful of other reporters that: There was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to Bush's. You said the Bush administration decided to "increase CIA resources for covert action, five-fold, to go after al-Qaida. The new administration, you claimed at that time, "Then changed the strategy from one of rollback with al-Qaida over the course of five years which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al-Qaida." In your resignation letter, you wrote, "I will always remember the courage, determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11th ..." You claimed March 24, 2004, that the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than destroying the terrorism, whereas the Bush administration made it "an important issue, but not an urgent one." Yet you told Angle and the reporters in the August 2002 interview that the Clinton administration "never had a plan" for dealing effectively and forthrightly with terrorism. You claim in your just released book, that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's facial expression led you to believe she had never heard of al-Qaida, during a briefing in 2001. Yet an audio clip aired by Sean Hannity (Fox News Channel, March 24, 2004) proves unequivocally that Rice had mentioned OBL and al-Qaida as threats a full year before said briefing took place. So, Mr. Clarke, the question that begs an answer is, were you lying before or are you lying now? And since you are-were obviously lying, why would anyone apart from the Bush haters believe even "hello" and "goodbye" if it comes out of your mouth?
the before mentioned was brought up by Mychal S. Massie, journalist and talk radio host.
and I love everyone : ) I just like to speak my mind!!
Okay, if we are playing this game, then we can place blame on Reagan, or we can go even further back to the US involvement in the Israeli-Egyptian conflict or even further back to WWII. I can't say for certain who was to blame for 9-11, but the aftermath of 9/11, 900 troops being killed in Iraq is on Dubya's shoulders. I wish there was a Hell so he could go to it.
Clinton did launch attacks on Al Qaida including one that just missed killing bin Laden by an hour. He did not have the political power to do much more. These Republicans who talk about this now quickly forget the hissy fits they threw whenever he put troops into action, including by the way calls to evacuate Somalia after the attacks. You think he would have had the political power to invade Afghanistan. The Republicans were fuming mad at the Kosovo intervention and that didn't even involve ground troops. And why do you think he would have been able to get bin Laden even if he had launched an attack. We otherthrew the Taliban over 2 1/2 years ago and bin Laden is still roaming the hills free. The reality is that everybody underestimated this threat including Clinton, Bush, the FBI, and the CIA. And here is another little thing to think about. Maybe if Reagan and Bush hadn't completely ignored Afghanistan after the Soviets retreated a more moderate government that wouldn't have tolerated bin Laden would have come about.
Yes I was quite aware of this very true possibility that Clinton dropped the ball on good old Binladen. I brought this issue up in a previous ballot. It is hard to compare Clintons mishandling of the terrorist situation(over the course of 8 years.) versus the Bush admin.which had all of 8 months to deal with it and get a grip on the true threat of Al-Q and BinLaden. Comeon now. If you can't see a difference here then I am sorry to say you are a tragic "true believer" on the wrong side of this issue. In my opinion they are both at fault. But if we were to pile up the blame on both sides, the Clinton people will be weighed down alot heavier .
GW had plenty of time to realize something was up, his 'intelligence' people were anything but.
I don't blame Clinton. THe failure to act against global terrorism is a problem that started during the Reagon Admistration. September 11 would of occured in one form or another, it wouldn't of changed the fate. America was going to be attacked and sadly I feel that anything less than foot solidears hunting the terrorist in some other nation was going to stop them, and America was unwilling at the time to send her troops over seas.
|
|