PDA

View Full Version : Bill Clinton's Failures Have Unleased Global Terrorism



Dolfan02
02-18-2004, 11:40 AM
Let's get the facts straight before we say anything else about President Bush's decision for the War on Terrorism.

**Watch a video of Bill Clinton address the American people about Iraq in 1998. Notice anything similar he is saying? (A MUST-SEE ALL THE WAY THROUGH) http://cspanrm.fplive.net:554/ramgen/cspan/jdrive/iraq021798_clinton.rm?mode=compact

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310170939.asp
www.peterbergen.com/... (http://www.peterbergen.com/clients/PeterBergen/pbergen.nsf/Web00002Show?OpenForm&ParentUNID=0CCE059824644F4385256DDA0050087C)
http://thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6346
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901-102358-9367r.htm

And here is Osama Bin Laden's VERY SHORT biography, make sure you read it. Especially the last paragraph which ONLY includes some of his attacks, the ones carried out on United States facilities. BTW, over 500 people died including Americans NOT including the 2nd WTC attack. Notice anything about the years of his attacks? Click here for Osama Bin Laden's short bio. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701505592/Osama_bin_Laden.html)

...you may all continue to talk about President Bush's clean-up work for Clinton, the War on Terrorism...

ohall
02-18-2004, 01:11 PM
He has some blame. He enabled the terrorist in many ways. However he didn't let them get a complete free ride, but he was more worried about how he would be remembered than keeping this country safe in the long run. That much is for darn sure.

I am always amazed how the press gives him a free ride for him not going after AQ after the '93 WTC bombing. If a REP President ever let that slide it would be over for him as far as liberal press was concerned. Simply amazing.

Oliver...

Kamikaze
02-18-2004, 01:35 PM
I thought Poppy Bush placing American troops in Saudi Arabia back in '90 was what drove Osama to declare his holy war on the United States? There also was that thing we did back in the 1980s, you know, train him to drive those dirty commies out of Afgahnistan. Overthrowing a democratic government in Iran in 1953 didn't help us much either in the long term, especially when that government we backed afterwards was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah a couple decades later.

There's enough blame to go around. Placing the blame on one president or one party for breeding global terrorism is a practice in stupidity. Our current fight against terrorism is like trying to extreminate cockroaches. I.E. the more we kill, the more seem to spring from the woodwork. Curtaliling civil liberties at the same time doesn't sound very peachy, and remember that Clinton and Bush are responsible for the Anti-Terrorism Act and Patriot Act respectively. Of course, we'll end up voting for someone not named Dennis Kucinich, and nothing is really going to change.

ohall
02-18-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Kamikaze
I thought Poppy Bush placing American troops in Saudi Arabia back in '90 was what drove Osama to declare his holy war on the United States? There also was that thing we did back in the 1980s, you know, train him to drive those dirty commies out of Afgahnistan. Overthrowing a democratic government in Iran in 1953 didn't help us much either in the long term, especially when that government we backed afterwards was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah a couple decades later.

There's enough blame to go around. Placing the blame on one president or one party for breeding global terrorism is a practice in stupidity. Our current fight against terrorism is like trying to extreminate cockroaches. I.E. the more we kill, the more seem to spring from the woodwork. Curtaliling civil liberties at the same time doesn't sound very peachy, and remember that Clinton and Bush are responsible for the Anti-Terrorism Act and Patriot Act respectively. Of course, we'll end up voting for someone not named Dennis Kucinich, and nothing is really going to change.

Amazing. So you're saying we shouldn't have liberated Kuwait, and not engaged Russia in Afghanistan?

I'd hate to see how things would be if America did not do those things!

One party enables terrorism, and one wants to destroy it. Welcome to the real world. With ppl like you Hitler would be on our dollar bill right now!

I sure hope you are not one of those ppl who was curious as to why Bin Laden's family was allowed to leave America after 9/11. If you are you need to make up your darn mind!

Oliver...

Kamikaze
02-18-2004, 02:09 PM
Amazing, you sure do like to throw words into my mouth. I said the things we've done in the past have had a direct effect on what we're facing today. Even the CIA knows this, they call such a thing blowback.

How did you go from terrorism to Hitler? Would you mind actually keeping the topic of discussion to this century please?

Finally, if you think killing terrorists is the best way to rid the world of them, you're quite narrow-minded on the topic. The people of the Middle East have a long memory when it comes to all the meddling we've done there in the past fifty years. Our support of their represssive regimes, past (Iraq and Iran) and present (Saudi Arabia) has done nothing to but breed contempt amongst most of their people, and radicalized an insane few to carrying out acts of violence against us. A good first step to fighting terrorism would be to stop waving our giant military dick around the world.

ohall
02-18-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Amazing, you sure do like to throw words into my mouth. I said the things we've done in the past have had a direct effect on what we're facing today. Even the CIA knows this, they call such a thing blowback.

How did you go from terrorism to Hitler? Would you mind actually keeping the topic of discussion to this century please?

Finally, if you think killing terrorists is the best way to rid the world of them, you're quite narrow-minded on the topic. The people of the Middle East have a long memory when it comes to all the meddling we've done there in the past fifty years. Our support of their represssive regimes, past (Iraq and Iran) and present (Saudi Arabia) has done nothing to but breed contempt amongst most of their people, and radicalized an insane few to carrying out acts of violence against us. A good first step to fighting terrorism would be to stop waving our giant military dick around the world.

Ok so we should have liberated Kuwait, and engaged Russia in Afghanistan? If so why did you post what you posted?

Seems to me you are nothing more than a cherry picker looking at everything with 20/20 hindsight. We don't live in a perfect world, and hard decisions have to be made every day. However most agree those decisions should be made in the hopes it will benefit this country and the promotion of domecracy around the world.

The Hitler comment was straight forward. If ppl like you had your way Hitler would have won WW2, because we never would have gone after him we would have only gone after Japan. Savvy?

No the best way to lose to terrorist is not throw that big dick around. The middle east is shaking in it's boots right now because of what America is bringing to Iraq. Democracy. After 9/11 nation building is in our best interest again. Democracy is the real enemy to terroism, and it's a War thathas to be fought where terrorism is flourishing.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-18-2004, 03:28 PM
Bill Clinton isn't directly responsible for terrorism here or anywhere else in the world. I would say he heightened American risk with two key actions however. First and foremost, he weakened our Intelligence services, both through cutting of their funding, as well as mandates which limited their sources. Secondly, and this ones more difficult to quantify...he sent a message to terrorist groups that we would not risk American soldiers to retaliate against terrorist attacks. You attack and kill us, we launch a cruise missile at you. If you teach a person that they can act with impunity, they'll act with impunity. If you teach a country that they can support terrorists without repurcussions, they will support terrorists. George Bush's actions have probably produced more "ground level" recruits fot he terrorists. But Bill Clintons efforts produced more leaders, and emboldened them. George Bush gave them more ammunition, but he also made them more afraid to use it.

PhinPhan1227
02-18-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by ohall


The Hitler comment was straight forward. If ppl like you had your way Hitler would have won WW2, because we never would have gone after him we would have only gone after Japan. Savvy?

Oliver...

Strictly for accuracy sake...After Japan hit PEarl Harbor, Hitler declared war on US. We followed suit, but only after he had already done so. We could have NOT declared war on him, but that would have been a bit silly on our part don't you think?

dolfan25
02-29-2004, 02:09 AM
Sure blame everything on Clinton. Tell me was Terrorism on George Bush's radar or even the American people's radar before 9/11. How much of an issue was terrorism during the 2000 election? I may be from another country but I follow US politics closely as I am a citizen of the world and the US is the most important country in it.

No way is democracy the enemy to terrorism. Look around the world and there are many countries that are democratic that have terrorist issues. Greece, Ireland, Russia, Canada(in the 1960's), for that matter the United States in the 60's, 70's and even the '90's, Spain. The real enemy to terrorism is wealth and prosperity and political sovereignty.

Saying Democracy is the enemy to terrorism is buying what Bush and all his "neo-con" cronies are selling.

I am neither a Liberal or a Conservative politically but the removal of your current President and this administration this November would be the smartest course of action for the US to take.

ohall
02-29-2004, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by dolfan25
Sure blame everything on Clinton. Tell me was Terrorism on George Bush's radar or even the American people's radar before 9/11. How much of an issue was terrorism during the 2000 election? I may be from another country but I follow US politics closely as I am a citizen of the world and the US is the most important country in it.

No way is democracy the enemy to terrorism. Look around the world and there are many countries that are democratic that have terrorist issues. Greece, Ireland, Russia, Canada(in the 1960's), for that matter the United States in the 60's, 70's and even the '90's, Spain. The real enemy to terrorism is wealth and prosperity and political sovereignty.

Saying Democracy is the enemy to terrorism is buying what Bush and all his "neo-con" cronies are selling.

I am neither a Liberal or a Conservative politically but the removal of your current President and this administration this November would be the smartest course of action for the US to take.

For a Canadian maybe. :cool:

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
02-29-2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by dolfan25
Sure blame everything on Clinton. Tell me was Terrorism on George Bush's radar or even the American people's radar before 9/11. How much of an issue was terrorism during the 2000 election? I may be from another country but I follow US politics closely as I am a citizen of the world and the US is the most important country in it.

No way is democracy the enemy to terrorism. Look around the world and there are many countries that are democratic that have terrorist issues. Greece, Ireland, Russia, Canada(in the 1960's), for that matter the United States in the 60's, 70's and even the '90's, Spain. The real enemy to terrorism is wealth and prosperity and political sovereignty.

Saying Democracy is the enemy to terrorism is buying what Bush and all his "neo-con" cronies are selling.

I am neither a Liberal or a Conservative politically but the removal of your current President and this administration this November would be the smartest course of action for the US to take.


Virtually by definition, Democracy is the enemy of terrorism. Terrorism is undertaken by a small, violent minority who want to influence the larger majority. That is EXACTLY counter to the ideals of Democracy, which is based on the will of the majority guiding the whole.

Bodzilla29
03-01-2004, 03:44 PM
"catching Osmama bin Laden is only a matter of time...."
- George Bush

yes Dubbya, only a mater of "election" time.....

DeDolfan
03-03-2004, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Bodzilla29
"catching Osmama bin Laden is only a matter of time...."
- George Bush

yes Dubbya, only a mater of "election" time.....

That's what I figure too, around oct. 25th !! :D only this time, i hope the helos don't crsh together in the middle of the night like they did in Iran! ;)

PhinPhan1227
03-03-2004, 03:00 PM
For them to be able to keep Osama under wraps, you'd not only need to have American personel keep their mouths shut, you'd also have to have any locals that helped in the capture keep things quiet. And considering how things went down capturing Hussein, I just don't see that happenning. Not when that local could turn around and sell the story ti the Mirror or CNN for a hundred K or more.

DeDolfan
03-03-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
For them to be able to keep Osama under wraps, you'd not only need to have American personel keep their mouths shut, you'd also have to have any locals that helped in the capture keep things quiet. And considering how things went down capturing Hussein, I just don't see that happenning. Not when that local could turn around and sell the story ti the Mirror or CNN for a hundred K or more.

That is a BIG thing. I never figured out why they put anything big on the news beforehand. Sort of like the cops comin' ,with sirens a'blaring, to bust up a drug deal or som'n !! :D

themole
03-07-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by dolfan25
Sure blame everything on Clinton. Tell me was Terrorism on George Bush's radar or even the American people's radar before 9/11. How much of an issue was terrorism during the 2000 election? I may be from another country but I follow US politics closely as I am a citizen of the world and the US is the most important country in it.

No way is democracy the enemy to terrorism. Look around the world and there are many countries that are democratic that have terrorist issues. Greece, Ireland, Russia, Canada(in the 1960's), for that matter the United States in the 60's, 70's and even the '90's, Spain. The real enemy to terrorism is wealth and prosperity and political sovereignty.

Saying Democracy is the enemy to terrorism is buying what Bush and all his "neo-con" cronies are selling.

I am neither a Liberal or a Conservative politically but the removal of your current President and this administration this November would be the smartest course of action for the US to take.

All due respect SIR....You have NO say so... in the affairs of our nation.. especially who should be the POTUS. Glad to have you as a Dolphan but regarding who we elect...we guard those rights jeliously!

peace

DeDolfan
03-08-2004, 09:53 AM
But does he not make a point? What would you have said if he never said where he was from?

themole
03-08-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
But does he not make a point? What would you have said if he never said where he was from?

I think DUB has done as good a job as he has been allowed to do. It was indeed Clinton that gutted the CIA, tied their hands as to the amount of Intel. they could gather. I don't consider myelf as a "World Citizen" I'm old school and true to my obligation to the Constitution of the United States of America and the state of Florida. BTW...I agree with him on the other points just not the parties. I consider my self "American constitutionalist" whatever that is :lol: I'm more of a "Bircher" than anything.:D

DeDolfan
03-08-2004, 12:03 PM
:D

Blitz
03-14-2004, 10:51 PM
Here are a few events that SUPPORT the claim that "Bill Clinton's failures have unleashed global terrorism":

January 15, 1990 - The Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement bombed the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru.

December 21, 1988 - Pan American Airlines Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, by a bomb believed to have been placed on the aircraft in Frankfurt, West Germany, by Libyan terrorists. All 259 people on board were killed.

April 5, 1986 - Two U.S. soldiers were killed, and 79 American servicemen were injured in a Libyan bomb attack on a nightclub in West Berlin, West Germany.

April 12, 1984 - Eighteen U.S. servicemen were killed, and 83 people were injured in a bomb attack on a restaurant near a U.S. Air Force Base in Torrejon, Spain.

March 16, 1984 - The Islamic Jihad kidnapped and later murdered Political Officer William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon. Other U.S. citizens not connected to the U.S. Government were seized over a succeeding 2-year period.

October 23, 1983 - Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the U.S. compound, killing 242 Americans, while 58 French troops were killed when a 400-pound device destroyed a French base. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. *

April 18, 1983 - Sixty-three people, including the CIA's Middle East director, were killed, and 120 were injured in a 400-pound suicide truck-bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

December 4, 1981 - Three American nuns and one lay missionary were found murdered outside San Salvador, El Salvador. They were believed to have been assassinated by a right-wing death squad.

November 4, 1979 - Iran Hostage Crisis begins.

September 5, 1972 - Eight Palestinian "Black September" terrorists seized 11 Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village in Munich, West Germany. In a bungled rescue attempt by West German authorities, nine of the hostages and five terrorists were killed.

June 5, 1968 - Islamic extremist Sirhan Sirhan assassinates Robert F. Kennedy.

* - Worst terrorist attack against America in the 20th Century.

Source: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

------

Now you see how obvious it is that Bill Clinton's failures "have unleashed global terrorism."

Yep.

*Pops another OxyContin pill*

Ignorance is bliss.

Blitz
03-14-2004, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by ohall

With ppl like you Hitler would be on our dollar bill right now!

You mean Ronald Reagan was the president during WW II? I thought Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, was leading the Free World when we entered WW II, and Harry Truman, a Democrat, was our leader when the war ended. In fact, Truman is the only president who has ever used an atomic weapon against an enemy. But I must be mistaken because surely Democrats were not leading this country throughout the two World Wars, right?

Blitz
03-14-2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
First and foremost, he weakened our Intelligence services, both through cutting of their funding, as well as mandates which limited their sources.

Do you mean to tell me that Gingrich and Co. were not in control of the House of Representatives from 1995 to the end of Clinton's tenure as president? I must have Alzheimer's!


he sent a message to terrorist groups that we would not risk American soldiers to retaliate against terrorist attacks.

That's funny because I thought it was Reagan who pulled out of Beirut in 1984 after the attacks against U.S. soldiers became politically unpopular for him. But obviously Clinton must have had a hand in that decision, right?

PhinPhan1227
03-15-2004, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Blitz


Do you mean to tell me that Gingrich and Co. were not in control of the House of Representives from 1995 to the end of Clinton's tenure as president? I must have Alzheimer's!



That's funny because I thought it was Reagan who pulled out of Beirut in 1984 after the attacks against U.S. soldiers became politically unpopular for him. But obviously Clinton must have had a hand in that decision, right?

Are you disputing that Clinton mana=dated that out intelligence services could no longer use assets of "unsavory moral character"? And are you also disputing that the President initiates the Federal Budget? Especially for the military and intelligence services?

baccarat
03-15-2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Are you disputing that Clinton mana=dated that out intelligence services could no longer use assets of "unsavory moral character"? And are you also disputing that the President initiates the Federal Budget? Especially for the military and intelligence services?

Yes, the Torcelli(sp?) Principle was an Executive Order by President Clinton.

Blitz
03-20-2004, 11:00 PM
the Torcelli(sp?) Principle was an Executive Order by President Clinton

Former Sen. Robert Torricelli "roiled his colleagues as a member of the House Intelligence Committee in 1995 by publicly disclosing classified information that a Guatemalan military officer on the CIA payroll had been linked to the killing of an American. The agency later adopted a policy - known informally as the 'Torricelli principle' - requiring field agents to get approval from supervisors before hiring unsavory contacts."

Source: http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/december/m122902e.htm

As far as I know, the CIA, with or without Clinton's blessing, independently decided to require agents to get approval from supervisors before hiring unsavory contacts due, at least in part, to the aforementioned event Sen. Torricelli publicly disclosed. As I understand it, that's all the so-called "Torricelli principle" is, and it was not an executive order from Clinton. If you've heard otherwise, I'd like to know your source (Note: Entertainers, especially those who have a history of drug abuse, are not reliable sources)


And are you also disputing that the President initiates the Federal Budget?

In a word, the president "prepares the budget on the basis of estimates submitted by departments and agencies. The budget is then presented to the legislature, which may modify the estimates and rearrange priorities. The legislature enacts appropriation bills to provide government agencies with authority to enter into financial obligations."

Source: Encarta 2004

The president isn't responsible for everything.

I recommend reading Joe Klein's latest article in Time Magazine (Worth noting: Joe Klein is the author of Primary Colors, which I'm sure you're familiar with):

Bush and 9/11: What We Need to Know
The investigative panel is getting ready to grill the President. Here's what they should ask
By JOE KLEIN

Saturday, Mar. 13, 2004

George W. Bush's most memorable day as President was Sept. 14, 2001, when he stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center, holding a bullhorn in one hand, his other arm slung over the shoulder of a veteran fire fighter from central casting. Bush was pitch perfect that day—the common-man President, engaged and resolute. This is the image the Bush campaign is probably saving for the last, emotional moments of the election next fall. It is the memory the Republicans want you to carry into the voting booth. It is why the Republican Convention will be held in New York City this year. And it may also be why the White House has been so reluctant to cooperate with the independent commission investigating the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

The commission, which will finish its work in midsummer, on the eve of the conventions, will soon question the President about his response to the terrorist threat in the months before 9/11. I asked a dozen people last week—some intimate with the commission's thinking, some members of the intelligence community, some members of Congress who have investigated 9/11—what they would ask the President if they could. Their questions fell into three broad categories.

Why didn't you respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole? The attack occurred on Oct. 12, 2000; 17 American sailors were killed. The Clinton Administration wanted to declare war on al-Qaeda. An aggressive military response was prepared, including special-forces attacks on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. But Clinton decided that it was inappropriate to take such dramatic action during the transition to the Bush presidency. As first reported in this magazine in 2002, Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and counterterrorism deputy Richard Clarke presented their plan to Condoleezza Rice and her staff in the first week of January 2001.

Berger believed al-Qaeda was the greatest threat facing the U.S. as Clinton left office. Rice thought China was. What were President Bush's priorities? Was he aware of the Berger briefing? Did he consider an aggressive response to the bombing of the Cole or to the al-Qaeda millennium plot directed at Los Angeles International Airport—which was foiled on Dec. 14, 1999? Did he have any al-Qaeda strategy at all? Rice, who has not yet testified under oath, decided to review counterterrorism policy; the review wasn't completed until Sept. 4. A related question along the same lines: Why didn't you deploy the armed Predator drones in Afghanistan? The technology, which might have provided the clearest shot at Osama bin Laden before 9/11, was available early in 2001. But the CIA and the Pentagon squabbled about which agency would be in charge of pulling the trigger. The dispute wasn't resolved until after 9/11. Were you aware of this dispute, Mr. President? Why weren't you able to resolve it?

Indeed, the second category of questions revolves around the President's interest in and awareness of the al-Qaeda threat. As late as Sept. 10, after the assassination of Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, Bush was asking in his national-security briefing about the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban for the head of bin Laden. "If he had studied the problem at all," an intelligence expert told me, "he would have known that was preposterous." As early as Aug. 6, Bush had been told that al-Qaeda was planning to strike the U.S., perhaps using airplanes. What was his response to that? How closely was he following the intelligence reports about al-Qaeda activity, which had taken an extremely urgent tone by late spring? Another intelligence expert proposed this question: "Did he ever ask about the quality of the relationship between the CIA and the FBI?"

Obviously, the President couldn't be responsible for knowing that the FBI was tracking suspicious flight training in Arizona or that the CIA had an informant close to two of the hijackers, but was he aware of the friction between the two agencies? Was he aware that John Ashcroft had opposed increasing counterterrorism funding for the FBI?

Finally, there are the questions about the President's actions immediately after 9/11. Specifically, why did he allow planeloads of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, out of the U.S. in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks? Who asked him to give the Saudis special treatment? Was he aware that the Saudi Arabian government and members of the royal family gave money to charities that funded al-Qaeda?

It is easy to cast blame in hindsight. Even if Bush had been obsessed with the terrorist threat, 9/11 might not have been prevented. But the President's apparent lack of rigor—his incuriosity about an enemy that had attacked American targets overseas and had attempted an attack at home—raises a basic question about the nature and competence of this Administration. And that is not a question the Republicans want you to take to the polls in November.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,600843,00.html

PhinPhan1227
03-22-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Blitz


Why didn't you respond to the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S.S. Cole? The attack occurred on Oct. 12, 2000; 17 American sailors were killed. The Clinton Administration wanted to declare war on al-Qaeda. An aggressive military response was prepared, including special-forces attacks on al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. But Clinton decided that it was inappropriate to take such dramatic action during the transition to the Bush presidency.


ROFL...there are two things here that I find hysterical...One is the characterization of Bill Clinton preparing a truly aggressive military response to ANYTHING. The second is that Bill Clinton would shrink from doing ANYTHING that he felt like doing during the the transition to Bush's Presidency. All that aside, the man took an oath to protect the United States. If he trly felt that an attack on an enemy of the United States was warranted, it was his sworn duty to launch that attack. If what this article says is true, it's akin to a cop not going after a murderer because his shift is almost up.

Section126
03-22-2004, 11:16 PM
Clinton doing things during the Bush transition????? Naw....he would never do such a thing!!!!! :roflmao:

If Clinton could have appointed himself emperor during the transition....he would have done it.

Never has a president left so many "stink bombs" for the next president to difuse.

PhinPhan1227
03-23-2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Section126
Clinton doing things during the Bush transition????? Naw....he would never do such a thing!!!!! :roflmao:

If Clinton could have appointed himself emperor during the transition....he would have done it.

Never has a president left so many "stink bombs" for the next president to difuse.

We're talking about an ex-President who din't even wait a year before bringing up the idea that Presidential term limits should be repealed. YEAH!! That's the guy who is going to be respectful of the incoming President!!

upstart
03-26-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



ROFL...there are two things here that I find hysterical...One is the characterization of Bill Clinton preparing a truly aggressive military response to ANYTHING. The second is that Bill Clinton would shrink from doing ANYTHING that he felt like doing during the the transition to Bush's Presidency. All that aside, the man took an oath to protect the United States. If he trly felt that an attack on an enemy of the United States was warranted, it was his sworn duty to launch that attack. If what this article says is true, it's akin to a cop not going after a murderer because his shift is almost up.

Bill Clinton infact did take dramatic military action when he
attacked 93 American men,woman and children in Waco,Tx.
It was a true victory as all 93 Americans were gassed and
rosted alive....Bill Clinton a Democrat Hero

PhinPhan1227
03-29-2004, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Dynasty


Bill Clinton infact did take dramatic military action when he
attacked 93 American men,woman and children in Waco,Tx.
It was a true victory as all 93 Americans were gassed and
rosted alive....Bill Clinton a Democrat Hero


I'm no fan of Clintons...but when 93 American men, women, and children have a .50 cal machine gun that they open up on federal cops...those cops have the right to fire back with whatever force they deem neccesary.