reasons clintons presidency was so bad

+1 Leif

Nice to see somebody more or less point out that liberal doesnt = communist

I always though it was liberals who were more interested in personal freedoms and liberties etc?

To many people are so quick to scream red or socialist of whatever...I gotta ask..how many of those have actually seen a card carrying communist in person or have been to a communist country?

No watching re-runs of Red Dawn..doesnt count:D

to many labels..doesnt do anybody anygood
 
459, shhh, don't tell anybody, they might figure out we aren't commies and want to crash our party.

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
 
lol i gotta get back to polishing that life size bust of Lenin I keep hidden in the back...muahhahaha:eek:

yeah it was on the other night..still a classic!
 
noone-as for dealing with bin laden when he had the chance? they have proven that the bin laden was a lie and the source it came from was totally untrustable


??? What are you talking about! Besides so many of the examples that people have stated---I will slowly go over the tons of gargage that Clinton put forth----it's going to take time so be patient and for God's sake(never mind) read the articles.
1. Osama---some exerpts from NBC News---The question for the 9/11 commission: If the CIA was able to get that close to bin Laden before 9/11, why wasn’t he captured or killed? The videotape has remained secret until now.

Over the next three nights, NBC News will present this incredible spy footage and reveal some of the difficult questions it has raised for the 9/11 commission.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing killed six people.

In 1998, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa killed 224.

Both were the work of al-Qaida and bin Laden, who in 1998 declared holy war on America, making him arguably the most wanted man in the world.

In 1998, President Clinton announced, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes.” INTERACTIVE





NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

In the fall of 2000, in Afghanistan, unmanned, unarmed spy planes called Predators flew over known al-Qaida training camps. The pictures that were transmitted live to CIA headquarters show al-Qaida terrorists firing at targets, conducting military drills and then scattering on cue through the desert
If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?

“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.

INTERACTIVE


• Global dragnet
Key figures and developments in the hunt for al-Qaida

“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.

What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”
2. Clinton screws up Somalia---do you even know how many people died in Somalia?http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200406290933.asp
More later!:eek:
 
The USA had UBL under survelillance for over a year !1992-1993we had an operative that was more than capable of taking him out This operative saw him everyday.
 
459, you're not hard-core until you've got a bust of Stalin to go with it. Amateur ... :D

You know, granted it's Friday night and most people have better things to do than post messages, but I'd like to see a staunch conservative get up here and make the same statements about wanting true bipartisanship in government. I hear this in a genuine manner from my side, but can't recall hearing it in a genuine manner from their side.

My experience with the last two presidential elections was that the conservative right was far more, well, nasty and downright unreasonable in its struggle for power. I say this, not as an expert by any means, but as a spectator of the 2000 election with a ringside seat in Miami and as somebody who volunteered for the Kerry campaign in the 2004 election (and not because I was particularly enthralled with Kerry or the Democratic Party, either). It was amazing how quickly opponents, when encountered, tried either to turn the conversation toward Communism (in Miami), or toward religion (in Pennsylvania). And by try, I mean screamed at me ... :( :mad:
 
and a truly bipartisan administration could accomplish much and gain my respect if indeed it was truly bipartisan.
Funny how liberals are all for being "bipartisan" when republicans are in office, yet when they are in charge it's "we're the majority so we can do what we want".

I also find it amazing that they're all for people's "rights", yet when it came for Paula Jones to get her day in court, well it just didn't matter that Old Bill lied, on videotape, to a grand jury, to deny her her rights.

It's also funny how they feel so outraged that Bush "lied" to them about Iraq, yet have not the slightest twinge of annoyance when Clinton pointed at them and flat-out lied right in their face on national TV, then blew up an aspirn factory in the Sudan to "wag the dog".

And it's concerning that the liberals have such a selective memory, since the majority of democrats in the house and senate also saw the intelligence, and voted to let Bush invade Iraq.

It's also astounding that the same people who will rant on and on about the patriot act invading people's privacy, yet fully support the armed invasion of peaceable law abiding citizens in Waco, where dozens were extra-judicially killed in an illegal no-knock raid based on a potential $200 tax liability.

Yes, it it amazing.
 
There is a reason that Liberal Democrats are in the minority and the Republicans control the House, Senate, Presidency and soon Supreme Court. It's because the majority do favor guns, do believe in God, don't support the ACLU and NAMBLA, are anti abortion, aren't in favor of government handouts(except for the truley needy), don't support gay marriage etc...Deal with it!
 
ok boy its going that way again huh.

I am neither liberal, democrat, republican, nor conservative. I hate both parties equaly. my sig is in reference to how much most here seem to hate liberals, and what most ignorant people call me when i get in arguements with them. I have never claimed to be a member of either side in my life.

txray22: if you read my above post i say "I dont remember clinton shooting anyone in that compound, nor do i recall it being bushs fault that relief took so long to get to louisiana."
do i think will let me keep my guns? yes more then likely. lets imagine for a minute that a dem is elected next election. who controls the house and senate right now? do you think they some evil liberal magic to make your guns dissapear instantly when they step in office? as for them taking them away, they only know of less then half of my guns. they will have to pry them from cold bullet riddled dead hand.

leif and bravo: good posts.

mow: are you talking to me about somalia? i have never mentioned somalia I dont think. but we did lose 19 servicemen in that conflict. somalis lost est. 1000.
the truth is that i cannot fault clinton for not wanting to start more conflicts by taking out osama. hindsight is 20/20 it is only too logical now. Im not going to monday morning quarteback anything. I personally dont know how presidents can sleep at night putting our people in harms way. I wouldnt want that job.

rebar: quote: "Funny how liberals are all for being "bipartisan" when republicans are in office, yet when they are in charge it's "we're the majority so we can do what we want". end quote:
I find this statement great. every liberal who ever lived used this statement huh?
as for seeing the intelligence. yeah i remember the evidence. tractor trailer mobile chemical weapons labs that they had. oh wait those were fake.
who the hell ranted about the patriot act?
who the hell said they supported the raid in waco?
 
And the last few posts demonstrate exactly what I mentioned.

MoW, nobody supports NAMBLA anymore, liberal or conservative; the ACLU does not stand for every liberal just as the NRA or the Republican Party does not stand for every conservative; and separation of church and state is not such a bad thing, nobody's telling you not to believe in God, or a Christian God, or nothing at all - just don't cram those beliefs down the throats of those who don't agree with you at taxpayer expense. And no, might does not make right, so I will not just deal with it as you so kindly suggested. Real intelligent way to debate.

Rebar, I stand by my point. Have the Republicans acted any less partisan while in office? Please, they control practically everything as it stands now, and have most of the Democrats kowtowing to them anyway.

Do we still have to go back to the Clinton and Paula story? Nobody ever said what he did was right, but if that's the best you can come up, that doesn't make for a very strong case.

BTW, there were quite a few "twinges of annoyance" about the missile attack on Sudan. And, furthermore BTW, how dare a Republican/conservative/whatever mention the word Sudan? Are you kidding? You take Hussein out, first because he supposedly had WMD's, then because he was a tyrant who oppressed his own people, yet absolutely nothing is done about the current atrocities occuring in Sudan? How dare you get a burr up your a$$ about Sudanese pharmaceutical plants while the Janjaweed (spelling?), with government support, go unchecked and unpunished? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

And no, the people in Waco were not "peacable law abiding citizens".
 
I only wish I couldve fired the shell to put those wacko Waco people in their proper place.

Leif...as any true Moscovite will tell you..a bust of Stalin is nothing as hes a Georgian!!!

People talk about lies...hmm

Clinton lied...Bush lied

Whats the difference?

People talk about the constitution, and the bill of rights..and yet dont seem to always follow them> Isnt separation of Church from State a major part of the tenents of the democratic system? The problem with alot of societies in general is that they are becoming to non secular..to fundementalist in general..

Religion has caused nothing but misery and death. It is the cause of just about every major war and conflict in last several thousand years.

If you feel the need to believe that is fine, but it should not be part of the political agenda. Its funny that someone just mentioned gay rights, abortion etc... You expect people to honour your 2nd ammend. rights, yet due to your own personal religious beliefs feel you are justified in taking away their personal freedoms and liberties?

I say liberty is dead.
Freedom is dead.

The lack of separation of church from State killed it....:D
 
lol I just gotta wonder why some many of you hate Clinton... its past history... his wife is never ever gonna ever ever win teh presidency... lol havent you figured it out yet?

The Carlisle or Haliburton group have that one all bought and paid for..

Politicians lie...thats what they do...
 
noone

you asked what Clinton did so wrong----Somalia was 1 of his blunders. BTW, well over 300,000 died that led up to the fighting. That is why Bush 1 sent in the troops, only to have Bill pull them out. That's when Adid attacked what was left--UN soldiers!
 
NAMBLA was/is defended by the ACLU-----almost all are Liberal Democrats that support and donate time and money! The same ACLU that wants any mention of God out and Christmas banned!
 
Nambla, I was under the impression that Nambla has since been dissolved and teh ACLU doent still support them...

in order to have freedom of expression it means you gotta on occasion allow and support some free speach and ideas they you might personally find reprehensible....this is what liberty and democracy is all about...

Somalia=Revisionist history.

The civil war which caused all the killings in Somalia..hmm Clinton had what exactly to do with that? Nothing..

so you think it would say been better to tie up a hundred thousand marines in Mogadishu for say 20 years till it was all settled? Abit myopic on that one...
 
Nobody said might makes right---the term in democracy is majority rules, so the deal with it part is that you and your views are in the minority in EVERY form of government as voted on by the people(majority).:D
 
Back
Top