Clinton Puts the Smack Down on Fox

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
303

[quote]lucasa wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

If you’re handing out blame I think there’s plenty to go around for administrations going back at least to Carter.

…

Overall, Bush – not perfect. Clinton – not perfect either. Clinton gets points for recognizing the threat, negatives for not taking decisive action. Bush took decisive actions (how could he not in the face of 9/11), and now we’re arguing over how those actions could have been more effective.

I’m inclined to agree that the argument should focus on how to attack the problem moving forward.

As pure politics, I think this focus only helps the Republicans in '06, but it does not help to focus better on external threats.

The facts, Kool-Aid free.
[/quote]

No one disputes that Bush took action after 9/11, it’s the complete inaction and refusal to acknowledge anything that didn’t say “Iraq” prior to 9/11 that is the issue.

304

[quote]tme wrote:
lucasa wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

If you’re handing out blame I think there’s plenty to go around for administrations going back at least to Carter.

…

Overall, Bush – not perfect. Clinton – not perfect either. Clinton gets points for recognizing the threat, negatives for not taking decisive action. Bush took decisive actions (how could he not in the face of 9/11), and now we’re arguing over how those actions could have been more effective.

I’m inclined to agree that the argument should focus on how to attack the problem moving forward.

As pure politics, I think this focus only helps the Republicans in '06, but it does not help to focus better on external threats.

The facts, Kool-Aid free.

No one disputes that Bush took action after 9/11, it’s the complete inaction and refusal to acknowledge anything that didn’t say “Iraq” prior to 9/11 that is the issue.

[/quote]

So your biggest boner is that in the 8 months he had in office prior, he should have done something more than the8-20 years before him.

There were issues he was forced in to handling as well. Florida/the election. The economy was turning.

A lot of things are easy to say now. Given the circumstances. Given the information he received that was no different than Clinton’s. His INaction at the time gave no pause. In retrospect, it is quite easy to evaluate what he should have done.

305

[quote]NE2000 wrote:
She is more educated than Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, John Kerry, or Hilarious Clinton. And you didn’t comment on her successes in the political world. As the SecState, that should have been a greater focus in your answer than just the academic career.

And if the Republicans appreciate her talents more than the Democrats, that clearly indicates bigotry in the Democratic party. But then again, they did start the KKK and tried to block voting rights for blacks and integration, so I’m not surprised.
[/quote]

Holy fuck dude, no wonder I can’t find any kool-aid in the supermarket anymore.

Take a step back from the hyperbole and realize that other people don’t have to worship the same demigods that you do.

There is more than enough bad history in both parties to make everyone ashamed. To go dragging out this and that from way back in the past, as if it means people today are that backwards, is just fucking plain stupid.

Congrats!

306

Bill was pissed. That’s about all I can say. Not a Bill Clinton I’m used to seeing. I can’t blame him, though. He’s never had to answer any tough questions from the (usually adoring) media. For the most part, he’s been given a free pass on 9/11 up to now. Now he’s taken to task on his obvious inaction. Obvious to everyone but him, that is. One of his points is that these ‘neocons’ charged him with doing ‘too much’ and now they charge him with doing ‘too little’. Yeah. I recall all conservatives saying that Clinton was TOO tough on terrorists. Jesus. I must have missed that. Maybe that’s what Sandy Berger was stuffing in his pants.

And the little idiot liberal lap dogs lick it up. Believe it all. If Clinton says it, it’s gotta be true!

I didn’t finish the interview. My bullshit meter was out of control. Did Wallace ask the question: “If you did such a great job, what the fuck was Berger shoving in his pants?”

On defense and national security Clinton was a disgrace.

But then, he was a disgrace when he protested against the US on foreign soil, pleaded like an anti-American bitch to get out of Vietnam…I could go on . I won’t. I’m sure enough people have pissed themselves with anger that anyone could say anything bad about this guy.

307

[quote]100meters wrote:
And as dire as the situation is he simply cannot muster the balls to address the issue in Iraq…no dramatic troop increases and no re-deployment. His only urgency was to use 9/11 for political gain by scaring the bejeebus out of the timid like Headhunter, Hedo, and Jeffr. It’s unfortunate that they are so scared that men in caves dictate their lives…pissing all over themselves as they pull the lever in november.
[/quote]
Amen!

I mean…er…Ramen!

Is anyone really that afraid of being killed by a terrorist? Just don’t wear your American flag baby-tee out of the country and you’ll be okay.

I’m more afraid of having my rights taken by a bunch of hill-billies than being killed in a terrorist plot. The odds are so small that it will happen that I really don’t care about security or security issues unless it’s social security.

Come on people! wake up and smell the coffee. We are being herded like sheep.

Bahhh, baaaaahh!!

308

What I don’t get is that the liberals cried and cried: Bush didn’t do enough! Bush KNEW! (see the bumper sticker?)

We see that idiot video of him in Moore’s movie. Doin’ nothin’, man! Nothin’!

But now! Wait! Now he’s doing too much! It’s too much! You’re too mean to the terrorists! They’ll just get mad!

They said the same shit about Reagan and the Soviets. Remember the New York Times coining the phrase ‘Cowboy Diplomacy’ and writing, “Reagan sees the USSR through the sights of a gun!”

They were basically saying, “No rough stuff, Ronnie! You’ll get us all blown up!”

Well! (as Ron might say) They were wrong then and they are wrong now. The Soviets are no more (I know. I know. We have Gorby to thank, right?! Yeah. He’d have folded if the US had not spent them into oblivion). In a few years these fucking terrorists will be no more. Unless we get a liberal in the White House in '08. Then we’ll try to be friends with them. They’ll flourish. And then kill us some more.

Dumb liberal fucks.

309

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
100meters wrote:
And as dire as the situation is he simply cannot muster the balls to address the issue in Iraq…no dramatic troop increases and no re-deployment. His only urgency was to use 9/11 for political gain by scaring the bejeebus out of the timid like Headhunter, Hedo, and Jeffr. It’s unfortunate that they are so scared that men in caves dictate their lives…pissing all over themselves as they pull the lever in november.

Amen!

I mean…er…Ramen!

Is anyone really that afraid of being killed by a terrorist? Just don’t wear your American flag baby-tee out of the country and you’ll be okay.

I’m more afraid of having my rights taken by a bunch of hill-billies than being killed in a terrorist plot. The odds are so small that it will happen that I really don’t care about security or security issues unless it’s social security.

Come on people! wake up and smell the coffee. We are being herded like sheep.

Bahhh, baaaaahh!![/quote]

The small odds come through on the terrorist deal and you’re deal, my friend. Not much coming back from that.

The odds were pretty small on 9/11, right? But a lot of damage was done. What would you have said on 9/12 if Bush had said, "Well, another terrorist attack is remote, really. I don’t see the need to do much about this. No need to take any steps to keep us safe, at least nothing that could possibly inconvenience anyone.

Shit.

I keep hearing all about the civil rights I’m supposed to be losing. Wiretaps. All that. I’ve not been affected. Not at all. But, you ask, what if someone’s listening to my phone calls? Well…then they are probably pretty bored.

Bottom line is this: If having some G-man listen to my phone calls or discover my bank balance saves ONE American life then it’s all okay with me. I’m not a criminal and I’ve got nothing to hide.

310

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
…
[/quote]

Hack, you are just playing word games man. Twist, twist and twist. I wonder where you get your talking points from?

Come on back when you learn to think for yourself… y’hear?

311

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
…

Hack, you are just playing word games man. Twist, twist and twist. I wonder where you get your talking points from?

Come on back when you learn to think for yourself… y’hear?[/quote]

cute. what did i twist? because you don’t agree it’s distorted, right?

i don’t take my talking points from noam chomsky like hugo chavez and michael moore, if that’s what you mean.

having watched what happened with reagan and the soviets i was able to form my own opinions. same with clinton. were you out of diapers yet?

312

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
What I don’t get is that the liberals cried and cried: Bush didn’t do enough! Bush KNEW! (see the bumper sticker?)
.
.
.
Dumb liberal fucks.
[/quote]
True or false–The 9/11 attacks happened on GWB’s watch?

True or false–The Bush administration downgraded the bin Laden threat?

True or false–Before downgrading the al Qaeda threat the Bush Administration recieved full intelligence on terror plots by known al Qaeda members?

True or false–Pres. Clinton ordered UAV drone attacks on al Qaeda and bin Laden after the Cole incident and came closer to killing him than the current administration?

True or false–The main stream media was more concerned with Clinton’s sexual behavior and his subsequent lying to congress than the efforts he made to try and kill bin Laden?

True or false–Clinton was accused of pandering to the right for every military action he ordered?

True or false–The current Bush plan to “combat terrorism” is working?

313

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
i don’t take my talking points from noam chomsky like hugo chavez and michael moore, if that’s what you mean.[/quote]

Ahahahaha.

Come on, both left and right think Chavez is a nutbird. Sure, I’m sure there are some leftists out there, but to lump them in with mainstream liberals is nonsense and you surely know that.

Michael Moore, I suspect, in his rabid fashion, has done more harm than good for the liberal cause. Going apeshit in the way he did really just gave ammunition to the right to throw at mainstream liberals undeservedly.

For you to hold these two clods up as examples shows just how cartoonish you imagine liberals to be. The only way to get this type of viewpoint is to firmly attach yourself to the teat of disinformation and infotainment so widely available today.

Keep suckling buddy.

Either that, or come out with something better than larger than life characters with no basis in mainstream thought as your examples of the evils of the other side.

As for being out of my diapers, I’m obviously older than you think. Speaking of thinking, like I said, come on back when you learn to do some.

314

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
…

Hack, you are just playing word games man. Twist, twist and twist. I wonder where you get your talking points from?

Come on back when you learn to think for yourself… y’hear?[/quote]

What the fuck is up with you, Vroom? No matter what someone says, if they don’t agree 100% with your liberal, Canadian viewpoint you respond with, “Think for yourself” bullshit. Good lord, man. Enough of that shit. Address some actual points just once or twice.

315

[quote]tme wrote:

No one disputes that Bush took action after 9/11, it’s the complete inaction and refusal to acknowledge anything that didn’t say “Iraq” prior to 9/11 that is the issue.[/quote]

You retard, turn the corner already. Here, let’s get the whole ‘Tit for tat’, Bullshit out in the open so people can quit whining:

Liberal Pothead: Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11! He took more vacation days than any other President in history and managed to let Bin Laden escape the battlefield in Afghanistan. He’s a horrible President.

Neocon Bloodsucker: Clinton had eight years and only managed to blow up an aspirin factory and get a blowjob. Why the hell are you mad at Bush when Clinton clearly carries a great deal of blame?

LP: Clinton warned the Bush campaign about Bin Laden, how can you blame him?

NB: Warned him and left him fiscally hindered intelligence community that, according to Clinton, had already said “No” to Bin Laden on multiple occasions, what proactive steps was Bush to take? Clinton crippled our intelligence efforts, he’s to blame.

LP: Clinton was a) held back by a Republican blue-dress-chasing Congress and b) merely trimmed back the intelligence community after a certain CIA director-turned-President bolstered the institution to no avail, as he didn’t catch Bin Laden or liberate Iraq either!

NB: That’s funny, a Republican Congress didn’t stop him from getting Americans killed or blowing up peace-seekers in Mogadishu. And GHW Bush didn’t bolster the intelligence community, he just didn’t feel the need to dismantle Reagan’s legacy while Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was on the table.

LP: An unnecessary war that distracted him as much as Clinton. GHW Bush is just as, if not more responsible for both situations than his son. He, Reagan, and the rest of the CIA trained and equipped people like Bin Laden and even put Saddam into power.

NB: Liberating an invaded ally is hardly unnecessary war. And Reagan, GHW Bush, and the CIA wouldn’t have had to do those things if Carter been such a pussy both allowed the spread of communism into the Middle East and bungled horribly the Iran Hostage Crisis, which is, where this all started…

Clearly I left out things like the bombing of the Cole and numerous embassy attacks along the way (see my point?) and people will probably continue to chip in. But at least try to get your head out of your ass and realize, as BB and myself said, you can have blamestorming sessions all the way back to Carter (at least) and it accomplishes nothing. Once Bin Laden is caught and terrorism contained, if he’s caught and if it can be contained, then credit and blame can be doled out and scorecards totalled. Until then, it’s useless finger-wagging.

316

True or false–The 9/11 attacks happened on GWB’s watch?

True - 8 months in. The attack had been planned for more than 10 years.

True or false–The Bush administration downgraded the bin Laden threat?

I’ll have to take your word if you say that this one’s true. Define ‘downgraded’. Cite your source. What I do know is that the administration did not react as they should have or would have with prior knowledge of future events. That said, what do you think they SHOULD have done? Bear in mind, we can’t violate any civil rights. What could have been done that was not?

True or false–Before downgrading the al Qaeda threat the Bush Administration recieved full intelligence on terror plots by known al Qaeda members?

True. What’s the point? Should he have erected a shield around the country? Again, tell me what should have been done. What would have been appropriate, while protecting civil rights?

True or false–Pres. Clinton ordered UAV drone attacks on al Qaeda and bin Laden after the Cole incident and came closer to killing him than the current administration?

HAHAHAHAHAAHA! Where are you getting YOUR talking points from? I’m not even going to humor with a reponse to that shit!

True or false–The main stream media was more concerned with Clinton’s sexual behavior and his subsequent lying to congress than the efforts he made to try and kill bin Laden?

True! So was Clinton. Doing nothing until impeachment time then he launches some missles…hitting…sand. Well done.

True or false–Clinton was accused of pandering to the right for every military action he ordered?

False. He was accused of rape a few times but mostly given a pass on any kind of mid-guided foreign policy he pursued, like his deal with North Korea! Brilliant!

True or false–The current Bush plan to “combat terrorism” is working?

True. No attacks on U.S. soil / U.S. civilians in 5 years. Better than any stretch in Clinton’s failed presidency.

[/quote]

317

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
i don’t take my talking points from noam chomsky like hugo chavez and michael moore, if that’s what you mean.

Ahahahaha.

Come on, both left and right think Chavez is a nutbird. Sure, I’m sure there are some leftists out there, but to lump them in with mainstream liberals is nonsense and you surely know that.

Michael Moore, I suspect, in his rabid fashion, has done more harm than good for the liberal cause. Going apeshit in the way he did really just gave ammunition to the right to throw at mainstream liberals undeservedly.

For you to hold these two clods up as examples shows just how cartoonish you imagine liberals to be. The only way to get this type of viewpoint is to firmly attach yourself to the teat of disinformation and infotainment so widely available today.

Keep suckling buddy.

Either that, or come out with something better than larger than life characters with no basis in mainstream thought as your examples of the evils of the other side.

As for being out of my diapers, I’m obviously older than you think. Speaking of thinking, like I said, come on back when you learn to do some.[/quote]

Wait. You’re Canadian? I didn’t see that. You are right. I wasn’t thinking. Why would I argue with a Canadian?

318

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
having watched what happened with reagan and the soviets i was able to form my own opinions. same with clinton. were you out of diapers yet?[/quote]

Hack,

This isn’t a shot at you, but how old were you when Reagan first took office? I’m just curious. You seem to have some vivid memories.

319

[quote]doogie wrote:
What the fuck is up with you, Vroom? No matter what someone says, if they don’t agree 100% with your liberal, Canadian viewpoint your respond with, “Think for yourself” bullshit. Good lord, man. Enough of that shit. Address some actual points just once or twice.[/quote]

This coming from the guy that thinks Rush is a source of something other than half truths and infotainment.

Ahahahahaha. Please. This much laughter can’t be good for me!!!

320

[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Wait. You’re Canadian? I didn’t see that. You are right. I wasn’t thinking. Why would I argue with a Canadian? [/quote]

LOL!

Dude, other than the fact that I lived and worked in the US for years, and that I live maybe a mile from the border, whether or not I’m Canadian doesn’t change the import of my words.

For you to fall back on that is a fucking pansy move. Good job!!! Can you show more obviously that you only listen to sources that tell you what you want to hear?

Ahahahahah! Thank you for showing my point so clearly.

P.S. I was a real Reagan fan, and supported him vigorously at the time of his presidency.

321

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
having watched what happened with reagan and the soviets i was able to form my own opinions. same with clinton. were you out of diapers yet?

Hack,

This isn’t a shot at you, but how old were you when Reagan first took office? I’m just curious. You seem to have some vivid memories.[/quote]

nah. the shot will come later, right?

i was old enough to remember. good enough?

322

[quote]lucasa wrote:
tme wrote:

You retard, turn the corner already.
[/quote]

Hey ZEB! This fucking jackass just called me a name! Aren’t you going to jump in here and defend my honor? No? That’s right, it only works when it goes the other way right? Now I’ll get an “official” zebrimand for name calling I suppose.

[quote]
But at least try to get your head out of your ass and realize, as BB and myself said,[/quote]

Yeah, cause you and BB both are unimpeachable sources of truth, right? If you state your opinion then it has to be fact, and besides BB linked to a bunch of other right-wingnut opinion, so there’s proof, right?