I'm nottrying to get into apissing match of who was betterClinton or Bush, becausein my opinion they both sucked, but how do you know Clinton did nothing. How do you know that Clinton didn't have the CIA working on this or other covert operations or is militray action the only way you see fit. The purpotrators of the 93 WTC bombing where apprehanded, tried, and convicted of their crime. That tome is doing something. Somalia I believe he did the right thing by pulling the troops out. They where involved in a situation they should have never been involved in. I can't say wether Clinton did or didn't do anything about the other attacks you mentioned because as I statedthere may have been operations underway that the public had no knowledge of.
I'm pretty sure if Clinton would have done something, he would have taken credit for it. Besides, our government shouldn't be hiding things like this from us should they? Right.
The WTC bombers recieved financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Looks like someone forgot to "connect the dots." Not only did poor Khaled fail the first time, but he had a second chance. Luckily for liberals, everyone forgets about the first time around and just blames Bush for 9/11 (Which he should apologize for immediately!).
Were the 9/11 hijackers worried about being convicted of anything? Hopefully that stamps an answer to your "atleast he did something" statement.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
I'm pretty sure if Clinton would have done something, he would have taken credit for it. Besides, our government shouldn't be hiding things like this from us should they? Right.
The WTC bombers recieved financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Looks like someone forgot to "connect the dots." Not only did poor Khaled fail the first time, but he had a second chance. Luckily for liberals, everyone forgets about the first time around and just blames Bush for 9/11 (Which he should apologize for immediately!).
Were the 9/11 hijackers worried about being convicted of anything? Hopefully that stamps an answer to your "atleast he did something" statement.
i thought 9/11 was an inside job.....
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
I'm pretty sure if Clinton would have done something, he would have taken credit for it. Besides, our government shouldn't be hiding things like this from us should they? Right.
The WTC bombers recieved financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Looks like someone forgot to "connect the dots." Not only did poor Khaled fail the first time, but he had a second chance. Luckily for liberals, everyone forgets about the first time around and just blames Bush for 9/11 (Which he should apologize for immediately!).
Were the 9/11 hijackers worried about being convicted of anything? Hopefully that stamps an answer to your "atleast he did something" statement.
Getting a little hostile aren't you. Yes Clinton didn't do enough and I agree that nothing should be hidden from the American public. I just bringing up a counter to your statement that he did nothing when he did try, not good enough in my book but that's for another discussion. I also think it's a pretty big assumption on your part to simply state that "liberals" forget about the first one.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
In '95 5 Americans killed and many more wounded by a car bombing in Saudi Arabia.
Clinton did nothing.
In '96 a USAF base was bombed in Saudi Arabia.
Clinton did nothing.
in '96 Saddam whiped out the Kurdish city of Erbil.
Clinton lobbed some bombs into the Iraqi desert.
In '98 US embassies in Keny and Tanzania were bombed.
Clinton did nothing.
yada yada yada...
The only thing Clinton was distracted from was being President of the United States. What's that line liberals are always shouting at me? "The governments job is to protect the citizens of this country!" Right...
Oh.. And his marital vows...
I think he was taking after every Republican's wet dream, Ronnie Reagan, when he pulled out of Beirut after 300 Marines were bombed and killed by terrorists. Yes, tough guy Ronnie did nothing but cut and run.
I think he was taking after every Republican's wet dream, Ronnie Reagan, when he pulled out of Beirut after 300 Marines were bombed and killed by terrorists. Yes, tough guy Ronnie did nothing but cut and run.
Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.
Care to compare the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the Achille Lauro?
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.
So you are saying Ronnie was a pussy and caved in to public opinion and the Democrats? Wow, he was a tough guy.
Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.
Care to compare the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the Achille Lauro?
Reagan -- "Those who directed this atrocity must be dealt justice, and they will be," he said four days after the attack, adding: "Let me ask those who say we should get out of Lebanon: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism?"
Four months later, Reagan ordered what was called the "redeployment" of U.S. troops to ships offshore. "We're not bugging out; we're just going to a little more defensible position," he said at the time.
Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.
Care to compare the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the Achille Lauro?
In July 1985, President Reagan denounced Iran as part of a "confederation of terrorist states" which had committed "outright acts of war" against the U.S. He declared Iran to be an enemy of the United States:
"Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua -- continents away, tens of thousands of miles apart, but the same goals and objectives. I submit to you that the growth in terrorism in recent years results from the increasing involvement of these states in terrorism in every region of the world. This is terrorism that is part of a pattern, the work of a confederation of terrorist states. Most of the terrorists who are kidnapping and murdering American citizens and attacking American installations are being trained, financed, and directly or indirectly controlled by a core group of radical and totalitarian governments -- a new, international version of Murder, Incorporated. And all of these states are united by one simple criminal phenomenon -- their fanatical hatred of the United States, our people, our way of life, our international stature."
And yet only 39 days after making that speech, Reagan's men began furnishing some of these fanatical America haters with what would eventually amount to 107 tons of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. These shipments continued for more than a year. They even continued beyond August 1986, when President Reagan signed into law a federal ban on arms sales to terrorist nations, which included Iran.
In July 1985, President Reagan denounced Iran as part of a "confederation of terrorist states" which had committed "outright acts of war" against the U.S. He declared Iran to be an enemy of the United States:
"Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua -- continents away, tens of thousands of miles apart, but the same goals and objectives. I submit to you that the growth in terrorism in recent years results from the increasing involvement of these states in terrorism in every region of the world. This is terrorism that is part of a pattern, the work of a confederation of terrorist states. Most of the terrorists who are kidnapping and murdering American citizens and attacking American installations are being trained, financed, and directly or indirectly controlled by a core group of radical and totalitarian governments -- a new, international version of Murder, Incorporated. And all of these states are united by one simple criminal phenomenon -- their fanatical hatred of the United States, our people, our way of life, our international stature."
And yet only 39 days after making that speech, Reagan's men began furnishing some of these fanatical America haters with what would eventually amount to 107 tons of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. These shipments continued for more than a year. They even continued beyond August 1986, when President Reagan signed into law a federal ban on arms sales to terrorist nations, which included Iran.
ok, so the GOP has fucked up everything and got swept out by a pissed off american public
and the right just goes back to trying to blame clinton? pathetic isnt it?
one thing clinton seemed to understand, which these armchair generals dont, is that you cant invade or bomb everyone that you have a problem with. remember oklahoma city? it was handled just as it should have been, a fringe radical organization was arrested, tried, convicted, and dismantled. period.
Rumsfeld: 'My Half-Assed Job Here Is Done'
November 8, 2006 | Issue 42•45
WASHINGTON, DC—After nearly six years of much-publicized service as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld announced his resignation Wednesday afternoon, saying that he had "proudly accomplished everything [he'd] set out to bungle." "Years ago, I decided to bog this great nation down in an extended, grueling foreign occupation, and I'm happy to say that's exactly what I've done," said Rumsfeld in a farewell address at the White House, during which he urged Americans to continue waging the ill-conceived, mismanaged, and evidently unwelcome fight for democracy in the Middle East. "Each of my actions—from undersupplying troops with body armor to focusing on capturing Saddam Hussein while Osama bin Laden remained free—has led America inexorably toward our current state of extreme crisis. Well, anyway, goodbye!" President Bush expressed confidence that Robert Gates, his new nominee for Secretary of Defense, will be able to "fuck everything up the rest of the way."
'Give me some music; music, moody food/ of us that trade in love'
-Shakespeare
Bush Sr. didn't finish off Saddam in '91 because the Democrats screamed bloody murder as we sat outside the gates of Baghdad.
And here we are 15 years later and those same Democrats are complaining that we should have finished the job the first time.
I do believe it takes a "majority" of liberals in congress to form a cognizant thought.
Haha, a liberal joke!
On top of this you are without a doubt a Bush hater. Nothing anyone in this administration does will be "good." You've already predetermined that. That I'm sure of.
...
Boy... you are so far off base here that you are acutally standing in the adjacent ball park.
Democrats didn't call for the end of hostilities... the invasion/occupation of Iraq was not the military objective in 1991. Ejecting the Iraqi Military from Kuwait was. It was clearly defined, goals and objectives were drafted, worst case scenarios accounted for and prepared for. That was the Colin Powell/Norman Swartzkopf under command of G.H.W.Bush administration's call. The 'Highway of Death' was part of the reasoning. You need to read Powell's or Swartzkopf's book... or just a history book in general.
...
And I don't hate Bush for the sake of being Bush. I believe he has consistantly made one poor decision after another regarding Iraq. I was a full supporter after September 11, 2001 and during the Afghanistan War... that was a 'Just Cause' in my eyes. Iraq is a 'Just 'Cuz' and more analysis was required before undertaking this campaign. The Former Bush Administration did this and knew of the downfalls and the effort and resources required to pull it off. The Powell Doctrine worked to perfection in 1991... Clearly defined military objectives executed with overwhwelming forces with overwhelming support from the homefront. Worst case scenarios accounted for and prepared to face with contingency plans in place and the War conducted from the Command and Control in the battle zone, not directed by the civilian authorities in Washington.
I believe the resignation of Rumsfeld is a step in the right direction and has been well over due. Rumsfeld's decisions on troop levels and resource deployment, as well as the vaguely defined goal of 'Getting the Job Done' is detramental to our military personel. He has failed to define what the Job is... maybe you know. What exactly IS the 'Job' that needs to be done and how, specifically, are we supposed to fulfill it? What are the goals, objectives and specific tasks involved?
So, if you believe that I hate Bush and form opinions about him just because he is Bush... then the adverse must apply.... you must love George W. Bush because you simply like the taste of his cock. I do not believe that is true.
...
You should also look into ending your belief that everything is politicized into Democrats versus Republicans... it isn't. Everything you see on FOX News isn't true. You should really attempt to see things as they really are... not the way your television tells you it is.
Trying to label me a 'Liberal' doesn't do anything to me... it only makes you look like an ass.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
anyone else read that after his time in the CIA, Robert Gates was an oil and energy consultant. What does that could have to do with national defense?
...
I think it has something to do with oil being a vital resource for our National Defense. All of our machines need oil in order to operate. No diesel fuel, no tanks... no avation fuel, no jets. I understand the strategic requirement for securing the world's largest accessable oil reserves as a National concern... which is why drilling for oil in our 'Strategic Reserves' to run SUVs to and from soccer practice is purely idiotic. They are labeled as 'Strategic' for a reason.
But... I think that squatting on those Middle Eastern Reserves or taking them by force is not in our best interests. Our best interests would be better served if we make those Middle Eastern countries part of our Allied base, not our enemies. Our enemies will sell the bulk of their reserves to our enemies.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Comments
I'm pretty sure if Clinton would have done something, he would have taken credit for it. Besides, our government shouldn't be hiding things like this from us should they? Right.
The WTC bombers recieved financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed. Looks like someone forgot to "connect the dots." Not only did poor Khaled fail the first time, but he had a second chance. Luckily for liberals, everyone forgets about the first time around and just blames Bush for 9/11 (Which he should apologize for immediately!).
Were the 9/11 hijackers worried about being convicted of anything? Hopefully that stamps an answer to your "atleast he did something" statement.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
Ohhhh that's right!
Clinton just couldn't get'em to fall the first time!
How silly of me.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Getting a little hostile aren't you. Yes Clinton didn't do enough and I agree that nothing should be hidden from the American public. I just bringing up a counter to your statement that he did nothing when he did try, not good enough in my book but that's for another discussion. I also think it's a pretty big assumption on your part to simply state that "liberals" forget about the first one.
I think he was taking after every Republican's wet dream, Ronnie Reagan, when he pulled out of Beirut after 300 Marines were bombed and killed by terrorists. Yes, tough guy Ronnie did nothing but cut and run.
Case in point. Democrats in congress threw a hissy fit and drafted a resolution demanding the troops be withdrawn. All of the Democratic presidential candidates that year demanded the same. He caved in an election year. He did bomb some Syrian controlled areas on the way out only to hear more of the same bitching.
Care to compare the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and the Achille Lauro?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
So you are saying Ronnie was a pussy and caved in to public opinion and the Democrats? Wow, he was a tough guy.
Reagan -- "Those who directed this atrocity must be dealt justice, and they will be," he said four days after the attack, adding: "Let me ask those who say we should get out of Lebanon: If we were to leave Lebanon now, what message would that send to those who foment instability and terrorism?"
Four months later, Reagan ordered what was called the "redeployment" of U.S. troops to ships offshore. "We're not bugging out; we're just going to a little more defensible position," he said at the time.
In July 1985, President Reagan denounced Iran as part of a "confederation of terrorist states" which had committed "outright acts of war" against the U.S. He declared Iran to be an enemy of the United States:
"Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua -- continents away, tens of thousands of miles apart, but the same goals and objectives. I submit to you that the growth in terrorism in recent years results from the increasing involvement of these states in terrorism in every region of the world. This is terrorism that is part of a pattern, the work of a confederation of terrorist states. Most of the terrorists who are kidnapping and murdering American citizens and attacking American installations are being trained, financed, and directly or indirectly controlled by a core group of radical and totalitarian governments -- a new, international version of Murder, Incorporated. And all of these states are united by one simple criminal phenomenon -- their fanatical hatred of the United States, our people, our way of life, our international stature."
And yet only 39 days after making that speech, Reagan's men began furnishing some of these fanatical America haters with what would eventually amount to 107 tons of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles. These shipments continued for more than a year. They even continued beyond August 1986, when President Reagan signed into law a federal ban on arms sales to terrorist nations, which included Iran.
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/political-scandal/iran-contra/
No, I'm not calling him a pussy Mr. Purveyor of the English Language.
But, on that day he did cave. Yes. I was solidifying your claim by the way incase you missed it. You may stop cut and pasting.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
bingo!
and the right just goes back to trying to blame clinton? pathetic isnt it?
one thing clinton seemed to understand, which these armchair generals dont, is that you cant invade or bomb everyone that you have a problem with. remember oklahoma city? it was handled just as it should have been, a fringe radical organization was arrested, tried, convicted, and dismantled. period.
November 8, 2006 | Issue 42•45
WASHINGTON, DC—After nearly six years of much-publicized service as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld announced his resignation Wednesday afternoon, saying that he had "proudly accomplished everything [he'd] set out to bungle." "Years ago, I decided to bog this great nation down in an extended, grueling foreign occupation, and I'm happy to say that's exactly what I've done," said Rumsfeld in a farewell address at the White House, during which he urged Americans to continue waging the ill-conceived, mismanaged, and evidently unwelcome fight for democracy in the Middle East. "Each of my actions—from undersupplying troops with body armor to focusing on capturing Saddam Hussein while Osama bin Laden remained free—has led America inexorably toward our current state of extreme crisis. Well, anyway, goodbye!" President Bush expressed confidence that Robert Gates, his new nominee for Secretary of Defense, will be able to "fuck everything up the rest of the way."
-Shakespeare
I think this guy was in the wings from the time Rumsfeld started talking about resigning a few years ago.
What is so obvious about this desperation is, not only is Gates carrying the neocon-Bush doctorine, he's 2 years too late.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Boy... you are so far off base here that you are acutally standing in the adjacent ball park.
Democrats didn't call for the end of hostilities... the invasion/occupation of Iraq was not the military objective in 1991. Ejecting the Iraqi Military from Kuwait was. It was clearly defined, goals and objectives were drafted, worst case scenarios accounted for and prepared for. That was the Colin Powell/Norman Swartzkopf under command of G.H.W.Bush administration's call. The 'Highway of Death' was part of the reasoning. You need to read Powell's or Swartzkopf's book... or just a history book in general.
...
And I don't hate Bush for the sake of being Bush. I believe he has consistantly made one poor decision after another regarding Iraq. I was a full supporter after September 11, 2001 and during the Afghanistan War... that was a 'Just Cause' in my eyes. Iraq is a 'Just 'Cuz' and more analysis was required before undertaking this campaign. The Former Bush Administration did this and knew of the downfalls and the effort and resources required to pull it off. The Powell Doctrine worked to perfection in 1991... Clearly defined military objectives executed with overwhwelming forces with overwhelming support from the homefront. Worst case scenarios accounted for and prepared to face with contingency plans in place and the War conducted from the Command and Control in the battle zone, not directed by the civilian authorities in Washington.
I believe the resignation of Rumsfeld is a step in the right direction and has been well over due. Rumsfeld's decisions on troop levels and resource deployment, as well as the vaguely defined goal of 'Getting the Job Done' is detramental to our military personel. He has failed to define what the Job is... maybe you know. What exactly IS the 'Job' that needs to be done and how, specifically, are we supposed to fulfill it? What are the goals, objectives and specific tasks involved?
So, if you believe that I hate Bush and form opinions about him just because he is Bush... then the adverse must apply.... you must love George W. Bush because you simply like the taste of his cock. I do not believe that is true.
...
You should also look into ending your belief that everything is politicized into Democrats versus Republicans... it isn't. Everything you see on FOX News isn't true. You should really attempt to see things as they really are... not the way your television tells you it is.
Trying to label me a 'Liberal' doesn't do anything to me... it only makes you look like an ass.
Hail, Hail!!!
I think it has something to do with oil being a vital resource for our National Defense. All of our machines need oil in order to operate. No diesel fuel, no tanks... no avation fuel, no jets. I understand the strategic requirement for securing the world's largest accessable oil reserves as a National concern... which is why drilling for oil in our 'Strategic Reserves' to run SUVs to and from soccer practice is purely idiotic. They are labeled as 'Strategic' for a reason.
But... I think that squatting on those Middle Eastern Reserves or taking them by force is not in our best interests. Our best interests would be better served if we make those Middle Eastern countries part of our Allied base, not our enemies. Our enemies will sell the bulk of their reserves to our enemies.
Hail, Hail!!!