my bad

Last edited by Q5echo on Jul-20-2004 at 05:27

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Clinton Prevented an attack by Al-quaida- Good Bush failed to listen to the intelligence advisors prior to 9/11 - bad. Bleh.. JM>> you appeared!!! nothing to back you up bro?? heh.

LOL!

clinton hardly prevented anything

i loved his adminstration though...




LINK

thats from this morning

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec LOL! clinton hardly prevented anything i loved his adminstration though... LINK thats from this morning

Yes, I saw my dear Speedracer... you should have seen the second post I made perhaps?!?!.

And are you been sarcastical about his administration?

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade

Funny how these charts correlate so nicely with the wealth effect, and the gradual building of an unsustainable bubble...much like the 1920's. Boy, Cal Coolidge was also a phenomenal president by that rationale....because he didn't do jack shit! How about laying a little context out when you make a subjective argument like that? How about mentioning Greenspan and his easy money policies in there? How about recognizing that without a lot of Bush's economic policy the reprocussions of that bubble would've likely been much worse--unlike Hoover who exacerbated a similar problem.

How about stepping up from the JV squad and coming up with something varsity worthy? Do you really intend to prove such a broad, macro thesis with 2 pictures? Selective economic indicators my ass.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Yes, I saw my dear Speedracer... you should have seen the second post I made perhaps?!?!. And are you been sarcastical about his administration?

No

to tell you the truth, I liked his adminstration overall.
He appealed to me to some extent

Well Shakka, that was my point. The author just plucked some economic indicators from nowhere (that made Bush look good and Clinton look bad) that - alone - are not fully representative of the macro-economic management of either president. That was why I used the term "selective" economic indicators - because the author has chosen to include only those indicators that served his purpose, while ignoring those that didn't (which is why I took the liberty of providing a couple that he must have overlooked). It wasn't my intention to delve into complex statistical analysis, I was just evening the ledger and trying to make a point about empirical selectivity.

occrider:

quote:

Hehe I knew you were working on this post when I saw you logged in for more than an hour .

Yeah, it took me a few goes because my IE keeps on crashing. Bloody Microsoft.

quote:

I may agree with you on the part of the funding, however, I still disagree with the fervor over the no-bid process.

Yeah, don't get me wrong. Like I said in the other thread, I'm not buying into a conspiracy theory, but I still think that there are a lot of issues with regards to contracts awarded in Iraq that need answering.

quote:

To the best of my knowledge, the army corp of engineers did arrive at the decision for utilizing the logcap 3 contract to utilize kbr: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/kbr.pdf However, even if they didn't, I don't believe they are the ultimate authority on the decision to utilize a logcap contract or not, one would think that CENTCOM has the authority to do so. But at any rate, on March 11, 2004 the commanding general of US Army Material Command (as expert of a source as the army corp of engineers? More so perhaps since his primary job function is logistics?) explained and defended the rationale to utilize the logcap contract: http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFil...20Testimony.pdf If anything, I have more doubts about the Clinton issuance of no bid contracts to a company that did NOT have the logcap contract. Why wasn't the contract given to DynCorps, and why was it no bid? Personally it's not a big deal, but if I did THINK it was, I would be more concerned with the Clintonian no bid, no logcap contract as opposed to the Bush logcap contract.

This is the first time I've ever encountered LOGCAP so thanks for the links. In the second link, at the bottom of the third paragraph on page 6, it states that at least one of the Iraqi Halliburton contracts were awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers (not the CPA - or not directly at least) - same as the Balkan Halliburton contract - so I'll take that part of what I said back. Nonetheless, it still doesn't detract from all the other issues surrounding the way in which the Iraqi contracts were awarded.

Q5Echo

quote:

What is it about Clinton that he can be so defendable. seeing that was what your post was doing most of the time.

Please explain?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

i just find it odd that even after four years, he still seems beyond critisism even by people that didn't like him or agree with him.

the second part was a snub at you for being anti-bush but having to defend clinton for being so.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Well Shakka, that was my point. The author just plucked some economic indicators from nowhere (that made Bush look good and Clinton look bad) that - alone - are not fully representative of the macro-economic management of either president. That was why I used the term "selective" economic indicators - because the author has chosen to include only those indicators that served his purpose, while ignoring those that didn't (which is why I took the liberty of providing a couple that he must have overlooked). It wasn't my intention to delve into complex statistical analysis, I was just evening the ledger and trying to make a point about empirical selectivity.

Ah--OK, my bad!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Ah--OK, my bad!

No!!

Am I the only one following this thread??

Clintons-bad!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Now I hate to say anything positive about Bush, but Clinton did plenty of non "listening" too ...

I can't support Clinton too much on his anti-terrorist activities, but I'll give a stab at it:

quote:

1993 World Trade Center bombing

This was what, a handful of days after Clinton took office? How on earth could he have prevented that?

In contrast, I can't stop the conservative drivel of 9/11 being Clinton's fault - which was of course 8 months and a good handful of warnings about Al Qaeda to Bush after Clinton left office.

In fairplay, shouldn't we then attribute '93 WTC to Bush Sr.?

quote:

Bombing at a U.S. military facility in Riyadh in November 1995 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Much was still quite unknown about Al Qaeda, even after these bombings. When the Sudanese gov't had Saddam in the spring of '96, Clinton pleaded to have him prosecuted in Saudi Arabia because our intelligence simply did not have enough evidence to indict him in the U.S.:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/n...ks/100301a.html

quote:

Bombings in August 1998 of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Which he responded to by bombing where he thought Osama was located. Of course he was wrong, but there was corroborated evidence that Osama was there and left within an hour before the bombings.

Clinton also sent a directive to hunt and kill Al Qaeda members as a result of these '98 attacks. ("Delenda plan")

quote:

October 2000 USS Cole bombing

From which Clarke created a covert action plan from the CIA called "Blue Sky" to hunt down Osama. Both this plan and the Delenda plan was handed to Condoleeeeeza during the presidential transition, and she pretty much sat on them both in order to focus attention on missile defense and Saddam.

quote:

But yes an extensive vocabulary and blowjobs are indeed good.

Yes, Clinton was certainly distracted with his zipper down - he admits as much in his memoirs.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Much was still quite unknown about Al Qaeda, even after these bombings. When the Sudanese gov't had Saddam in the spring of '96, Clinton pleaded to have him prosecuted in Saudi Arabia because our intelligence simply did not have enough evidence to indict him in the U.S.: http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/n...ks/100301a.html

To which he should have taken the opportunity to capture him and detain him while passing harsher anti-terrorism legislation that would enable courts to prosecute him. Clinton even admitted himself that that was his biggest mistake. All in all however, it was reported that 3 attempts at capturing Bin Laden were botched:

quote:

Clinton's "Biggest Mistake" By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid | January 23, 2002 "We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action." We have commented on several occasions about the battle for former president Clinton's legacy, particularly regarding the question of did he or didn't he do enough while president to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Shortly after September 11th, articles by the AP and the Philadelphia Inquirer charged that the Clinton administration had chances to take out bin Laden, but refused to authorize it. Clinton denied that. His best shot, he told Fox News, was when he bombed bin Laden's camp in '98 following the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa. In an interview with Tom Brokaw of NBC News on September 18th, Clinton said, "We never had another chance where the intelligence was as reliable to justify military action." Last month the Washington Post ran an extensive two-part series claiming that there was in fact a significant effort to capture or kill bin Laden, but not if it meant risking the lives of women or children, or going after a government that harbored him. The extent of this effort has been hotly disputed, and a new article in London's Sunday Times cites three times in which the Clinton administration turned down offers from foreign governments to seize bin Laden, all coming after he had been identified as a terrorist who was threatening U.S. interests. The first instance they cite was Sudan's offer to extradite bin Laden in 1996. The Clinton administration turned them down, saying there wasn't enough evidence to convict him in an American court. Originally this was denied by administration officials, but according to the Times, senior sources from within the administration now confirm it was true. In the January issue of Vanity Fair magazine, former ambassador to Sudan, Timothy Carney, confirmed it, saying it had serious implications regarding the U.S. embassy bombings in 1998, and that "the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization." The Times reports that Clinton later described his turning down Sudan's offer as, "the biggest mistake of my presidency." The second offer the Times article details involved Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who contributed to Clinton's presidential campaign and served as a go-between for the administration and various powers in the Middle East. Ijaz presented an exchange of e-mails as evidence to prove that he had in fact met with Clinton officials and intelligence officers from the United Arab Emirates, who were offering to help to deliver bin Laden to the U.S. Ijaz says the deal was blown when Clinton sent his top counterterrorism adviser to meet the Arab leaders directly rather than continue to go through back channels. The third offer, described as mysterious, was said to come from Saudi Arabian intelligence agencies. It was said to involve putting a tracking device in the luggage of bin Laden's mother during a visit to her son in Afghanistan, but it too was turned down. Richard Shelby, the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence committee, said he was aware of a Saudi offer to help, but was not able to talk about the specifics. http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/799_0_2_0/

___________________
Retro ...