|
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
MisterOpus1,
You failed to understand the logic behind my statement  (dosen't surprise me) |
It doesn't surprise you because?.....
| quote: | Moving on... you come up and compare the Clinton scandal with Bush's decision to go into war with Iraq 
Okay... The clinton scandal involved a scandal that basically froze presidential operations nationally and internationally. |
Evidenced by, what again?
And on the flip side of that argument, could the same be said of the GOP Congress who's relentless efforts into busting him on Whitewater, uhh I mean a lie on a blowjob?
Of course not. Let's just keep the focus on Clinton.
| quote: | | He disgraced office, came up and lied to the American people that nothing happened between Monica( i dont know about you but i dont like being lied too) |
Which means you really love this Administration then, right? Because they've NEVER lied about anything of note, ESPECIALLY in comparison to stains on a dress and a blowjob, right?
| quote: | | Dont you think if we would have concentrated all that energy to hunt down OBL during his presidential term would have been more constructive? |
I see that you're relatively new here, so I will say that if you do a bit of a search regarding this topic you'll find my arguments thoroughly posted in the past. Believing that Clinton could have done more is one thing, and if this is what you are stating then I would agree. On that same token, however, an equal belief in this current Administration could have done more and taken the bin Laden threat more seriously must also be equally measured. I really don't know how an Administration can seriously blow off Richard Clark who demanded meetings with the Vice President in 2000, as well as demanding from Condi Rice that more must be done, only to be handwaved away. And it's also a bit difficult to escape the simple little phrase given to our dear leader in August of 2001:
"bin Laden determined to strike the United States."
It's hard to decifer that message in any manner other than it being extraordinarily threatening.
And what did our fearless leader do in response?
So in the context, both screwed up. Now, if you're going to take it a step further and center your criticisms in the manner that Clinton was so completely distracted that he was SOLELY at fault, you're going to have to do a bit more convincing for me to believe that. In the meantime, here's a little extra reading for you:
| quote: | To make this argument with any plausibility, Bush supporters would have to be able to point to complaints made by Republicans at the time -- and especially during the 2000 election -- that the Clinton administration should have been more attentive or aggressive towards Islamic terrorists. The threat posed by Al Qaeda and bin Laden was well known throughout the 1990s. To pretend that Republicans wanted a more aggressive stance than Clinton took is blatant revisionism.
Prominent Republican elected officials were not criticizing Clinton for paying insufficient attention to Al Qaeda. George Bush barely said a word about Islamic terrorism during the entire presidential campaign -- throughout 1999 and then through all of 2000 -- and to the extent Republicans spoke about Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts at all, it was to criticize them for being too bellicose, too militaristic, and just unnecessary.
The 2000 Republican Party Platform contains 13 specific criticisms of the Clinton Administration's foreign and military policies. Not a single one mentions or refers in any way to Al Qaeda or terrorism generally. After that, there is an entire section entitled "The Middle East and Persian Gulf" that deals extensively with Iraq and the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but it does not say a word -- not a single word -- about Islamic extremism, Al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden.
Even the section of the Platform entitled "Terrorism, International Crime, and Cyber Threats" makes not one reference to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or Islamic extremism. It does not contain a single claim that the Clinton administration was insufficiently aggressive towards Islamic terrorists, nor does it advocate increased militarism in the Middle East or against terrorists. In fact, to the extent Republicans advocated a new approach at all, it was to emphasize the need for the very "law enforcement" and "domestic preparedness" approaches which they now claim to disdain.....
.....George Bush's 2000 Republican National Convention acceptance speech contained a slew of specific criticisms of the Clinton administration, along with a series of specific foreign policy goals. He never mentioned or even alluded to the threat of terrorism, Islamic extremism, or the need for increased aggression against Middle Eastern supporters of terrorism. In fact, to the extent Bush criticized the use of military force at all, it was to imply that it was not used sparingly or discriminatingly enough.....
.....Then-Governor Bush also engaged in three lengthy presidential debates with Al Gore and never once criticized the Clinton administration's handling of terrorism. He never once advocated increased aggression or urged that more attention be paid to that threat. Again, to the extent he criticized the Clinton administration's foreign policy, it was to criticize the excessive use of military force.
In the third presidential debate, Bush was asked about what his foreign policy would be in the Middle East. He spoke of the need to confront Iraq, but did not utter a word about Al Qaeda or terrorism generally. The criticism he made of the Clinton administration's use of military force was this: "I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world."
......Not a word about terrorism, Al Qaeda or Islamic extremism. In the same debate, Bush again said: "I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. . . . It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious." It is in that debate where he also famously said: "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war."
How is it justifiable for Bush supporters now to claim that the Clinton administration was insufficiently attentive to, or aggressive against, Al Qaeda when they said nothing of the sort at the time? They didn't spend the 1990s criticizing Clinton for failing to confront the terrorist threat. Quite the contrary; if anyone was attempting to urge the country to take the threat of Al Qeada more seriously, it was the Clinton administration.
Here is what James Bennett reported in The New York Times on August 21, 1998, the day after President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on what the CIA believed were Al Qaeda sites in Afghanistan and the Sudan in retaliation for the bombings, two weeks earlier, of two American embassies in Africa:
| quote: | | In his speech Mr. Clinton warned Americans that the strike would by no means put an end to terrorism. ''This will be a long, ongoing struggle,'' he said. ''America is and will remain a target of terrorists.'' . . . Repeatedly he said Mr. bin Laden presented an imminent threat, quoting his pledge this week to wage a war in which Americans were ''all targets.'' |
That bin Laden posed a serious terrorist threat was well-known. From the same article:
| quote: | | 'What they shared with us made it crystal clear that terrorism had escalated against us,'' Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican from Oregon, said in a telephone interview . . . . President Clinton signed an executive order that placed Mr. bin Laden on the Treasury Department's list of terrorists and their sponsors, clearing the way for officials to seize his assets. |
Despite the well-known threat posed by bin Laden, most Republicans were not criticizing the President for being insufficiently attentive to it. To the extent they were criticizing his attacks on Al Qaeda, it was to question whether those attacks were really necessary. Some leading Republicans endorsed Clinton's response -- "Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, said, 'Our response appears to be appropriate and just'" -- but numerous Republicans criticized the strike on bin Laden as an unnecessary diversion from what really mattered: the Clinton sex scandals which they were obsessively pursuing.
The revisionism at the heart of the praise which Bush supporters are lavishing on this mini-series is manifest. The notion that Republicans wanted a stronger and more aggressive approach to terrorism than the Clinton administration took is pure fantasy. During Clinton's second term, Republicans were focused on Monica Lewinsky, not Osama bin Laden. When Clinton was President, and during the Bush presidency prior to the 9/11 attacks, Bush supporters couldn't have cared any less about Islamic terrorism. Even Clinton's attacks on Al Qaeda were immediately used as a tool to focus more attention on Ken Starr's investigation.
George Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of reining in the use of military force, not expanding it. He wanted a more "humble" and restrained foreign policy, not a more aggressive one. If all one knew about the world came from listening to the Bush campaign in 2000 -- or Republicans during the 1990s -- one would barely have known that terrorism existed. The notion that Republicans wanted a more aggressive posture against Al Qaeda and terrorism during the Clinton administration is pure, unadulterated fantasy. And, by definition, any narrative which lends support to that myth -- as Bush supporters claim Path to 9/11 does -- is (in addition to its other factual inaccuracies) pure fiction.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...-terrorism.html |
| quote: | | If you think that the white house is like being in hollywood surrounded by sex scandals you should consider in moving into Beverly hills to see whos cheating on who. |
Uhh, huh? What on earth are you talking about here?
| quote: | | Now with Bush This is what I have to say... sometimes our leaders must take unpopular decisions for the best of our country. If you think that taking on with popular decisions is doing the right thing you must be stoned or stupid First of all our president acted on bad intelligence. We have had the same intelligence that MI6 and russian intel it was "Slam Dunk" from all 3 nations. |
I'm sorry, you said you were neither a Dem or a Republican? Are you sure? Because these points are exactly what I hear from the Bush supporters here, as well as on AM radio Wingnut shows.
Regardless, again this has been discussed exhaustively here by me and others to which you can do a search for my arguments. But let's see if I can summarize the points again:
Lying continuously about pre-war ties with al Qaeda and Saddam were just peachy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7040502263.html
while all the while knowing well in advance that such ties were utter bullshit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...90800777_2.html
No connection existed from the getgo, and they knew that:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/nj...005/1122nj1.htm
But did that stop our dear Cheney from making those connections time and again over the years?
And about that "evidence" that other countries agreed upon. You see, those other countries didn't invade Iraq, we did. So the onus of proof was upon us to be absolutely correct with that evidence and look at it with scrutiny. The problem, of course, is that there was a good heapin' amount of counterevidence against the WMD claims once we did look into it:
http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...les/b24889.html
But it was completely ignored:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...2&ex=1254456000
The reason being was simple - a stovepipe was created to circumvent our intelligence via Office of Special Plans from Doug Feith, Rummy, and Cheney:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/20...7/031027fa_fact
And the sources you were getting to bolster your case for war such as Curveball was outrageous liars:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGCLC1Q5U1.DTL
To which your Administration knew full well in advance but didn't care. It's hard not knowing about this, because you had "intelligence being fixed around the policy":
http://downingstreetmemo.com/
So there's plenty of evidence out there to indicate the intelligence was being manipulated. And in regards to your "slam dunk" comment, Tenet will have to answer for himself on that bullshit. But he also will have a few things to say about it this Sunday on 60 Minutes, and needless to say, it doesn't put our Administration in a good light.
| quote: | | Okay... I love your bashing on the GOP on their divorces... awww I guess that getting divorced is an awful sin... its better to come up in public and just accept the fact that your husband or wife has had an affair and just forgive him and not only that but come out and defend him... awww that is the moral thing to do! |
Actually the more moral thing to do is think about this:
"He who hath not sinned cast the first stone."
I think it's also more moral to hold family values a bit higher in these individuals, i.e. NOT HAVE FUCKING MULTIPLE AFFAIRS, considering you are holding them in such high regard in comparison. And for what? Because they came out with their affairs? Are you being serious?
Are you actually trying to tell me that your moral warrier, Newt Gingrich, who served his divorce papers to his wife in her hospital bed, and with each wife he has is from a subsequent affair from his prior wife before, is somehow morally superior than a woman who forgives her husband of an affair and stays with him?
Are you really trying to hold that line of logic here?
| quote: | You say that America has lost the war... it saddens me  Hey lets just follow the Dem, lets throw the towel, |
As I said previously, the "towel" was thrown in long ago by this Administration's complete failures with a viable post-war plan. All reasonable analysts and military heads agree that more diplomacy and less military power is the answer, yet this Administration continues to do the exact opposite.
Blaming the Dems. on this is both erroneous and completely sidesteps the absolute mismanagement by this Administration. You wouldn't by chance be doing that on purpose, would you?
| quote: | | lets go save the penguins up north |
How trivial of you to make of global warming. Are you sure you're not a Republican?
| quote: | | and increase taxes. |
You mean those taxes that we continue to hold that's putting us further and further into debt? Those taxes that for the first time in history have been held during a war time?
Let's make sure we have the language clear here, my dear "independent". No Democrat will be "increasing" taxes - rather, they will cut the ridiculous tax breaks on the top tier affluent that have been held far too long by this Administration.
| quote: | | And Iraq lets just forget about it and let terrorist group take over and use the oil refineries so they can fund their operations against America. |
You seem to be under the impression that any Democratic plan seems to want to pull out ALL troops out of the region. I'm curious, have you even read the Democratic plan?
And lastly, maybe we shouldn't be so "addicted to oil" in the first place, as your fearless leader suggested. Then perhaps we wouldn't be relying so heavily on regions full o' terra for our energy purposes? But woulda thunk that we'd ever get past such rhetoric by our fearless leader?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
, quite pro-Palestinian. Having lived in San Fran, and now Austin, I've know plenty. 
