[Damn True]

Just got this from a good(!), devoted (?) Democrat....thought you would like it...

All Truly American Disasters

Politicians and people are hot to trash Bush. Too bad the
Congressional Committee investigating what went wrong before
9/11/01 isn't dealing with the following:
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six
and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those
responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S.
military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would
be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which
killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised
that those responsible would be hunted down ! and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed
224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible
would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and
injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible
would be hunted down and punished. Maybe if Clinton had kept
his promise, an estimated 2,800 people in
New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive
today.

AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both
extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and
gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.
That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration
spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over eight years than
Osama bin Laden?

THINK ABOUT IT!
It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8
Million for her forth coming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million
for his memoir yet to be written. This from two people who have
spent the past 8 years being unable to recall anything about past
events while under oath! And, this woman wants to be president of
the United States.

Remember: The Alamo; Pearl Harbor; 9-11-01; The Clinton
Administration.

All Truly American Disasters

 

[patconnole]

So are we supposed to blame Clinton for everything now?

 

[Damn True]

Not at all.

However, the assertion that Bush v1 or v2 is soley responsible for the current state of affairs is absurd.

That being said, how much power does any President REALLY have? People like to give credit or blame (more often the latter) to a POTUS, when more often than not the issue at hand, and credit or blame for it is in the hands of congress or the judiciary.

Presidential administrations are rarely responsible for bills that go to congress and with the exception of appointments have little bearing on the judicary.

 

[Spud]

People also ignore the fact that the Clinton Administration came 40 minutes from dropping a cruise missle in Bin Laden's lap (he had left too early, but the missile did hit the location). At the time the wing nuts blamed the missle attacks on Bill wanting to deflect the Lewinsky lies.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by Damn True
Not at all.

However, the assertion that Bush v1 or v2 is soley responsible for the current state of affairs is absurd.

That being said, how much power does any President REALLY have? People like to give credit or blame (more often the latter) to a POTUS, when more often than not the issue at hand, and credit or blame for it is in the hands of congress or the judiciary.

Presidential administrations are rarely responsible for bills that go to congress and with the exception of appointments have little bearing on the judicary.

Clinton is not responsible for the North Korean problem now? Hell, and even I thought he deserved a black eye for that one.

 

[Damn True]

Well....yeah, this one is on bubba.

 

[IKE]

blah blah blah bush is satan, blah blah blah clinton was satan, blah blah blah ronald reagan was satan,walter mondale was satan, blah blah blah blah

 

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Damn True
Well....yeah, this one is on bubba.

Iraq . chalk that one up to wimp senior screwing up and not doing it right the first time. How many service personnel are gonna get killed or maimed as wimp jr tries to fix daddys mess

 

[Spud]

One that was left out of the long list above was the bombing of the marine base in Lebanon.

Interestingly, one of the 8 or so dissident Iraqi groups whom are administration is consulting with (planning post Saddam Iraq) are thought to be responsible for planning and financing that.

We funded the Afghanistan opposition that grew into Al Quida.

We funded Iraq against Iran

We look to lie down with dogs who killed our Marines in Lebanon...

Any bets on what Turkey does with $10 billion in US Taxpayer money?

Now I'm depressed....

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by Spud

Any bets on what Turkey does with $10 billion in US Taxpayer money?

Kill more Kurds? Does anyone here know much about that situation? I've heard (from Noam Chomsky talks) that Turkey has been quietly "exterminating" many Kurds over the last decade or two, but we aren't hearing about it.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by eric strt6
Iraq . chalk that one up to wimp senior screwing up and not doing it right the first time. How many service personnel are gonna get killed or maimed as wimp jr tries to fix daddys mess

Wrong.
That one is on the UN, get your facts straight Eric.

I posted info about this before so I'll just give the readers digest version this time.

In 1998 we were not running the show (contrary to what many ignorant pinheads think, the fault for the result of the '98 Gulf War is not on Bush Sr.). We agreed to lead the coalition under the UN's strict requirements. One of those requirements was that we not topple the Hussein regime. The UN was afraid of creating a vacuum effect and didn't know who (Iran, Suadi, Jordan, Turk, secular, or cleric) would fill the void. They figured a disarmed Hussein would be easier to control via sanctions (woops, wrong on that one) than the "X" factor that would be a new regime.

Therefore, under the UN mandate the US has spent the last 12 years supporting said sanctions and doing it's best to control import and export of the banned commodoties. Meanwhile the UN has tried in vain to get Hussein to comply with the UN mandate (which he signed in agreement) that he divulge and destroy all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and their means of construction. He has not.

So here we are today. The ineffectual UN has brought us to this point. I can't for the life of me understand why ANYONE would want to continue letting the UN run this debacle that has been going on in excess of 12 years and has yet to be resolved.
"More inspections"?
Do you think that after 12 years the UN is finally going to just get Hussein to comply? Why would he? The UN has proven that there is no real consequence for a failure to comply.

 

[IKE]

whats really amazing to me is that a lot of you people who think you are "informed" because you watch the news or read the paper are deluded. Any particular piece of media can slant a story however they want it to be slanted and those who "want" to think the same way take it for gospel.
Mostly what the political forum here is, is a lot of arrogant windbags who feel they are "in the know"
how funny and sad

 

[I Are Baboon]

I don't blame Bush or Clinton or even Reagan for anything. I blame El Nino.

 

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Damn True
Wrong.
That one is on the UN, get your facts straight Eric.

I posted info about this before so I'll just give the readers digest version this time.

In 1998 we were not running the show (contrary to what many ignorant pinheads think, the fault for the result of the '98 Gulf War is not on Bush Sr.). We agreed to lead the coalition under the UN's strict requirements. One of those requirements was that we not topple the Hussein regime. The UN was afraid of creating a vacuum effect and didn't know who (Iran, Suadi, Jordan, Turk, secular, or cleric) would fill the void. They figured a disarmed Hussein would be easier to control via sanctions (woops, wrong on that one) than the "X" factor that would be a new regime.

Therefore, under the UN mandate the US has spent the last 12 years supporting said sanctions and doing it's best to control import and export of the banned commodoties. Meanwhile the UN has tried in vain to get Hussein to comply with the UN mandate (which he signed in agreement) that he divulge and destroy all chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and their means of construction. He has not.

So here we are today. The ineffectual UN has brought us to this point. I can't for the life of me understand why ANYONE would want to continue letting the UN run this debacle that has been going on in excess of 12 years and has yet to be resolved.
"More inspections"?
Do you think that after 12 years the UN is finally going to just get Hussein to comply? Why would he? The UN has proven that there is no real consequence for a failure to comply.

so now your calling me an Ignorant pinhead huh, get a grip dude
no one including me is personally attacking you, but you seem to feel justified in hurling insults. that is just pathetic

 

[Damn True]

Apparently BAH is the only really enlightend one among us...

Oh great and wise BAH show us the way....

Do you honestly think that you are the only one bright enough to source his information from more than one place and to derrive your own conclusions based upon multiple interpretations of the same facts?

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by eric strt6
so now your calling me an Ignorant pinhead huh, get a grip dude
no one including me is personally attacking you, but you seem to feel justified in hurling insults. that is just pathetic

Not at all. Gross generalization aimed at the talking heads you see on the news, and the subjects of "man on the street" type interviews.

Sorry, that comment was in no way aimed at you bro.

 

[patconnole]

Originally posted by BAH
whats really amazing to me is that a lot of you people who think you are "informed" because you watch the news or read the paper are deluded. Any particular piece of media can slant a story however they want it to be slanted and those who "want" to think the same way take it for gospel.
Mostly what the political forum here is, is a lot of arrogant windbags who feel they are "in the know"
how funny and sad

And then there's the guy who thinks he's so "in the know," he's too good to debate. This sounds like "You can't know anything for sure, so we shouldn't talk about anything!"

 

[douglas]

So what Clinton did years ago is why things are screwd up now, and the cause of the loss of american lives on 9/11, but when someone mentions Bush....the presidents are NOT to blame ??

(and I quote per Damn True: "That being said, how much power does any President REALLY have? People like to give credit or blame (more often the latter) to a POTUS, when more often than not the issue at hand, and credit or blame for it is in the hands of congress or the judiciary.

Presidential administrations are rarely responsible for bills that go to congress and with the exception of appointments have little bearing on the judicary.")

 

[Damn True]

When read IN CONTEXT my point is clearly that no one individual is soley responsible for issues as broad reaching as Isreal/Palestine, Al-Queda, Iraq, Iran/Iraq etc.

The focus of many of late is that Bush v1 or v2 are responsible for the current situation in Iraq. Based on the above statement IMO that cannot be true. That situation has been effected profoundly by the last 5-6 administrations, Congressional approval or dissaproval of aid to one side or another, The UN, other countries in the region etc etc.

 

[LordOpie]

Blaming Bush would be to give him credit for something. He's too stupid to fix or break anything. Except perhaps a bong

 

[gecko]

Don't see what that snippet has to do with Bush. It tells me Clinton was ineffective..and Bush is still a moron.

Sorry.

 

[IKE]

Originally posted by Damn True
BAH is the only really enlightend one among us...

i agree

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by BAH
whats really amazing to me is that a lot of you people who think you are "informed" because you watch the news or read the paper are deluded. Any particular piece of media can slant a story however they want it to be slanted and those who "want" to think the same way take it for gospel.
Mostly what the political forum here is, is a lot of arrogant windbags who feel they are "in the know"
how funny and sad

Hey I'm an arrogant windbag who feels I am in the know.

No, wait I'm a grounded wiseman, who knows I'm in the know.

Ummm, no I'm sleepy and I want a nap.

Oh hell BAH whats a guy to do...

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Damn True
When read IN CONTEXT my point is clearly that no one individual is soley responsible for issues as broad reaching as Isreal/Palestine, Al-Queda, Iraq, Iran/Iraq etc.

The focus of many of late is that Bush v1 or v2 are responsible for the current situation in Iraq. Based on the above statement IMO that cannot be true. That situation has been effected profoundly by the last 5-6 administrations, Congressional approval or dissaproval of aid to one side or another, The UN, other countries in the region etc etc.

Bush V2 is not responsible for Iraq situation as a whole. As you pointed out the situation has been brewing for 20 or more years. Each administration adds its own little bit to the situation.

However, he is certainly responsible for the the ratcheting up to where we stand now. His administration has made it a focus for the for the last several months. If he had not the UN certainly wouldn't have done anything.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Spud
Clinton is not responsible for the North Korean problem now? Hell, and even I thought he deserved a black eye for that one.

Wait a minute. What's the basis for this statement?

 

[ohio]

Something's wrong when we have to start arguing about which president sucks less....

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
J AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both
extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and
gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism.
That being the case, why was it that the Clinton Administration
spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over eight years than
Osama bin Laden?

this is not an endorsement of Clinton, but I figured I'd answer that question...

In economic terms, prior to 9/11, Microsoft had cost the US far FAR more money than Osama Bin Laden. It was therefore (assuming we could not have predicted a disaster of the scale o0f 9/11) a MUCH better investment of US taxpayer money to pursue Gates than Bin Laden.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ohio
this is not an endorsement of Clinton, but I figured I'd answer that question...

In economic terms, prior to 9/11, Microsoft had cost the US far FAR more money than Osama Bin Laden. It was therefore (assuming we could not have predicted a disaster of the scale o0f 9/11) a MUCH better investment of US taxpayer money to pursue Gates than Bin Laden.

Unless your kid was on the USS Cole.

 

[DRB]

Damn True, do you ever check any of the stuff you post for accuracy? The entire thing you posted is similar to that Ollie North thing (funny how that disappeared).

Clinton did nothing is the basic premise of the "article". Now while you have made it clear that you don't blame anyone, you still posted this "article".

Starting at the top:

1993 Trade Tower bombing. 4 suspects were captured in March of 1994. A fifth (the supposed mastermind) was captured in 1995. Each of these have been convicted and are currently serving time in US prisions.

1995 Saudi Arabian bombing. 4 Saudi nationals were captured by the Saudis (after being indicted by US courts) each was beheaded in 1996

1996 Khobar Towers. 14 indicted by US courts. Each is being held in Saudi custody. No one is exactly sure of the current disposition. It is thought they have probably been "dealt" with.

1998 Embassy bombings. 4 captured and sentenced in US courts to life in prision. 3 that have been indicted are in London fighting extradition. 14 more are indicted but still at large. Also Clinton authorized an attack on Afganistan attempting to kill Osama in 1998 as a result of these bombings. All he got for his troubles was blame that he was deflecting attention away from Monica.

2000 Cole bombing. Clinton only had two months left so.....

Also the the spending for anti-terror activities nearly tripled to 6.7 billion during his administration. Of course he didn't catch Osama. That would have been nice but the fact of the matter is that he has proven to not be easy to catch.

If you aren't out to blame folks why did you post this article?

 

[D_D]

Originally posted by DRB
Damn True

If you aren't out to blame folks why did you post this article?

Because he is one of those knuckleheads that like to blame Clinton for everything..........

 

[Damn True]

If you aren't out to blame folks why did you post this article?

To point out the fact that these events and the larger issues behind them cannot be the fault of just one person. Therefore, to point fingers at one person or group depending upon ones political leanings is absurd.

The article (however biased) illustrates that by saying the same kinds of things about Bill that were said about Bush v1 while Bill was in office, and that are being said about Bill now that Bush v2 is in office.

As I said above, "my point is clearly that no one individual is soley responsible for issues as broad reaching as Isreal/Palestine, Al-Queda, Iraq, Iran/Iraq etc.

The focus of many of late is that Bush v1 or v2 are responsible for the current situation in Iraq. Based on the above statement IMO that cannot be true. That situation has been effected profoundly by the last 5-6 administrations, Congressional approval or dissaproval of aid to one side or another, The UN, other countries in the region etc etc."

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by D_D
Because he is one of those knuckleheads that like to blame Clinton for everything..........

If you will read what I am saying rather than being reactionary you will see that is not my point.

 

[eric strt6]

Originally posted by Damn True
Not at all. Gross generalization aimed at the talking heads you see on the news, and the subjects of "man on the street" type interviews.

Sorry, that comment was in no way aimed at you bro.

I'll accept the apology but you need to be a little more carefull in phrasing your retorts

 

[Darryl]

Originally posted by BAH
whats really amazing to me is that a lot of you people who think you are "informed" because you watch the news or read the paper are deluded. Any particular piece of media can slant a story however they want it to be slanted and those who "want" to think the same way take it for gospel.
Mostly what the political forum here is, is a lot of arrogant windbags who feel they are "in the know"
how funny and sad

At least there's one other smart mofo besides me on this board.

So, so true.

 

[bomberz1qr20]

I don't know what's more offensive, True's insultingly Limbaugh-esque accounts of political history or his drunken girl pee-pee posts.

 

[Spud]

Originally posted by DRB
Wait a minute. What's the basis for this statement?

Personal belief of course!

The Clinton administration made good inroads with N. Korea, but did not follow through adequately. The situation was addressed well at first, but left unattended. This lack of attention continued in the Bush Administration as well. Now we with an unstable, belligerent despot starving his people and threatening Asia with nukes. Plenty of mistakes for two administrations in that situation.

 

[stevew]

Wasn't Clinton offered Bin Laden twice by Somalia?

steve

 

[Tenchiro]

I don't see why we can't agree that 99% of all politicians only in office for the money and power, and don't give two sh!ts about the people they pretend to serve. Unless those people can line their pockets that is...

It doesn't matter if they are lberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat. It is all about the color of the money in their fat little fingers.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by bomberz1qr20
I don't know what's more offensive, True's insultingly Limbaugh-esque accounts of political history or his drunken girl pee-pee posts.

Apparently you did not read the entire thread.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by D_D
Because he is one of those knuckleheads that like to blame Clinton for everything..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you will read what I am saying rather than being reactionary you will see that is not my point

Or maybe he's light-heartedly misquoting your humourously entitled thread? It was light-hearted wasn't it?


The thing is that people will make mistakes, even POTUS's. What is far more constructive for everyone is that the encumbent try not to make any more, certainly more constructive than justifying your mistakes by pointing out other's failings. Sadly much harder too.

I've always thought that politicians should be a lot more accountable for their actions. Tony Blair will collect a pension of over £1million for his ten or so years in office, regardless of how the country is left after his time..