RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Bill Clinton's fault(37 posts)

Bill Clinton's faultDougSloan
Oct 20, 2003 7:16 AM
Some of you gotta like this:



If you don't follow Nonsequitor, you can see more here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20031020/cx_nq_uc/nq20031020
Everything's Bill Clinton's faultMR_GRUMPY
Oct 20, 2003 7:50 AM
If Bill Clinton had been able to keep his zipper zipped, Gore would be President, and we wouldn't have this mess in Iraq.
(We'd still be in Afganistan, but that's working out OK)
Why do you say we would still be ...Live Steam
Oct 20, 2003 8:11 AM
in Afganistan? Clinton did nothing to thwart the rise in terror attacks. He never would have used ground forces to go into Afganistan. His only response to past terror strikes was to launch a few missles. The terrorists knew this and were never detered by this from acting and becoming more bold in their strikes.
you must have head in arse syndromeMJ
Oct 20, 2003 8:19 AM
are you seriously saying that past terror strikes and 9/11 are equivalent?

that's funny
I guees you can't help yourself so ...Live Steam
Oct 20, 2003 8:53 AM
I pity you rather than get upset by you juvenile barbs. Of course I didn't suggest that. If you had any real intellect you would understand that 9/11 came about because, under Clinton, the US never appropriately responded to terror. What did we do when the Cole was bombed? What was done when our U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists? Nothing other than launch missiles at some unconfirmed terrorists camps. He did nothing but weaken our national security during his tenure. Period!
andMJ
Oct 20, 2003 9:43 AM
what would Bush and co have done? invade Sudan? invade Afghanistan?

you live in a dream world
and what?Live Steam
Oct 20, 2003 10:00 AM
You have been claiming that Bush is ready to go into every country east of Italy in order to further his "neocon" agenda, but now believe that he would have acted differently when confronted with the same terrorist actions Clinton had to deal with? Which is it? You have no clue do you? You just like to rabble rouse. That's fine, but don't claim to have some moral superiority when you have no real convictions.
it's pretty well documentedMJ
Oct 21, 2003 7:40 AM
that Bush and Co were aware that there were serious threats of terrorism in August 2001 - they did nothing

when Bush came ot office he did nothing

if a rabid neo-con had been in office when Kenya and the Cole were hit they would have done something akin to Clinton - limited retaliation strike with little or no risk to US personnel

it took 9/11 to shake the neocons out of their head in sand approach and make them actually engage with the world - what's clear is that the only way they can effectively engage the international community is through combat and sustained failures on the diplomatic front - the goodwill of 9/11 has been squandered and blame for that can only be placed in Bush
It is? Where?Live Steam
Oct 21, 2003 8:14 AM
Have you been reading the NY Times again? :O) Please post something to backup your statement. I would dare say that the prior admin. had more knowledge about immanent threats than did the new admin. that was trying to sort through all of the Clintonistas shenanagins.
will you admit you're wrong now?MJ
Oct 21, 2003 9:06 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43165-2003Jul24¬Found=true

"A History of Missed Connections
U.S. Analysts Warned of Potential Attacks but Lacked Follow-Through
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 25, 2003; Page A14

Those privy to the intelligence community's classified reports on domestic terrorism had plenty of reason to lose sleep in the spring and summer of 2001. Analysts warned of potential attacks by unspecified terrorists in New York and California, and by operatives of Osama bin Laden somewhere in the United States.

CIA sources in Afghanistan picked up chatter about an unspecified, impending attack, and the National Security Agency monitored at least 33 communications suggesting an imminent attack, according to a congressional investigative report issued yesterday. Bin Laden operatives were dropping out of sight, and according to some classified warnings, headed for the United States and Canada.

The classified alarms reached a crescendo at the beginning of July, when top U.S. officials were warned that bin Laden was in the throes of advanced preparations for a major attack, most likely against an American or Israeli target. "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests," they were told.

But in the critical month of August, the government's complex and balky counterterrorism machinery failed to move fast enough to stop accelerating preparations for an attack."

here's what Clinton was doing while in office

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18¬Found=true

findings of joint congresssional investigation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42881-2003Jul24¬Found=true
Wrong about what?Live Steam
Oct 21, 2003 10:04 AM
Everything basically says that no one at any time prior to 911 knew what was going on or what was going to happen. Most in the intelligence community knew something was in the planning stages, but didn't know what, where, when and how. This was in good part due as a direct result of My initial assertion was that Clinton didn't do much to thwart terrorism and didn't react with the appropriate force. I didn't put blame for 911 on Clinton. He also, in many was, handcuffed intelligence gathering. The articles you referenced are glossed over and not well researched. Read the essay below. Very well done.


http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/investigative/2002/malone-intelligence.asp

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Clinton-Vetoes-Leaks-Bill.htm
about not having a clueMJ
Oct 21, 2003 10:21 AM
that's not what it says - here's a refresher:

"Those privy to the intelligence community's classified reports on domestic terrorism had plenty of reason to lose sleep in the spring and summer of 2001. Analysts warned of potential attacks by unspecified terrorists in New York and California, and by operatives of Osama bin Laden somewhere in the United States.

CIA sources in Afghanistan picked up chatter about an unspecified, impending attack, and the National Security Agency monitored at least 33 communications suggesting an imminent attack, according to a congressional investigative report issued yesterday. Bin Laden operatives were dropping out of sight, and according to some classified warnings, headed for the United States and Canada.

The classified alarms reached a crescendo at the beginning of July, when top U.S. officials were warned that bin Laden was in the throes of advanced preparations for a major attack, most likely against an American or Israeli target. "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests," they were told.

But in the critical month of August, the government's complex and balky counterterrorism machinery failed to move fast enough to stop accelerating preparations for an attack."

Bush and Co were aware that attacks were imminenet in August 2001 - you asked me to provide a link - I did - from the Washington Post - yes it is a paper that does not rely on pictures and exclamation points so you may not have read it before - but you can take it from me or anyone else with half a brain that it is indeed a well respected source - the comments made there only echo the Jonit Congressional findings - perhaps you want to take exception with their research too and conclude that they glossed over facts - is that always your reaction when you are wrong?

if you read the second article in the post above (which you clearly did not) above the steps Clinton took are well outlined - as were the realistic limits any chief executive would have faced in that climate - but to say he didn't react appropriately is plainly wrong and spoken from a position of ignorance

just as ignorant to deny that Bush was aware there was an imminent threat in AUgust 2001 and did nothing - that's a fact - matter of record

your Columbia article doesn't add any further perspective on this debate

your reactionary Clinton post isn't applicable to the debate - if we want to talk about refusing to allow things into the public domain we can look first at the current office holder's record to date - but if it's easier to blame Clinton for everything perhaps you could refer to Doug's cartoon in the first post
I do have a clue on one thingLive Steam
Oct 21, 2003 10:45 AM
You don't read and comprehend very well. I read both articles and probably read them contemporaneously as well reading them today, as I get the W. Post electronically delivered to me each day. You give Clinton a pass because you claim his hands were tied, but not Bush. If you read and understood the articles you referenced as well as the essay I posted, (it is clear you didn't read it because it does shed much more light on the subject) you would see that knowing something is immanent and knowing what, where, when and how are vastly different. No one knew what was going to happen or indeed if it would happen here on US soil.

http://bjcat0.tripod.com/clintoniceberg.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Ldotvets/Bubba_58.html

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Ldotvets/Bubba.html
I guess you get your news from Fox and the NY Post - nmMJ
Oct 21, 2003 9:23 AM
Correct on both counts and from other sources. nmLive Steam
Oct 21, 2003 10:05 AM
are you one of the ignorant ones?MJ
Oct 21, 2003 10:23 AM
http://forums.consumerreview.com/crforum?viewall@@.efdbe7c
Yes. For responding to you! nmLive Steam
Oct 21, 2003 10:46 AM
You say that Clinton did so little to prevent terrorism and 9-11bboc
Oct 20, 2003 10:27 AM
and I'll assume by your tone that you think Bush and CO did such a great job. Give some examples of what the Bushies did to prevent terrorism PRE-911 that was any better than Clinton?
Bush was in office for 7 months before 911 occuredLive Steam
Oct 20, 2003 10:36 AM
The slime knew we were more vulnerable during a transition. You can't deny he has certainly done a lot more since.
yes, and for the month of august 2001rufus
Oct 21, 2003 5:20 PM
he was on vacation at his ranch in texas, after a gruelinbg six months on the job.

and it's funny how you use an article that quotes warren rudman and gary hart's group to support that we weren't doing enough to combat terrorism under clinton, while you and the rest of the righties scoff at their report saying our first responders are incredibly ill prepared and under-funded to deal with another such attack in the future.
So what is?filtersweep
Oct 20, 2003 12:52 PM
So what is an appropriate response to terrorism?

Iraq really wasn't much of a hotbed for terrorism until AFTER we declared "victory" after out little invasion/occupation.

To blame Clinton for 9/11 is absolutely absurd- as it is absurd to blame Bush . Terrorism has been around "forever."

How can anyone combat an enemy who has no sense of self-preservation (suicide bombers, etc.) ? All conventional forms of diplomacy are dependent upon having a sense of self-pres... the threat of killing them serves no deterrence. Terrorism, even when well planned, is ultimately a crime of opportunity- they do it simply because they can.

So by your logic, Bush should have already erradicated the world of terrorism and already re-built Iraq??
Didn't say any of thatLive Steam
Oct 20, 2003 1:30 PM
I never blamed Clinton for 911. I do however blame him for not addressing it in a more direct way. He could have done a lot more. He could have put more pressure on states that sponsor it, but he never did. It isn't possible to combat each individual that would choose to kill themselves in the name of something, but it is possible to put immense pressure on those that enable them.

I am leaving for a Rangers game, but later I will post an article I read that illustrates the connections between Saddam and terrorist groups including Al Queda. It is circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence has proven to be very powerful in many cases. And no, my logic doesn't lead to the assumption that Bush should have erradicated terrorism. That is plain foolish.
Jailhouse rulesfiltersweep
Oct 21, 2003 6:25 AM
I wonder how much "jailhouse rules" enters into the mix- that a certain amount of low-level terrorism simply needs to be "tolerated" to avert major incidents- just as the illegal informal economy of a prison can never be erradicated without tremendous expense (like a huge staff ratio).

It arguably isn't very PC to suggest this, but again, we are dealing with people with nothing to lose. As long as the problem is contained...

It is the sort of counterintuitive logic that sometimes actually works- much like the real weapon in the arms race with the Soviets years ago was actually money, not the weapons themselves.
What?Live Steam
Oct 21, 2003 6:48 AM
You are implying that the Clinton administration was complicit and had knowledge that terrorists were going to attack US concerns or somehow turned a blind eye to these acts in order to keep the peace? You believe the people at the top took an actuarial account and accepted a certain amount of damage in order to protect the greater good? LOL!!! Sounds rather dangerous to me. It also appears to have failed - unless you believe that 911 was acceptable. I know that war planning accounts for a certain amount of casualties, but I don't think you can handle terrorism on the same terms.

You also claim the people at the top "have nothing to lose". I don't think they would agree with your assessment, especially after direct hits on our soil. I agree that events overseas don't have the same impact on our vulnerability quotient, but to somehow believe that anyone would not want to stem terrorism for fear of disturbing the natural order is foolhardy at best and irresponsible if true.
misunderstood a bitfiltersweep
Oct 21, 2003 2:37 PM
This isn't directly related to any particular admin- terrorism wasn't invented while Clinton was in office... and isn't directly related to 9/11. I'm not even stating that I actually believe this to be true.

I'm talking more about keeping a house clean by having a mud room somewhere. Keep an embassy in a country where a large number of terrorists live and play... dock a US warship near a hostile country.

As far as people having "nothing to lose", I'm referring to suicidal terrorists who know for a fact that they will die if the succeed in their "mission"- an element that conventional diplomacy fails to address. Our own administration has much to lose from terrorism- esp. on US soil.
Everything's Bill Clinton's faultmohair_chair
Oct 20, 2003 8:20 AM
I'm pretty sure the San Andreas Fault is Bill Clinton's fault, too. If only he had kept his zipper zipped, the 1994 Northridge earthquake would not have happened.
you got itDougSloan
Oct 20, 2003 8:21 AM
The intent of posting this was a little self-deprecation.

Doug
I have a pesky saddle sore I INSISTOldEdScott
Oct 20, 2003 8:26 AM
on blaming GWB for. I'll give you everything else.

Pretty funny cartoon.

Here's MY laugh for the day. Love the quote:

MacArthur Genius Grant Goes Right Up
Recipient's Nose
ALBANY, NY—According to friends, the $500,000, five-year, no-strings-attached MacArthur Fellowship awarded to Jim Yong Kim earlier this month went right up the 43-year-old scientist's nose. "Kim's efforts to eradicate drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis in Russian prisons and Peruvian ghettos amazed everyone—as did his appetite for top-grade cocaine," Marisa Amir said Monday. "As soon as that first check arrived, Kim was on the phone with his dealer, and two hours later, he was in a hot tub full of strippers." His first installment of money gone, the scientist then returned to the task of developing a whole-cell cholera toxin recombinant B subunit vaccine.
wow; they must have a good libel lawyer around nmDougSloan
Oct 20, 2003 8:38 AM
i actually liked this quote too.rufus
Oct 20, 2003 8:55 AM
"Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he 'didn't want to see any stories' quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/7023679.htm
that's too funnyDougSloan
Oct 20, 2003 9:15 AM
They are just going to have to round up all senior officials and sequester them.

Doug
ps, if a writer wanted to make something upDougSloan
Oct 20, 2003 9:18 AM
If a writer wanted to entirely fabricate some, somewhat plausible, statement like that, what could prevent it? No one will 'fess up to whether they said it, the author won't reveal his source, and the administration looks like they are covering up if they deny it. Sounds like carte blanche authority to make up anything you want (not that a writer would EVER do such a thing).

Doug
Now, now! They'll start calling ....Live Steam
Oct 20, 2003 9:25 AM
you paranoid and other nice things, around here, if you write stuff like that :O) No self-respecting journalist would do that ;O)
particularly no one at the NY Times(Jayson Blair)? nmDougSloan
Oct 20, 2003 9:35 AM
Ed's quote is from "The Onion", Doug...NMTri_Rich
Oct 20, 2003 11:10 AM
Once again, from the Onionmickey-mac
Oct 21, 2003 8:41 PM
Limbaugh Says Drug Addiction A Remnant Of Clinton Administration
WEST PALM BEACH, FL—Frankly discussing his addiction to painkillers, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience Monday that his abuse of OxyContin was a "remnant of the anything-goes ideology of the Clinton Administration." "Friends, all I can say is 'I told you so,'" said Limbaugh, from an undisclosed drug-treatment facility. "Were it not for Bill Clinton's loose policies on drug offenders and his rampant immorality, I would not have found myself in this predicament." Limbaugh added that he's staying at a rehab center created by the tax-and-spend liberals.
LOL!!!! Hahahaha!!! I am sure he uttered ...Live Steam
Oct 22, 2003 5:12 AM
each and every one of those words while dropping his last hit! LOL!