What is William Jefferson Clinton's Legacy?

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What did Bush DO about Terrorism prior to 9/11? Not SAY, DO.

A better question would be - what did anyone do about terrorism prior to 9/11.

Answer = not much.

You're welcome.

CkG

That is not true.


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[dudleydocker]

What is William Jefferson Clinton's Legacy

I don't know about anyone else but he provided me with an excellent oppertunity to explain to my then nine year old daughter everything she didn't want to know about oral sex, and yes it was in the same oval office we saw when we toured the White House.

Thanks Bill!:disgust:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dudleydocker

What is William Jefferson Clinton's Legacy

I don't know about anyone else but he provided me with an excellent oppertunity to explain to my then nine year old daughter everything she didn't want to know about oral sex, and yes it was in the same oval office we saw when we toured the White House.

Thanks Bill!:disgust:

You said a mouthful LOL

 

[Gand1]

He might have said a mouthfull, but if that is all you can remember about Clinton's 8 years, that's pretty sad.

 

[maluckey]

"There wasn't a sicker person than I on September 11. I was on the telephone when it happened. The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

A quote from former President William Clinton

If he knew about Bin Laden, and his network, and had refused to extradite him to the United States for trial when it was offered, who bears the responsibility for 9/11?

 

[0roo0roo]

well clinton handed bush the info and war plans, his cabinet spent their last days briefing bush and co on all of it, some of the hold over members consistently warned, and bush seemed to think tax cuts and ranch vacations were more important.

you want to talk responsibility?

 

[Zipp]

The First Elected President To Be Impeached = William Jefferson Clinton

 

[0roo0roo]

yes, apparently the republicans thought it was more important to play politics and go after clinton for monica while he was trying to deal with saddam and terrorism. they cared more about their witchhunt then our national security. wonderful how that turned out.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: dudleydocker

What is William Jefferson Clinton's Legacy

I don't know about anyone else but he provided me with an excellent oppertunity to explain to my then nine year old daughter everything she didn't want to know about oral sex, and yes it was in the same oval office we saw when we toured the White House.

Thanks Bill!:disgust:

Put the blame where it belongs. Clinton was not the first president with sexual skeletons. He was the only one pushed to the daily news for months. Your nine year old daughter would have remained innocent if not for bitter Republicans driving the Ken Starr witch hunt. So much for their family values.

Thanks Ken!:disgust:

 

[CaptnKirk]

All of the negative press on Clinton has been demonstrated to have been a co-ordinated campaign by the
Republican Party to so discredit the Person in the Executive Office that they could run a Chimp (which they did)
for the office and make it look as though that was an acceptable alternative to an educated, articulate,
person who was looking out for the best interest of the country and it's citizens.
Unfortunatley there was an incident where he was out of bounds in the Oral Orifice.

The question of his launching the Cruise Missles on an al-Queda terrorist training camp in Afganistan
was one of statistical probability given the CIA and other covert information at the time.
The target was an al-Queda center - know fact. The Target individual had been there, and may have
been missed by only an hour or so. This was when the 'Monica' thing was being talked up by the
Senate & House Republicans in order to blow it up so they could further discredit Clinton - their
witch hunt was desparate for anything to make him look bad, so lets make a trap that he can't
talk around and hang him on the technicality - 'Fifth Amendment - no matter what he says it's a lie'

Too bad that they couldn't have payed attention to the real threat of Bin Laden, instead of trying
to clear the way for the Meat-Puppet to enter the office in a capacity that he's not qualified for.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Zipp
The First Elected President To Be Impeached = William Jefferson Clinton

Also the First Elected President to Be Acquitted by the Senate.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
All of the negative press on Clinton has been demonstrated to have been a co-ordinated campaign by the
Republican Party to so discredit the Person in the Executive Office that they could run a Chimp (which they did)
for the office and make it look as though that was an acceptable alternative to an educated, articulate,
person who was looking out for the best interest of the country and it's citizens.
Unfortunatley there was an incident where he was out of bounds in the Oral Orifice.

The question of his launching the Cruise Missles on an al-Queda terrorist training camp in Afganistan
was one of statistical probability given the CIA and other covert information at the time.
The target was an al-Queda center - know fact. The Target individual had been there, and may have
been missed by only an hour or so. This was when the 'Monica' thing was being talked up by the
Senate & House Republicans in order to blow it up so they could further discredit Clinton - their
witch hunt was desparate for anything to make him look bad, so lets make a trap that he can't
talk around and hang him on the technicality - 'Fifth Amendment - no matter what he says it's a lie'

Too bad that they couldn't have payed attention to the real threat of Bin Laden, instead of trying
to clear the way for the Meat-Puppet to enter the office in a capacity that he's not qualified for.

Maybe if Clinton hadn't effectively Nuetered the Intel Community we might of had the proper info to actually nab or rub out Bin Laden so there wouldn't have beed a 9/11 attack and maybe Bush would have known there was no vast Stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq which he used to sway the American Public's support for his "Excellent Adventure" into that country!

 

[kandarp]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
All of the negative press on Clinton has been demonstrated to have been a co-ordinated campaign by the
Republican Party to so discredit the Person in the Executive Office that they could run a Chimp (which they did)
for the office and make it look as though that was an acceptable alternative to an educated, articulate,
person who was looking out for the best interest of the country and it's citizens.
Unfortunatley there was an incident where he was out of bounds in the Oral Orifice.

The question of his launching the Cruise Missles on an al-Queda terrorist training camp in Afganistan
was one of statistical probability given the CIA and other covert information at the time.
The target was an al-Queda center - know fact. The Target individual had been there, and may have
been missed by only an hour or so. This was when the 'Monica' thing was being talked up by the
Senate & House Republicans in order to blow it up so they could further discredit Clinton - their
witch hunt was desparate for anything to make him look bad, so lets make a trap that he can't
talk around and hang him on the technicality - 'Fifth Amendment - no matter what he says it's a lie'

Too bad that they couldn't have payed attention to the real threat of Bin Laden, instead of trying
to clear the way for the Meat-Puppet to enter the office in a capacity that he's not qualified for.

Maybe if Clinton hadn't effectively Nuetered the Intel Community we might of had the proper info to actually nab or rub out Bin Laden so there wouldn't have beed a 9/11 attack and maybe Bush would have known there was no vast Stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq which he used to sway the American Public's support for his "Excellent Adventure" into that country!

before 9/11 Rumsfeld was trying to do the same thing...when Congress wanted to put 600mil from NMD (national missile defense) into counter terrorism he shot off a memo to the rank and file at the Armed Services Committee (either the house or Senate doesnt matter either way) threatening to recommend that GWB veto the Defense Appropriation if they didnt put it back in. View the documentary on NMD here. Its inaccurate to say that either GWB or WJC had terrorism as the top of their agenda before 9/11. If it was the other way around and Clinton came after Bush people would be saying the same about GWB except complaining that he spend 100 billion (figure made up for demonstration purposes) on NMD instead of counter terrrorism.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yes, apparently the republicans thought it was more important to play politics and go after clinton for monica while he was trying to deal with saddam and terrorism. they cared more about their witchhunt then our national security. wonderful how that turned out.

Well said :beer:

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yes, apparently the republicans thought it was more important to play politics and go after clinton for monica while he was trying to deal with saddam and terrorism. they cared more about their witchhunt then our national security. wonderful how that turned out.

Well said :beer:

Isn't it the responsibility of the administration to take care of national security? How is it the "republican's" fault that Clinton dropped the ball?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yes, apparently the republicans thought it was more important to play politics and go after clinton for monica while he was trying to deal with saddam and terrorism. they cared more about their witchhunt then our national security. wonderful how that turned out.

Well said :beer:

Isn't it the responsibility of the administration to take care of national security? How is it the "republican's" fault that Clinton dropped the ball?

Clearly they were more envious that he was getting blow jobs than that the country was in danger. Imagine if they had devoted the energy they did to getting rid of Clinton to making the nation safe. There is nothing an anal retent hates more than somebody who isn't. They might have fun. That just wouldn't be fare.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: miguel

Isn't it the responsibility of the administration to take care of national security? How is it the "republican's" fault that Clinton dropped the ball?

So the president is the Supreme Dictator and can enact whatever legislation and programs he wants?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: miguel

Isn't it the responsibility of the administration to take care of national security? How is it the "republican's" fault that Clinton dropped the ball?

So the president is the Supreme Dictator and can enact whatever legislation and programs he wants?

rjain, you are a smart guy. Why are you trying to distract from what I said? They said it was the republicans, who were trying to cook clinton, who were at fault for dropping the ball on national security. I thought it was the sitting president who is ultimately responsible. If I follow your sarcastic question's logic, then WHY IS ONLY BUSH GETTING HAMMERED ON IRAQ?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: miguel

Isn't it the responsibility of the administration to take care of national security? How is it the "republican's" fault that Clinton dropped the ball?

So the president is the Supreme Dictator and can enact whatever legislation and programs he wants?

rjain, you are a smart guy. Why are you trying to distract from what I said? They said it was the republicans, who were trying to cook clinton, who were at fault for dropping the ball on national security. I thought it was the sitting president who is ultimately responsible. If I follow your sarcastic question's logic, then WHY IS ONLY BUSH GETTING HAMMERED ON IRAQ?

He's not. There are a bunch of coward Democrat contenders who voted for the war and voted themselves out of the nomination. Man that's just so great. There is still some principle on the left, and Dean will win. Screw the Democratic bastards that voted for war.

 

[SuperTool]

Three Republican Knee Jerk Reactions to anything
1. Cut Taxes
2. Invade Iraq
3. Blame Clinton

 

[LeadMagnet]

"Devil with a blue dress on" or is that "Devil came on a blue dress?"

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Three Republican Knee Jerk Reactions to anything
1. Cut Taxes
2. Invade Iraq
3. Blame Clinton

s/Republican/Democrat/

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: miguel

Isn't it the responsibility of the administration to take care of national security? How is it the "republican's" fault that Clinton dropped the ball?

So the president is the Supreme Dictator and can enact whatever legislation and programs he wants?

rjain, you are a smart guy. Why are you trying to distract from what I said?

If showing the fallacy of the beliefs you are expressing is distracting from what you are saying, then my statement reflects your desires far more than I intended.

They said it was the republicans, who were trying to cook clinton, who were at fault for dropping the ball on national security.

They're only being blamed because they're trying to pre-emptively strike by passing the blame on to Clinton.

I thought it was the sitting president who is ultimately responsible. If I follow your sarcastic question's logic, then WHY IS ONLY BUSH GETTING HAMMERED ON IRAQ?

BECAUSE HE LIED. Did he know that Iraq had WMDs? No. The intelligence reports said that there was NO EVIDENCE to support that view, not that there were WMDs FOR A FACT.

One president lies about his sexual relations. The other lies about war. Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the intrusive morality legislations that are being pushed. Killing is OK. Sex is a horrible crime.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: rjain
[
If showing the fallacy of the beliefs you are expressing is distracting from what you are saying, then my statement reflects your desires far more than I intended.

Give me a break. Are you saying that it is a fallacy that the president is ultimately responsible for national security?

They're only being blamed because they're trying to pre-emptively strike by passing the blame on to Clinton.

Huh? Exactly who's responsibility is it to protect the country? If the war in Afghanistan/Iraq goes to the can, do we blame Howard Dean? How about others who were critical of Bush? Do we blame them?

BECAUSE HE LIED. Did he know that Iraq had WMDs? No. The intelligence reports said that there was NO EVIDENCE to support that view, not that there were WMDs FOR A FACT.

Again, the lie thing. When/If it's proven that Bush lied, then he should be impeached or whatever. It's not proven yet. You are making false statements. In other words YOU ARE LYING. You THINK that he LIED. You FEEL that he LIED. You have NO PROOF that he LIED.

One president lies about his sexual relations. The other lies about war. Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the intrusive morality legislations that are being pushed. Killing is OK. Sex is a horrible crime.

WTF are you going on about? I take back what I said about you being smart. You sound like a nut.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rjain
If showing the fallacy of the beliefs you are expressing is distracting from what you are saying, then my statement reflects your desires far more than I intended.

Give me a break. Are you saying that it is a fallacy that the president is ultimately responsible for national security?

Are you saying that the president is given ultimate power in doing what he wants in the name of national security?

They're only being blamed because they're trying to pre-emptively strike by passing the blame on to Clinton.

Huh? Exactly who's responsibility is it to protect the country? If the war in Afghanistan/Iraq goes to the can, do we blame Howard Dean? How about others who were critical of Bush? Do we blame them?

How do Clinton's sexual relations excuse the Republicans for getting the government off track?

BECAUSE HE LIED. Did he know that Iraq had WMDs? No. The intelligence reports said that there was NO EVIDENCE to support that view, not that there were WMDs FOR A FACT.

Again, the lie thing. When/If it's proven that Bush lied, then he should be impeached or whatever. It's not proven yet. You are making false statements. In other words YOU ARE LYING. You THINK that he LIED. You FEEL that he LIED. You have NO PROOF that he LIED.

No, he said that the documents said one thing. The documents say nothing of the sort. Sure, it's possible that some document from the past will suddenly "appear" that vindicates Bush. It's also possible that the whole ocean will collapse to a point. It's not my fault that the spineless congressmen won't do anything about this violation. You also have no proof that Clinton lied, yet he was harassed and prevented from doing his duties because of some jealous perverts.

One president lies about his sexual relations. The other lies about war. Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the intrusive morality legislations that are being pushed. Killing is OK. Sex is a horrible crime.

WTF are you going on about?

The Republican Moral Retribution Committee.