If you take people like Dari seriously, you'd think Clinton is Satan Incarnate, and the only reason for anything bad ever happening to the US.
-
We have recently upgraded to the latest version of XenForo, thanks for bearing with us during maintenance and if you encounter any issues please share them with us here.
Dari might as well get his mentor to register here and speak for himself. Of course, if Dari is satisfied by simply acting as a go-between between AT members and his mentor, so be it.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,853
- 89
- 91
...Clinton did little that was effective. The 1996 anti-terrorism bill, while modestly helpful, was focused on domestic terrorism after Oklahoma City and was still reactive, not proactive. Its key provisions -- enabling the death penalty for terrorist offenses and placing chemical tags in explosives -- were very weak weapons for dealing with the real threat, al-Qaida. More was politically unnecessary. Clinton had such a commanding lead over Bob Dole that the difficulties of corralling Congress, browbeating the bureaucracy, or mounting a sustained military campaign against terrorism didn't seem worth the effort. Notice that he was not actually constrained by public opinion. Morris' polling had shown such measures would actually have been popular. Instead, Clinton ordered his trusty vice president to chair a commission on airline safety and security. By February 1997, it recommended a whole slew of proposals, including a federalized airline screening service, computer cross-checks for different airlines to vet potential terrorists, and so on. The report was never implemented. If it had been, simple computer checks could have exposed two of the terrorists who boarded American Airlines flights under their own names on Sept. 11.
I wonder how BJ Clinton sleeps at night knowing that he is personally responsible for the largest terrorist attack in American history?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I wonder how Karl Rove sleeps at night knowing his progeny's alleged supporters have only one weapon in their arsensal: blame everything on Clinton. As Rove knows too well, that excuse won't carry most Americans after four years in office. Sooner or later, they'll expect Bush-lite to accept responsibility for his own actions . . . and lack of action. The die-hard apologists sound more and more desperate -- and pathetic -- as they continue to bleat about BJs and Clinton.
I wonder how the vaccous space between your ears allows your hands to type this inane drivell. Grow up and get over your tired old BJ lines already. Better yet, go get one yourself... your jealously and envy of the greatest president of our time is really showing.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,853
- 89
- 91
In 1998, the gravity of the threat became clearer. The African embassy bombings showed beyond any shadow of a doubt the danger and professionalism of bin Laden's network. Hundreds were killed on sovereign American soil. Clinton responded not with an overhaul of security and intelligence or a coordinated military strategy to defeat al-Qaida but by lobbing cruise missiles at al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. In these actions, the president bypassed normal command procedures in a way that clearly suggested he wanted a quick attack to distract from his own impeachment woes, rather than an earnest attempt to cripple al-Qaida. The strikes failed to wound bin Laden, missing him by an hour or so, helped cement al-Qaida's reputation as an elusive threat capable of attacking the United States and getting away with it, and made Clinton more nervous about taking the offensive in the future.
No, it was Clinton. He had eight years to deal with Hussein and bin Laden (who set off countless bombings taunted Clinton but was ignored). He failed miserably on both counts. Bush is fixing Clinton's massive errors. Hussein is in custody and bin Laden is hiding in a cave somewhere.
You can blame Bush for the errors of his predecessor because it happened months within his Presidency. But you can't compare 8 months with 8 years. And if you continue to do so, you're as pathetic as Bill Clinton's foreign policy. That "peace dividend" was a massive illusion used as an excuse to cut the military and intelligence infrastructure.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Are you talking about the only President in history to have a website devoted to him called toostupidtobepresident?
We went over this. What did Bush DO about terrorism prior to 9/11? Clinton at least tried to kill Bin Laden. Bush did not even try. Bush didn't even move a finger about it. Combine that with 9/11 happening on Bush's watch, and you know where the responsibility lies. If Bush didn't want to accept the responsibility for what happens during his presidency, he shouldn't have raised his hand and taken the oath.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
WTF?
Clinton had three opportunities to have Bin Laden handed over by foreign governments and said no thanks.
His legacy will always be cigars, lying under oath, and letting Bin Laden go free so he could murder 4000 more americans.
EDIT : BTW, I voted for Clinton both times. So unlike most of you idiots, I'm not some die-hard party-liner who always supports one side or the other without having enough intelligence to actually pay attention to the facts.
Good lord...
2/26/1993 World Trade Center Bombing. Clinton in power for the NEXT 8 YEARS. Absolutely nothing done to go after Bin Laden besides lobbing some cruise missile at sand and camels. African embassy bombings, nothing done. Khobar Towers, nothing done. U.S.S. Cole, nothing done. All under Clinton's watch. Nothing but a miserable failure.
9/11/01 WTC Attacks. Bush in office for only 9 MONTHS at that point. What would you have him do in 9 MONTHS? Next two years though, Bin Laden living in a cave, Saddam Hussein caught in a hole. America safer than it was under Clinton.
Bush has done more in 3 years than Clinton ever did in 8.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,853
- 89
- 91
I really want to know how anyone could look up to this failed President. He put his own fame and legacy over the security of the American people. Overtime Clinton will be seen as the failure he was but for now I will just have to continue spreading the truth until this is realized.
I thank God we have a President like George Bush who isn?t afraid to stick up for what is right even when it may be unpopular around the world. Bush stuck to his morals and for that this world and country is a freer and safer place. Bush, like most conservatives, are strong on national security and not afraid to exterminate those who would like to do us harm.
I thank God we have a President like George Bush who isn?t afraid to stick up for what is right even when it may be unpopular around the world. Bush stuck to his morals and for that this world and country is a freer and safer place. Bush, like most conservatives, are strong on national security and not afraid to exterminate those who would like to do us harm.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,853
- 89
- 91
Clinton got his warning about Islamist terrorism very early on. Almost as soon as he got into office, terrorists struck at the World Trade Center in New York. Six people were killed and hundreds injured. Although the investigation found links to Osama bin Laden and a burgeoning network of Islamist terrorists, no commensurate response from the United States was unearthed by any of the major newspapers investigating the record. Was the danger conveyed to the president? "Clinton was aware of the threat and sometimes he would mention it," Leon Panetta told the New York Times. The president preferred to focus on the economy. "In retrospect, the wake-up call should have been the 1993 World Trade Center bombing," Michael Sheehan, counter-terrorism coordinator at the Clinton State Department, conceded to the New York Times. Some immigration laws were tightened marginally. But that was it. Why wasn't the threat taken more seriously? According to George Stephanopoulos, the White House ignored the implications of the first WTC attack because "it wasn't a successful bombing." Clinton never even paid a visit to the site.
What would I have Bush do in 9 months? How about trying to prevent terror attacks? Bush did precisely zippo. Now if Clinton was so inadequate in dealing with Bin Laden, don't you think Bush would have done more than Clinton prior to 9/11 to fight terror? Nope. He was perfectly content with what Clinton has done, and went on yapping about missile defense etc and so on, until it blew up in his and 3000 American's faces. So Bush is to blame as much if not more than Clinton for what happened on 9/11. What little Clinton did to try to kill Bin Laden, there is no question that Bush did precisely zippo to that end.
People keep saying Bush has ruined the country.
What has he ruined? A non exsistent surplus(smoke and mirrors accounting)? The economy? Illegal war?
Next year will be the best economy the US has seen since 1983. The war wasnt illegal, the US did everything legally, we also had alot of allies. Then theres the surplus people like to mention, which never exsisted, all it was, was typical government account which makes Enron look like baby jesus.
Bush has not damaged the country in anyway.
LOL, I wonder what the future generations stuck paying for his nearsighted deficits will say about that
If you look back. IT WAS a distraction from Monica. He did jack sh!t to Al Quieda or Bin Laden. Shooting missles here and there hitting ONLY cilivians every couple months for 1-2 days is not doing anything but making a distractiong. The repbulicans support action against Iraq under Clinton. They didnt support the unsustained bombings that Clinton did. Clinton did jack sh!t in his 8 years to do anything about Bin Laden. Some can say they debriefed Bush and Co, if they had all the farking evidence, why the fvck didnt they do anything about it in the last years of Clintons admin?
Originally posted by: SuperTool
LOL, I wonder what the future generations stuck paying for his nearsighted deficits will say about that
The "surplus" never exsisted.
To blame Bush for all the defiects is ALSO FVCKING MORONIC. Last I checked the President does NOT dictate the budget, Congress does. Congress is ultimately responsible for the defiect, they created it, they are the party held accountable by the US constitution, not the President.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700
- Started by igor_kavinski
- Replies: 275
Facebook
Twitter