What is William Jefferson Clinton's Legacy?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: rjain
Are you saying that the president is given ultimate power in doing what he wants in the name of national security?

No, but like a company that goes bankrupt, the CEO takes the blame, even if he did not manufacture the faulty products.

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

Oh, so they distracted him from doing his job right? Sounds like a failure to me. I can't believe you are actually arguing this point. That's like blaming the UN or France or Germany or Russia for the war in Iraq.

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.

So, is it fair to say that Bush is being harrassed so he can't do the War or Terror right?
rolleye.gif


The Republican Moral Retribution Committee.

I don't know what that is, nor do I care. It's again, a distraction from the discussion.

 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: rjain
Are you saying that the president is given ultimate power in doing what he wants in the name of national security?
No, but like a company that goes bankrupt, the CEO takes the blame, even if he did not manufacture the faulty products.
Nah, the CEO gets the golden parachute. If the directors voted to NOT enact measures required to keep the company on track and instead kept questioning the CEO about his sex life during meetings, do you think that you could legitimately blame the CEO?
Oh, so they distracted him from doing his job right? Sounds like a failure to me. I can't believe you are actually arguing this point. That's like blaming the UN or France or Germany or Russia for the war in Iraq.
No, none of those countries determine US policy. Are you claiming that Congress doesn't determine US policy? Or are you claiming that US policy has nothing to do with national security?
So, is it fair to say that Bush is being harrassed so he can't do the War or Terror right?
rolleye.gif
Bush is being harrassed about stuff that has to do with what he is doing with this country, not what he is doing with his own sex life.
The Republican Moral Retribution Committee.
I don't know what that is, nor do I care. It's again, a distraction from the discussion.
It's the jealous self-control-lacking perverts who want to enforce their own guilty consciences on everyone around them. Or maybe they're just motivated to destroy their opponents at all costs, just like McCarthy. Sex and drugs are the new communism.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
You are all stupid and should have your a$$'s sewn shut so you can't speak anymore. You all have the memory of a 6 month old and can't debate for crap. It's all just pointless mud-slinging. If I were a mod, I would lock this thread and ban all active members of this thread. Why don't you people go back and read the crap you wrote. Not a single one of you actually put more than 2 seconds worth of thought into your posts, and it shows. Here's a brief overview of this entire thread:

Conservative: Clinton's legacy is BJs and Lying.
Liberal: Well it's all Bush's fault. The only reason Clinton has a bad rep is because of Bush and Republicans.
Conservative: At least Bush is fighting a war to make the world safer.
Liberal: The war is illegal. If Clinton were in office, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Conservative: Clinton bombed Hospitals and Camels
Liberal: I'm gonna tell my mommy!
Conservative: *wets pants*

This is the ENTIRE thread in a nutshell. I'm ashamed to have to be on the same planet as such ignorant people as you.
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
You are all stupid and should have your a$$'s sewn shut so you can't speak anymore. You all have the memory of a 6 month old and can't debate for crap. It's all just pointless mud-slinging. If I were a mod, I would lock this thread and ban all active members of this thread. Why don't you people go back and read the crap you wrote. Not a single one of you actually put more than 2 seconds worth of thought into your posts, and it shows. Here's a brief overview of this entire thread:

Conservative: Clinton's legacy is BJs and Lying.
Liberal: Well it's all Bush's fault. The only reason Clinton has a bad rep is because of Bush and Republicans.
Conservative: At least Bush is fighting a war to make the world safer.
Liberal: The war is illegal. If Clinton were in office, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Conservative: Clinton bombed Hospitals and Camels
Liberal: I'm gonna tell my mommy!
Conservative: *wets pants*

This is the ENTIRE thread in a nutshell. I'm ashamed to have to be on the same planet as such ignorant people as you.

You forgot to put:

XZeroII: Condescending post that pretends he is superious to the rest of us.
rolleye.gif
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: XZeroII
You are all stupid and should have your a$$'s sewn shut so you can't speak anymore. You all have the memory of a 6 month old and can't debate for crap. It's all just pointless mud-slinging. If I were a mod, I would lock this thread and ban all active members of this thread. Why don't you people go back and read the crap you wrote. Not a single one of you actually put more than 2 seconds worth of thought into your posts, and it shows. Here's a brief overview of this entire thread:

Conservative: Clinton's legacy is BJs and Lying.
Liberal: Well it's all Bush's fault. The only reason Clinton has a bad rep is because of Bush and Republicans.
Conservative: At least Bush is fighting a war to make the world safer.
Liberal: The war is illegal. If Clinton were in office, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Conservative: Clinton bombed Hospitals and Camels
Liberal: I'm gonna tell my mommy!
Conservative: *wets pants*

This is the ENTIRE thread in a nutshell. I'm ashamed to have to be on the same planet as such ignorant people as you.

You forgot to put:

XZeroII: Condescending post that pretends he is superious to the rest of us.
rolleye.gif

I'm not pretending I'm superior. I'm snapping you people back to reality (where I live)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: XZeroII
You are all stupid and should have your a$$'s sewn shut so you can't speak anymore. You all have the memory of a 6 month old and can't debate for crap. It's all just pointless mud-slinging. If I were a mod, I would lock this thread and ban all active members of this thread. Why don't you people go back and read the crap you wrote. Not a single one of you actually put more than 2 seconds worth of thought into your posts, and it shows. Here's a brief overview of this entire thread:

Conservative: Clinton's legacy is BJs and Lying.
Liberal: Well it's all Bush's fault. The only reason Clinton has a bad rep is because of Bush and Republicans.
Conservative: At least Bush is fighting a war to make the world safer.
Liberal: The war is illegal. If Clinton were in office, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Conservative: Clinton bombed Hospitals and Camels
Liberal: I'm gonna tell my mommy!
Conservative: *wets pants*

This is the ENTIRE thread in a nutshell. I'm ashamed to have to be on the same planet as such ignorant people as you.

You forgot to put:

XZeroII: Condescending post that pretends he is superious to the rest of us.
rolleye.gif
XZeroII is why we Moderates believe that the Ultra Conservatives are rather brainless

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII

I'm not pretending I'm superior. I'm snapping you people back to reality (where I live)


Ah yes. Reality. I've heard of that place. Isn't that the place where you've claimed the role of NeoCon Commander?
 

miguel

Senior member
Nov 2, 2001
621
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Three Republican Knee Jerk Reactions to anything
1. Cut Taxes
2. Invade Iraq
3. Blame Clinton

s/Republican/Democrat/

s/miguel/clueless/

Why do you always make things personal? All I wrote was you could replace Republican with Democrat and the agrument could be used by either side? Geez, you would do well not to resort to namecalling all the time.
 

Jadow

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2003
5,962
2
0
his legacy is 1 sentence:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Operation Ignore

al franken-exerpt from his most recent book. funny, but sadly true:)

Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, "we would be handing the Bush Administration a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake?perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made.
Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend po¬litical bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."
Which brings me to a lie. When Time asked about the conversation, "Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present." Perhaps so, Dr. Rice. But might I direct our mutual friends, my read¬ers, to a certain December 30, 2001, New York Times article? Perhaps you know the one, Condi? Shall I quote it?
"As he prepared to leave office last January, Mr. Berger met with his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and gave her a warning. According to both of them, he said that terrorism?and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it?would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined." (Italics mine.)
When I read this, my instinct was to shout for joy and dance around the room, naked, celebrating the finding of a lie. And I did.





"Badda Bing!" I cried, as I ran around the house, my genitals flop-ping wildly, embarrassing my wife and her bridge group.
After the dressing down from my wife, who really read me the riot act, it occurred to me that all I had really found was a contra-diction between Time and the Times. Maybe The New York Times had it wrong. Maybe Dr. Rice, considered a paragon of integrity, had told Time magazine the truth?that her predecessor had never warned her about the impending threat from al Qaeda and its evil mastermind.
It was time for the Franken investigative juggernaut to assert it-self. I called Dr. Rice's office, prepared to pierce the infamous White House veil of secrecy with a lance of white-hot journalistic enterprise. I left a message, and they called me right back with the answer. A White House official told me that Dr. Rice had met with Berger at a briefing, and he had told her about the seriousness of the al Qaeda threat.
Condi lied to Time! Badda Bing!
Anyway. After Berger left, Rice stayed around to listen to counterterrorism bulldog Richard Clarke, who laid out the whole anti-al Qaeda plan. Rice was so impressed with Clarke that she immediately asked him to stay on as head of counterterrorism. In early February, Clarke repeated the briefing for Vice President Dick Cheney. But, according to Time, there was some question about how seriously the Bush team took Clarke's warnings. Out-going Clinton officials felt that "the Bush team thought the Clin¬tonites had become obsessed with terrorism."
The Bushies had an entirely different set of obsessions. Missile defense, for example. The missile defense obsession proved pre¬scient when terrorists fired a slow-moving intercontinental ballis¬tic missile into the World Trade Center. If only Clarke had put his focus on missile defense instead of obsessing on Osama bin Laden.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was obsessed with a re-view of the military's force structure, which had the potential o yielding tremendous national security dividends ten or fifteen ye down the road. I, personally, am a longtime proponent of force



structure review, as anyone who has had the misfortune to spend any time around me when I am drunk can attest. But I don't think it should be to the exclusion of everything else. Let me give you one little example: I also believe in FIGHTING TERRORISM.
While all the Bushies focused on their pet projects, Clarke was blowing a gasket. He had a plan, and no one was paying attention. It didn't help that the plan had been hatched under Clinton. Clinton-hating was to the Bush White House what terrorism-fighting was to the Clinton White House.
Meanwhile, on February 15, 2001, a commission led by former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued its third and final report on national security. The Hart-Rudman report warned that "mass-casualty terrorism directed against the U.S. homeland was of serious and growing concern" and said that America was woefully unprepared for a "catastrophic" domestic terrorist attack and urged the creation of a new federal agency: "A National Homeland Se¬curity Agency with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in home-land security" that would include the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and more than a dozen other government departments and agencies.
The Hart-Rudman Commission had studied every aspect of national security over a period of years and had come to a unani¬mous conclusion: "This commission believes that the security of the American homeland from the threats of the new century should be the primary national security mission of the U.S. government."
The report generated a great deal of media attention and even a bill in Congress to establish a National Homeland Security Agency. But over at the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld de¬cided that the best course of action was not to implement the rec¬ommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, but instead to launch a sweeping initiative dubbed "Operation Ignore."
The public face of Operation Ignore would be an antiterrorism


task force led by Vice President Cheney. Its mandate: to pretend to develop a plan to counter domestic terrorist attacks. Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001, and said that he himself would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Bush never chaired such a meet¬ing, though. Probably because Cheney's task force never actually met. Operation Ignore was in full swing.
Unbeknownst to Bush and Cheney, Richard Clarke was doggedly pushing his plan to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden. Thanks to Clarke's relent-less efforts, the plan was working its way back up the food chain, after having been moved to the bottom of the priority list, right below protecting the public from giant meteors.
On April 30, Clarke presented a new version of the plan to the deputies of the major national security principals: Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby; the State Department's Richard Armitage; DOD's Paul Wolfowitz; and the CIA's John McLaughlin. They were so impressed, they decided to have three more meetings: one on al Qaeda, one on Pakistan, and a third on Indo-Pakistani rela¬tions. And then a fourth meeting to integrate the three meetings. Sure, scheduling these meetings would take months, and would delay the possibility of actually acting on the plan and eliminating al Qaeda, but, according to a senior White House official, the deputies wanted to review the issues "holistically," which as far as I can tell means "slowly."
On July 10, 2001, nearly five months after the Hart-Rudm report had warned of catastrophic, mass-casualty attacks on Amer ica's homeland and called for better information sharing among federal intelligence agencies, Operation Ignore faced a critical test Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams sent a memo to headquarters regarding concerns over some Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school. Al Qaeda operatives, Williams suggested, might be trying to infiltrate the U.S. civil aviation system. He urged Headquarters to contact the other intelligence agencies to see they had information relevant to his suspicions. Had Williams's




memo been acted upon, perhaps the CIA and FBI would have con¬nected the dots. And had Hart-Rudman been acted upon, perhaps the memo would not have been dismissed. Operation Ignore, now in its 146th day, had proved its effectiveness once more.
The holdovers from the Clinton era?Clarke and CIA Direc¬tor George Tenet?were going nuts. Bush administration insiders would later say they never felt that the two men had been fully on board with Operation Ignore. Tenet was getting reports of more and more chatter about possible terrorist activity. Through June and July, according to one source quoted in the Washington Post, Tenet worked himself "nearly frantic" with concern. In mid-July, "George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack," an official told Time.
Only Time would tell what happened next.
On July 16, the deputies finally held their long-overdue holis¬tic integration meeting and approved Clarke's plan. Next it would move to the Principals Committee, composed of Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Rumsfeld?the last hurdle before the plan could reach the President. They tried to schedule the meeting for August, but too many of the principals were out of town. They had taken their cue from the President. August was a time to recharge the batteries, to take a well-deserved break from the pressures of protecting America. The meeting would have to wait till September 4.
No one understood better the importance of taking a break to spend a little special time with the wife and dog than President George W. Bush. Bush spent 42 percent of his first seven months in office either at Camp David, at the Bush compound in Kenne¬bunkport, or at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.' As he told a $1,000-a-plate crowd at a fund-raiser in June, "Washington, D.C., is a




great place to work, but Texas is a great place to relax." That's why on August 3, after signing off on a plan to cut funding for programs guarding unsecured or "loose" nukes in the former Soviet Union, he bade farewell to the Washington grind and headed to Crawford for the longest presidential vacation in thirty-two years .2
On its 172nd day, Operation Ignore suffered a major blow. Al-ready, the operation was becoming more and more difficult to sus¬tain as the intensity of terror warnings crescendoed. Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. But the President was resolute: Operation Ignore must proceed as planned. He did nothing to follow up on the memo.
Actually, that's not entirely fair. The President did follow up, a little bit. Sitting in his golf cart the next day, Bush told some re-porters, "I'm working on a lot of issues, national security matters." Then, Bush rode off to hit the links, before dealing with a stubborn landscaping issue by clearing some brush on his property.
The next day, he followed up again, telling the press, "I've got a lot of national security concerns that we're working on?Iraq, Macedonia, very worrisome right now."
But Iraq and Macedonia weren't the only things on Bush's mind. "One of the interesting things to do is drink coffee and watch Barney chase armadillos," he told reporters on a tour of the ranch later in his vacation. "The armadillos are out, and they love to root in our flower bed. It's good that Barney routs them out of their rooting."
On August 16, the INS arrested Zacharias Moussaoui, a flight





school student who seemed to have little interest in learning to take off or land a plane. The arresting agent wrote that Moussaoui seemed like "the type of person who could fly something into the World Trade Center." Trying to pique the interest of FBI Head-quarters in Washington, a Minneapolis FBI agent wrote that a 747 loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon. If this information had been shared and analyzed, for example by a newly founded Home-land Security Agency, it might have sparked memories of the Clinton-thwarted 1996 al Qaeda plot to hijack an American com¬mercial plane and crash it into CIA Headquarters.
On August 25, still on the ranch, Bush discussed with reporters the differences between his two dogs. "Spot's a good runner. You know, Barney?terriers are bred to go into holes and pull out varmint. And Spotty chases birds. Spotty's a great water dog. I'll go fly-fishing this afternoon on my lake." And you know something? He did just that.
Among those left to swelter in the D.C. heat that August was one Thomas J. Pickard. No fly-fishing for him. In his role as acting FBI director, Pickard had been privy to a top-secret, comprehensive review of counterterrorism programs in the FBI. The assessment called for a dramatic increase in funding. Alarmed by the report and by the mounting terrorist threat, Pickard met with Attorney General John Ashcroft to request $58 million from the Justice Department to hire hundreds of new field agents, transla¬tors, and intelligence analysts to improve the Bureau's capacity to detect foreign terror threats. On September 10, he received the final Operation Ignore communique: an official letter from Ashcroft turning him down flat. (To give Pickard credit for adopt¬ing a professional attitude, he did not call Ashcroft the next day to say, "I told you so.")
Clarke's plan to take the fight to al Qaeda lurched forward . once more on September 4, 2001. Eight months after he had first .briefed Condi Rice about it, and nearly eleven months after Clinton had told him to create it, Clarke's plan finally reached the 'principals Committee that served as gatekeeper to the commander




in chief. Bush was back from his trip, rested up, and ready for anything.
Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the other Principals de-bated the plan and decided to advise Bush to adopt it with a phased-in approach. Phase One, to demand cooperation from the Taliban and make fresh overtures to al Qaeda opponents such as the Northern Alliance, would begin the moment the President signed off on the plan. Phase Zero, however, came first: wait sev¬eral days as the proposal made its way to the Bush's desk.
On September 9, as the plan cooled its heels, Congress pro-posed a boost of $600 million for antiterror programs. The money was to come from Rumsfeld's beloved missile defense program, the eventual price tag of which was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at between $158 billion and $238 billion. Congress's proposal to shift $0.6 billion over to counterterror programs in¬curred Rummy's ire, and he threatened a presidential veto. Operation Ignore was in its 207th day.
On Operation Ignore Day 208, Ashcroft sent his Justice De¬partment budget request to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs, less than half dealt with terrorism. Way less than half. In fact, none of them dealt with terrorism. Ashcroft passed around a memo list¬ing his seven top priorities. Again, terrorism didn't make the list.
On that day, I left for Minneapolis to visit my mom and play some charity golf.
On the next day, the world shook.
The day after that, they started blaming Clinton, covering their tracks, and accusing liberals of blaming America.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,945
122
106
Text




Within a month, al-Qaida struck again in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers with a 5,000-pound bomb. Even senior Clinton officials concede that allowing bin Laden to go free was a massive mistake. "Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," a "U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism," told the Washington Post last October. "We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11." Read that sentence again: We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11. That's from someone working in the Clinton administration.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: IGBT
Text

Within a month, al-Qaida struck again in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American soldiers with a 5,000-pound bomb. Even senior Clinton officials concede that allowing bin Laden to go free was a massive mistake. "Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," a "U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism," told the Washington Post last October. "We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11." Read that sentence again: We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11. That's from someone working in the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile....


PITT: There was the August 6 2001 briefing?

McG: On August 6, the title of the briefing was, ?Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US,? and that briefing had the word ?Hijacking? in it. That?s all I know about it, but that?s quite enough. In September, Bush had to make a decision. Is it feasible to let go of Tenet, whose agency flubbed the dub on this one? And the answer was no, because Tenet knows too much about what Bush knew, and Bush didn?t know what to do about it. That?s the bottom line for me.

Bush was well-briefed. Before he went off to Texas to chop wood for a month like Reagan did in California, he was told all these things. He didn?t even have the presence of mind to convene his National Security Council, and say, ?OK guys, we have all these reports, what are we going to do about it?? He just went off to chop wood.
Bush choose to chop wood instead of save the country from 9/11

George Tenet: Mr President! Bin Laden is DETERMINDED to strike the US pretty soon! We need to do something!

George W. Bush: Can't this wait until my vacation is over, being president is very hardwork ya know?

George Tenet: But--

GWB: This is going to have to wait! Theres wood that needs to be chopped! Weee! Wood!
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Nice post 0roo0roo. Goes back to my post earlier in this thread where I accuse Bush of doing jack sh!t to fight terrorism prior to 9/11. Makes sense how the administration seeks to thwart the 9/11 commission from learning what the Bushies were really doing about OBL leading up to the WTC attacks. Cliff notes: not much of anything.
rolleye.gif
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
and don't even forget how the republicans spewed venom when clinton tried to do anything against al queda or iraq. its all a distraction from monica! all they cared about! must cripple president at any cost... ANY COST. repubs talk a good game about national security, but really they don't give a sh*t.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,945
122
106
Text





Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

Like the rest of Clinton?s presidency, his foreign policy was a failure. This is the worse kind of failure, as he put American lives in threat by not acting. Just recently Sandy Berger has admitted to this failure.

Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger admitted for the first time on Sunday that the Clinton administration rejected the possibility of prosecuting Osama bin Laden in the United States after the government of Sudan agreed to expel him in 1996...
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
The Taliban offered to give up Osama to the US if Bush showed evidence that Osama was responsible for 9/11. Bush prefered to attack the Taliban instead.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,945
122
106
...The former national security advisor also confirmed Mr. Clinton's revelation that after the Sudanese agreed to expel the terrorist kingpin, the administration tried to broker a deal for his extradition to Saudi Arabia. "We did - we went to the Saudis to see whether or not they would take bin Laden," Berger explained, adding, "They said no. "
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,945
122
106
...Jack Cloonan, a former FBI agent who is now an ABCNEWS consultant, said that federal agents seeking bin Laden had developed a plan to have a plane fly in and attack a compound in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where the terror leader was believed to have been holed up back in 1998 ? three years before the devastating attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But when the plan went up the chain of command for approval, it was killed by then-Attorney General Janet Reno.

Maybe, just maybe if Clinton and his administration acted on any of these offered to dispose of Bin Laden 9-11 terrorists acts, war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq could all of been avoided. Clinton was too selfish and too worried about his own legacy to act on these offers. Clinton was too worried that capturing Bin Laden might disrupt his Israel / Palestinian peace accords. Which was also a great failure but that?s for another article...
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
You seem to hit the nail on the head.

I din't care how many women Clinton slept with, how much coke he snorted, or who his criminal associates were in the poultry industry, but I do care that he failed to use proper judgement when it concerned the safety of the United States.

I you let a violent sex offender become Santa Claus at the mall without knowing that he's a sex offender, then it's a grave mistake. If you then find out about his past, and just fire him to avoid a scandal, then it's heinously wrong. What if two weeks after you fire him, he rapes a kid and guts him like a fish, Who was responsible? The person who just wanted to avoid the scandal, must share the burden of guilt. And so it was similar with Bin Laden. Clinton often did nothing when he was offered a chance to make it right. Many paid the price on 9/11,.

I see the crap statements that Clinton had it all laid out for Bush to take care of. That's a load of crap. If Clinton had it all laid out, then he would have done something about it. NO! WAIT! He did nothing the first time, so why should we expect different the second time? If Clinton had a plan, he should have used it....period.

Inaction, passing the buck, and lying to cover things up are his forte. That's why Arkansas disbarred him from practicing law. That is why most of us in Arkansas want the Clintons in New York, with the rest of the flag burners.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: XZeroII

I'm not pretending I'm superior. I'm snapping you people back to reality (where I live)


Ah yes. Reality. I've heard of that place. Isn't that the place where you've claimed the role of NeoCon Commander?

That's where I used to live. Now I live in reality. Just take a step back from this thread once and admire the overwhelming amount of ignorance and hypocracy present. It's a work of art.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
We were lucky to have a Republican Congress for most of Clinton's Presidency which forced him to be more Moderate which is why I consider Clinton's Terms successful. I also believe that Clinton's Foriegn Policy to be head and shoulders better than Bushes. Of course with the Republican Congress so hell bent to discredit Clinton every chance they had I seriously doubt that Clinton would have been able to convince them to invade and occupy Iraq though he might have been able to convince the European Countries that Bush couldn't convince due to his (Bush) Administration piss poor diplomatic skills.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
What is William Jefferson Clinton's Legacy?

a stained blue Gap dress.
"depends on the meaning of the word "is""
"i did not have sexual relations with that woman.."
"could you please define the meaning of alone?"
"i did not inhale"
"don't ask, don't tell"
 

Vadatajs

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2001
3,475
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
It seems like for his political progenies, cut-n-run is the new Democratic mantra. I'm glad Bush is fixing most of Clinton's foreign policy mistakes. Instead of shooting $100 million missiles at empty tents, camels, and children medicine factory, he's fighting back.

Instead Bush is launching $87B/year wars for nonexisent WMD's. Savings with Clinton $86.9Billion :D

Hehe, ain't dat da truth. Bush ruined the nation. That's about enough. The world loved Clinton and hates Bush. Tells you where the brainwashing is. Only in pockets can you find total lunacy or half total lunacy since Gore won.

Of course the world "loved" clinton. Hussein loved him. Kim ill Yung loved him. Even Chirac loved him. What did they like most about Clinton? He brought the United States down to its lowest level ever. He refused to fight back. And he deflected his domestic problems by killing camels. As far as foreign policy is concerned, Clinton was the worst in written memory. BJ Clinton got blowjobs while American's were bombed out of their embassies. His weakness was the reason for bin Laden's boldness and 9/11. Should any democrat follow in his foreign policy footstep: to weaken the US and equate her with other nations, they will lose big-time at the polls. Bush is correcting Clinton's foreign policy mistakes by showing who's boss.

And set up counterterrorism policies as a result of those bombings that makes the bush administration look like scooby doo. They ignored all warnings they inherited from the clinton administration and 3000+ americans have died since. You're speaking out of your ass Dari, and it's obvious.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: XZeroII

I'm not pretending I'm superior. I'm snapping you people back to reality (where I live)


Ah yes. Reality. I've heard of that place. Isn't that the place where you've claimed the role of NeoCon Commander?

That's where I used to live. Now I live in reality. Just take a step back from this thread once and admire the overwhelming amount of ignorance and hypocracy present. It's a work of art.
I just hate going to a Van Gogh exhibition and hearing some goomba say, "look at the pretty pictures."