Will the Republicans Go After Mr Obama Like They Did the Clintons?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Bill Clinton was worthless???

Give me a break. His presidency was easily the best we've had in the last 40 years. Moronic conservatives with their batshit insane POV's.....
You're fucking high. Clinton brought shame, dishonor, and, ironically enough, impotence, to the White House. The tech boom may be the only highlight of the Clinton era, and he deserves no credit for that one.

I'd say that GWB's era has been even worse... but that's not saying much.

And, just as an FYI, I'm not a Republican. So you know where you can shove your assumptions and stereotypes -- that is if there's any room left in there next to your head.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Bill Clinton was worthless???

Give me a break. His presidency was easily the best we've had in the last 40 years. Moronic conservatives with their batshit insane POV's.....

Rofl! :laugh:

Keep drinking the koolaid.

Clinton didn't actually do anything other than Monica in the White House....except his 1997 tax cut. Never mind the underfunded military, the rampant securities fraud, the tech bubble, and the recession he conveniently escaped from.

And lets not forget tax cuts for oil companies.
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
Clinton might not have been able to contain Al-Qaeda/OBL, but his administration certainly were aware of the danger and didn't treat it lightly.

Contrast that with the Bush Administration's "anything but Clinton" mentality and pretty much downplayed if not ignored Al-Qaeda/OBL until 9/11.

To lay the blame on Clinton for 9/11 while absolving Bush is only half-right; both presidents did not take advantage of opportunities to detect / interrupt the 9/11 hijackings
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Palehorse, knowing the location of terrorists training camps is less important that you tend to believe. Take out the known camps and it will just drive it underground.

Until we reduce the number of people even remotely willing to join terrorists, winning the war on terror will be a distant dream that inspire countless counter productive strategies that will have the net effect of increasing terrorism. With the latter being exactly what a trillion of wasted dollars and hundreds of thousands lost lives has accomplished over the past eight years: a net increase in the number of terrorists and an the amount of terrorism.

And in all that time palehorse, all you do is make useless excuses rather than growing any brains. You are too clueless to call anyone else worthless.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: marincounty
What are you talking about? 9/11 happened on GWB's watch, after his administration was specifically warned about terrorists using aircraft. They ignored those warnings and allowed 9/11 to happen.
In contrast, the Clinton admin arrested, tried and convicted several people for the first WTC attack.
Oh yeah, where is Osama?
You need to go read the 9-11 report.

The 'warnings' about using aircraft were extremely vague and EVERYONE assumed that terrorists were looking to hijacking airplanes or trying to blow them up. No one had any idea that they would hijack a plane and fly it into a building.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: marincounty
What are you talking about? 9/11 happened on GWB's watch, after his administration was specifically warned about terrorists using aircraft. They ignored those warnings and allowed 9/11 to happen.
In contrast, the Clinton admin arrested, tried and convicted several people for the first WTC attack.
Oh yeah, where is Osama?
You need to go read the 9-11 report.

The 'warnings' about using aircraft were extremely vague and EVERYONE assumed that terrorists were looking to hijacking airplanes or trying to blow them up. No one had any idea that they would hijack a plane and fly it into a building.

That would be a lie, Johnnie.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse, knowing the location of terrorists training camps is less important that you tend to believe. Take out the known camps and it will just drive it underground.

Until we reduce the number of people even remotely willing to join terrorists, winning the war on terror will be a distant dream that inspire countless counter productive strategies that will have the net effect of increasing terrorism. With the latter being exactly what a trillion of wasted dollars and hundreds of thousands lost lives has accomplished over the past eight years: a net increase in the number of terrorists and an the amount of terrorism.

And in all that time palehorse, all you do is make useless excuses rather than growing any brains. You are too clueless to call anyone else worthless.
There is simply no excuse for allowing hundreds of known terrorist training camps to go unmolested since the 80's. It's fucking shameful. AFAIC, we could withdraw from every hotspot in the world as long as we decide at the same time to flatten every single training camp that ever pops up.

Maybe you have your head too far up Clinton's ass to realize that, or maybe you're just as dumb as we've always thought. Either way, you're wrong... as usual. Much smarter men than me begged Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and then GWB, to take out every last camp in The Yearbook. Each and every one of them balked at the idea -- in an effort to avoid upsetting "The Arab Street" -- and 9/11 was the culmination of their impotence.

As it stands, we've allowed the problem to grow out of control, and we're stuck with a scattered enemy that will more than likely keep fighting our very existence for the next few centuries regardless of our foreign policies.

GG.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse, knowing the location of terrorists training camps is less important that you tend to believe. Take out the known camps and it will just drive it underground.

Until we reduce the number of people even remotely willing to join terrorists, winning the war on terror will be a distant dream that inspire countless counter productive strategies that will have the net effect of increasing terrorism. With the latter being exactly what a trillion of wasted dollars and hundreds of thousands lost lives has accomplished over the past eight years: a net increase in the number of terrorists and an the amount of terrorism.

And in all that time palehorse, all you do is make useless excuses rather than growing any brains. You are too clueless to call anyone else worthless.
There is simply no excuse for allowing hundreds of known terrorist training camps to go unmolested since the 80's. It's fucking shameful. AFAIC, we could withdraw from every hotspot in the world as long as we decide at the same time to flatten every single training camp that ever pops up.

Maybe you have your head too far up Clinton's ass to realize that, or maybe you're just as dumb as we've always thought. Either way, you're wrong... as usual. Much smarter men than me begged Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, and then GWB, to take out every last camp in The Yearbook. Each and every one of them balked at the idea -- in an effort to avoid upsetting "The Arab Street" -- and 9/11 was the culmination of their impotence.

As it stands, we've allowed the problem to grow out of control, and we're stuck with a scattered enemy that will more than likely keep fighting our very existence for the next few centuries regardless of our foreign policies.

GG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we do it your way palehorse? Upset the Arab street, the Pakistani street, the Afghan street, and just about any available street on the planet, manage to take out a few training camps while upset people flock to join terrorists who can train in basements, caves, colleges, or anywhere and wherever people meet. And you think a shortage of fully equipped training camps will even slow them down when they are hopping mad at your bully boy tactics. And then wonder why their numbers increase far faster than you can possibly kill them.

Palehorse, you may understand a lot about guns, bombs, and military tactics, but if you do not understand people and what motivates them, you are simply a a counter productive liability to our side.

Tell me again how well your basic strategy is working in Afghanistan after seven years as you busily alienate 200 million people with no reliable supply line.

That strategy did not work under a republican President and it will not work under a democratic President either.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse, you may understand a lot about guns, bombs, and military tactics, but if you do not understand people and what motivates them, you are simply a a counter productive liability to our side.
So you say... my leaders and peers tell me otherwise. I understand "the people" better than you ever will. Hell, it's my job! :D As an example, I understand full well that you're a Grade-A Armchair Quarterbacking Douchebag. See? I'm good...

Tell me again how well your basic strategy is working in Afghanistan after seven years as you busily alienate 200 million people with no reliable supply line.

That strategy did not work under a republican President and it will not work under a democratic President either.
For the last fucking time, my suggested "basic strategy" has never even been tried. Please get that through your thick fucking skull.

The fault for our present day conflict with Islamic extremists lies at the feet of every President since 1972 -- which includes your precious icon of immorality, William Jefferson "I have no shame" Clinton. And, by most every measure available to those with a clue, Clinton's impotence on this issue was by far the worst of the bunch.

What distracted him? What was his excuse? Oh yeah, that's right... While Reagan and GHWB had the big bad Soviet Union to worry about -- and defeat -- Clinton's own inaction during the 90's is inexcusable and unforgivable.

What GWB has done ever since is just the icing on the impotent cake...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Get a clue palehorse, your basic strategy has been tried many times thought history and it always fails. Just look back to Vietnam. Or Afghanistan when the Russians tried to occupy it. And the day a major power tries the proxy war idea against us, is the day the stakes really go up.

But that becomes the question, President Obama will soon be calling the tune, and unlike GWB&co, I believe Obama is a quick learner. And if he switches to what I think is a winning strategy, we will be back to the thread topic, as you and the GOP will probably complain and resist.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But that becomes the question, President Obama will soon be calling the tune, and unlike GWB&co, I believe Obama is a quick learner. And if he switches to what I think is a winning strategy, we will be back to the thread topic, as you and the GOP will probably complain and resist.
thank you from separating me from "the GOP"... if it was intentional.

I will only "complain and resist" if Obama refuses to listen to his Generals. After all, most of those agree with me and my desired strategies! :cool:

we shall see...

That said, Clinton was still a militarily impotent fuckstain who deserves every bit of criticism thrown his way. I only pray that Obama -- whom I voted for -- does not travel down the same road. If he ever does, everyone should call him on it!
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Get a clue palehorse, Al-Quida is a creation of Ronald Reagan, its not all that big, and with a decent homeland security, it poses no threat to the US landmass. At least Clinton was tracking them, our own CIA did not know how dangerous Ossama Bin Laden was until 1995, and Bill Clinton really had no good opportunities to get Bin Laden without massive collateral damage. And even if Clinton had gotten Bin Laden, Al-Quida would still function as well without him.

The only way to greatly slow terrorism is to reduce recruitment, no motivated recruits, no real danger. Thus it has been for the 6000+ year old history of terrorism, an idea can never be defeated. That and the fact that human beings are very stubborn animals, Romans feeding Christian to lions just made the Roman defeat inevitable.

As for Obama listening to his generals, if he listens to Petraeus, the palehorse strategy as you elucidate it will go into the immediate trashbin.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
As for Obama listening to his generals, if he listens to Petraeus, the palehorse strategy as you elucidate it will go into the immediate trashbin.
Petraeus very much believes in the same multi-pronged strategy that I do -- including the use of overwhelming force wherever necessary and the economic/political/diplomatic efforts designed to discourage further recruitment.

You just can't see fault in Clinton, can you!? You're a blind fanboi, nothing more.

As I said, the fault for our persistent problem with Islamic extremists lies at the feet of every President since 1972.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Clinton was an easy target, he was/is just a little crooked, and Hillary was always good to poke a stick at too.

President elect Obama seems a little too sharp to fall into that trap.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Yeh, we get it, Palehorse- you hate Clinton passionately and irrationally, and seem to think that there's a military answer for all of the world's political problems. Both of those attitudes are quite common among career military types. That is, in no small way, why the military implements policy rather than formulating it.

Cuts in the military were inevitable during the Clinton years. It wouldn't have mattered who was in office- the cold war was over, and the military required to deal with it was no longer necessary. Both the public and congress demanded cuts, and Clinton obliged. I realize it cut into career opportunities, but that's the way it is with any business- when business is down, cuts happen...

Clinton did, in truth, create a highly favorable fiscal direction for the country, which GWB immediately laid to waste... The financial imbroglios of the era were nothing compared to today, major reforms were made to welfare, and the govt was run in a much more open and competent fashion than what the bush admin has provided. He was far from perfect, but doesn't deserve the abuse heaped upon him by the Right.

Taxes under his leadership obviously weren't excessive, given that the economic expansion of the times was the longest in modern history...
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, we get it, Palehorse- you hate Clinton passionately and irrationally, and seem to think that there's a military answer for all of the world's political problems. Both of those attitudes are quite common among career military types. That is, in no small way, why the military implements policy rather than formulating it.

Cuts in the military were inevitable during the Clinton years. It wouldn't have mattered who was in office- the cold war was over, and the military required to deal with it was no longer necessary. Both the public and congress demanded cuts, and Clinton obliged. I realize it cut into career opportunities, but that's the way it is with any business- when business is down, cuts happen...

Clinton did, in truth, create a highly favorable fiscal direction for the country, which GWB immediately laid to waste... The financial imbroglios of the era were nothing compared to today, major reforms were made to welfare, and the govt was run in a much more open and competent fashion than what the bush admin has provided. He was far from perfect, but doesn't deserve the abuse heaped upon him by the Right.

Taxes under his leadership obviously weren't excessive, given that the economic expansion of the times was the longest in modern history...
If fact, it started with bush right after we came back from the gulf. I remember people starting to whine about how he was weakening the military but clinton gets all the credit.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Originally posted by: AFMatt
More like unfortunately for the US he is teflon Obama. Because nothing stuck in the minds of voters.
jpeyton, I am not a registered Republican, nor do I approve of the job Bush has done, but I am willing to bet you Obama will not deliver on even half the promises he made to this country to get in there. In fact, the only thing I forsee is Pelosi/Reid using him as a puppet in there, and neither one of them have done shit to help improve this country in their entire gov't lives.


What you mean I can't go to college??????????


Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!


Seriously, Do you think if McCain won he would have come through on ever 25% of what he said? Let's take a look at Bush's record what % do you think even came close to achieving anything he has said besides tanking the country and spending cash lake a mad man?

That being said, politicians are a bunch of losers they will tell you anything for a vote. Oh well! I didn't vote, for 1 no one to vote for, and 2, I'd have been happy either way since.... One thing was for sure, bush would have left. Tho, I figure the "D's" would have got in anyway with or with out my stinky vote.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I remember the relentless attacks on the Clintons. Will the Republicans do the same to Mr Obama?

Well... There was something to go after with the Clintons...

Dood was dirty as hell.

Obama? I'm sure they'll go after him but I'm not so sure there's anything to find.
 

synapsetx

Member
Sep 19, 2008
36
0
0
Will the Republicans Go After Mr Obama Like They Did the Clintons?
As the magic 8 ball would say, "it is certain", "without a doubt".

As others have noted, they have already started over the stock market. The "noise machine" will be going 110%. They need to fight to try and win the runoff in Georgia. They need doubt and justification for lots and lots of filibusters. Get ready for them to shutdown government again by filibuster over the budget. It's going to get ugly.

The left better learn how to counter the right wing noise machine, otherwise they will get trounced in 2010. The Dems will be blamed for all the job losses that started since 2006, they will be blamed for the failed companies, for the Community Reinvestment Act "creating" all the mortgage problems (ignoring the fact the mortgage derivatives market made each loan have 50-75 times as much debt tied to it!!)

Watch - this will be their story. Nevermind that it is in fact the chickens coming home to roost from a decade of bad fiscal policy.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, we get it, Palehorse- you hate Clinton passionately and irrationally, and seem to think that there's a military answer for all of the world's political problems. Both of those attitudes are quite common among career military types. That is, in no small way, why the military implements policy rather than formulating it.

Cuts in the military were inevitable during the Clinton years. It wouldn't have mattered who was in office- the cold war was over, and the military required to deal with it was no longer necessary. Both the public and congress demanded cuts, and Clinton obliged. I realize it cut into career opportunities, but that's the way it is with any business- when business is down, cuts happen...

Clinton did, in truth, create a highly favorable fiscal direction for the country, which GWB immediately laid to waste... The financial imbroglios of the era were nothing compared to today, major reforms were made to welfare, and the govt was run in a much more open and competent fashion than what the bush admin has provided. He was far from perfect, but doesn't deserve the abuse heaped upon him by the Right.

Taxes under his leadership obviously weren't excessive, given that the economic expansion of the times was the longest in modern history...
Tell me the truth, are you jealous of Monica? :roll:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Now that palehorse is taking some incoming fire for thread crapping, he come back with the deflection of "Tell me the truth, are you jealous of Monica?"

Well evidently palehorse is jealous, because palehorse is the only one who invited her to this thread and when he find's every other attack he has on Bill Clinton basically debunked, it must be a matter of Monica is the last resort of scoundrels. And now, by Godwins law named for someone dragging Hiltler extraneously into an argument and therefore automatically losing, methinks palehorse is in violation of Goodlings law and has similarly lost the argument.

No one is jealous of a brainless and resigned junior member of the Gonzales injustice department. What does that have anything to do with palehorse? Other than GWB&co are not only incompetent in military matters, their incompetence is all over the board.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now that palehorse is taking some incoming fire for thread crapping, he come back with the deflection of "Tell me the truth, are you jealous of Monica?"

Well evidently palehorse is jealous, because palehorse is the only one who invited her to this thread and when he find's every other attack he has on Bill Clinton basically debunked, it must be a matter of Monica is the last resort of scoundrels. And now, by Godwins law named for someone dragging Hiltler extraneously into an argument and therefore automatically losing, methinks palehorse is in violation of Goodlings law and has similarly lost the argument.

No one is jealous of a brainless and resigned junior member of the Gonzales injustice department. What does that have anything to do with palehorse? Other than GWB&co are not only incompetent in military matters, their incompetence is all over the board.

Trust me, nobody here has done anything to debunk the fact that Clinton was completely impotent in the battle against Islamic extremism. He was by far the worst offender out of the many Presidents who have dropped the ball on that issue since 1972. Nothing you say or do will change that fact... and nothing will erase the shame and dishonor he brought to the Oval Office through his total lack of morals, dignity, and respect.

Oh, and the reason I asked if he, and now you, are jealous of Monica is because you both seem ready and willing to drop down on all fours and suck Clinton's shameless c0ck.

Every President since 1972 has some responsibility for 9/11. Let's just hope and pray that Obama is different and breaks out of the downward spiral set in motion all those years ago. If he fails to do so, then I shall call him on it. Unlike many here, my current support is not partisan and blind...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
While there may be some validity to what palehorse is saying with " Every President since 1972 has some responsibility for 9/11. Let's just hope and pray that Obama is different and breaks out of the downward spiral set in motion all those years ago. If he fails to do so, then I shall call him on it. Unlike many here, my current support is not partisan and blind..."

But why limit the blame to just the President, his team, the American military, when in fact what we are talking about what amounts to the conventional wisdom being applied to exactly the problem the conventional wisdom is least able to confront, namely the challenges of a changing world. And its frequent companion, namely terrorism, that will only appear if the upholders of the conventional wisdom refuse to adapt to the changes and instead try to use military force to prevent changes.

And while many groups and nations have resorted to using military force to try to resist change, its precisely those partisan and blind very groups that history shows getting steamrolled in the end as they try to
vainly prevent the popular will of an entire group of nations and very powerful historical forces And like a very large boulder rolling down hill, the wise try to go to the right Side of the boulder and push its path onto a more desirable direction, while palehorse type thinking thinks it can be stopped. And like I say, history shows, that never works.

And palehorse, while you set your self up in judgment of other people, people also set up in judgment of YOU and your failed ideas. Collectively, in a democracy, the process is called an election and in anand tech is called a forum. And I sure note that your type thinking has less and less support on P&N, and the palehorse diminishing support started long before the GOP lost the election of 11/2008.

Palehorse, only idiots and the blind do not have self doubts about a policy, especially after seven years of ever worsening failure.