Clinton defends his record on terrorism and bin Laden

Dom1 · #21 (**permalink**) 09-25-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

The guy was given one of the most difficult jobs to do of any president and did very well and still gets slam dunked for not getting Saddam and then raising taxes that he had no control over. He got a very raw deal.

I was under the impression that GHWB did not oust Saddam because the UN did not want that. That is why I think it is strange that he is criticized for listening to the UN while the current President Bush is criticized for not listening to them.

Is there another reason I am not aware of?

Zou · #22 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 12:18 AM

Well its nice to have the right and left go at each other.

I have only one question. If you were president when 9-11 occurred how would have you reacted?

I hate the thought of war. But if your going to have world leadership responseabilities . You have to make unpopular decisions.

In defense of Bush. He came into power when the stock market crash occurred. A result directly linked to the crimnal Clinton presidency(Who was it that claimed to have invented the internet Gore maybe?). Than we get hit by 9-11 . I really think that Bush screwed up in afganastan he should have nuked the area Bin running was in.

Than we run into the other problem we have . We know that Bin Running is in Pakistan. Quit screwing around. USA should tell Pakistan that they either give up Bin running or we attack . Period.

Now the war in IRaq . I really don't know . But it seems to me Iran should have been our target . Let us not forget about the Saudies the real problem in the ME. I say if these people don't settle down give them something to be pissed about. I believe that American terrorist should go after the shrine in Mecca blow it to hell and gone. They wouldn't kill as many people as died because of the Twin towers . But it would truely rattle their world and really piss them off. SO what like we aren't angry.

Were is it written that we can't take out their places of worship. I say take Mecca out.

Zou · #23 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 12:25 AM

America needs to create a Terrorist group that responds to terrorist acts.

This group of people should be crimanals by American law only . But their true nature is to be fully USA government supported. But for convenient only they would be outlaws. So we as a nation could say we don't support these people. Fight fire with fire.

gixaholic · #24 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 12:30 AM

billy boy is a great liar. I cant beleive you dems dont yell out clinton lied so emphaticly like you do bush. I remember him taking this strong position after he was outed on his affair. Remember. I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN. He said it with such force and such vigor. This guy let our country down he had the opertunity to get bin laden when the sudanes government gave him to us on a silver platter. He failed The Amercan people and he failed the folks that died needlessly on 911.

cat's meow · #25 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gixaholic

billy boy is a great liar. I cant beleive you dems dont yell out clinton lied so emphaticly like you do bush. I remember him taking this strong position after he was outed on his affair. Remember. I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN. He said it with such force and such vigor. This guy let our country down he had the opertunity to get bin laden when the sudanes government gave him to us on a silver platter. He failed The Amercan people and he failed the folks that died needlessly on 911.

Already said the guy lied about sex (several times in the over 1000 posts I have, you like hearing your own voice gixaholic)...even said that Gore would be the Prez if Bill had not pulled that little stunt. We could debate the other point all day my friend...there are two opposing sides to that one.

cat's meow · #26 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

I was under the impression that GHWB did not oust Saddam because the UN did not want that. That is why I think it is strange that he is criticized for listening to the UN while the current President Bush is criticized for not listening to them.

Is there another reason I am not aware of?

Dom, that was after "Desert Storm" started..."Desert Sheild" was the count down/build up operation. He had made a very 'visible, on the table' agreement with the UN and with many leaders by that time (he made the contact HIMSELF, unlike his son trying to get more allies just after 9/11...I just hate the 'for us, against stuff' because his dad handled things the right way and would have handled 9/11 differently). GHWB did a damn good job of bringing leaders together to make that happen, he was a very good diplomat. GHWB is a very tough but very pragmatic man and we would not be bad off by having another president like him in the White House right now...you heard this from a Democrat and also, I felt a lot better while in the military with GHWB in the Oval Office than I did with Clinton there...I knew I was better off in the civilian world when Clinton came in...that is my reality. Sort of a weird way of saying things but it was real. In a number of ways I do think GHWB was better president than Clinton; Clinton sits about in the middle of them all while GHWB is probably in the upper half. I have a low opinion of the son Bush and not much is going to change my opinion of that, I think all in all that is as fair an assessment you are going to get of recent Prsesdients from a Democrat really.

I think I had said this before but, there was an Army Ranger that had told me while I was in the service the operation that had gone down to take out Sadam-approval came from the White House very quickly one night when the oportunity arose.

monkeyinthemiddle · #27 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

Let me add just a bit.

First of all I did see all of the interviews in three parts on YouTube as I said...

A lot of military actions have been gone over by many. Lot's of Monday Morning QBing goes on about this military stuff and I am not sure everyone has all the facts straight all the time...and I think Clinton is not too far off when refering to Clark who served under different Presidents in the intelligence world. And why would I even expect or want to read Clinton's book anyway (where did that stuff come from?)...that does not make me anymore or less a liberal...or even a conservative...the book got a bad review in the NYTimes book section (it should have, I read those excerpts in the NYT, they were bad and the book was written far too quickly/hastily). Clinton would not have any military specific information like this in his book, why would he? Clark would or a Cyruss Vance, James Baker, Colin Powell...maybe a Henry Kissinger would have this kind of stuff, even Madeline Albright. Not Clinton, he will talk about big sweeping ideas and generalities and how to win an election...that is his stuff, the things he likes to talk about.

What I do know is the actions that were taken during the Clinton administration tended to be more special ops and the Somalia action was under that aegis. That happened during the Carter administration too...and the Reagan and GHWB administrations (GHWB did have to deal with a full out war though, ultimately). Many of you probably do not know about the failed attempt on Saddam's life during 'Desert Sheild.' It has been kept under wraps very well, but it failed and no American service personel were lost...how does that get graded? Many are very critical of GHWB and that is VERY wrong. The fact that he did not take out Saddam is irrelevant, I get very upset about this criticism of him; even me being as a Democrat. The guy was given one of the most difficult jobs to do of any president and did very well and still gets slam dunked for not getting Saddam and then raising taxes that he had no control over. He got a very raw deal.

If you grade Clinton down then grade GHWB down too in my book. Neither one is too much different when it comes to these spec ops sorts of things...Carter and Reagan too for that matter. And in the end I am not seeing much difference...between two Dems and two Reps...I think the current guy is different though and we have talked about that on other threads.

No sorry Cat, its not one half dozen or another...
Clinton was negligent while he was trying.
I can agree that almost anything can be rationalized, but dahling, clinton was a very self absorbed man, even you acknowledge that much.
No raw deal, he even got the silverware.
I think the rubes did quite well Cat.
Clarke served under other men, yes, but dick didn't make the calls, ya see..
Bush took on the whole barrel of monkeys, yeah and I heard the president repeatedly tell the media, and the rest of the world, for the 14th hundred time.
"This is going to take a long time"
Only a moron would believe it would take less then the time he served his role.
This war is going to continue for a long while, put your seat belt on Cat, its going to be a bumpy ride.

monkeyinthemiddle · #28 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zou

Well its nice to have the right and left go at each other.

I have only one question. If you were president when 9-11 occurred how would have you reacted?

I hate the thought of war. But if your going to have world leadership responseabilities . You have to make unpopular decisions.

In defense of Bush. He came into power when the stock market crash occurred. A result directly linked to the crimnal Clinton presidency(Who was it that claimed to have invented the internet Gore maybe?). Than we get hit by 9-11 . I really think that Bush screwed up in afganastan he should have nuked the area Bin running was in.

Than we run into the other problem we have . We know that Bin Running is in Pakistan. Quit screwing around. USA should tell Pakistan that they either give up Bin running or we attack . Period.

Now the war in IRaq . I really don't know . But it seems to me Iran should have been our target . Let us not forget about the Saudies the real problem in the ME. I say if these people don't settle down give them something to be pissed about. I believe that American terrorist should go after the shrine in Mecca blow it to hell and gone. They wouldn't kill as many people as died because of the Twin towers . But it would truely rattle their world and really piss them off. SO what like we aren't angry.

Were is it written that we can't take out their places of worship. I say take Mecca out.

You don't want to know how I would have reacted zou.
I'll tell you GW was lenient compared to how I thought things should go.
I don't understand why the saudi's were not scrutinized, but the saudi's did particpate in the begining if you recall, they captured quite a few terrorists and assisted the US in alot of covert operations.
Iran was not a target as they are today.
They started this in a most opportune time, very timely in fact to distract and cause vulnerability.
But we still have an upper hand on Iran whatever their agenda.
Afganistan and Iraq were the most strategic locations as to putting our troops in the trouble zone.
We discouraged bin laden into hiding and sadam lived like a chip monk for months..
It is apparent we caused quite a rift for the terrorist community in the ME.
It is so apparent they have gone mad with insurgents.
And this my friend is why we have armies.
Its ugly and and time is of the essence with these insurgent, unfortunately we loose good men and women in times of war, but it is NOT in vane.
Because had we sat back we would have communicated vulnerability and stupidity in the eyes of these groups of thugs.
We absolutely have to finish this.

monkeyinthemiddle · #29 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zou

America needs to create a Terrorist group that responds to terrorist acts.

This group of people should be crimanals by American law only . But their true nature is to be fully USA government supported. But for convenient only they would be outlaws. So we as a nation could say we don't support these people. Fight fire with fire.

I'd love to hear a liberal thought on this idea!
lol very interesting zou.

Wholetruth · #30 (**permalink**) 09-26-2006, 05:40 AM

I think the obvious reason Clinton reacted so strongly in this interview had to do with the recent movie Path to 9/11 [claimed to be a "documentary"] which was aired on ABC recently and which they also plan on teaching in American schools as part of "historical fact". This movie, which was obviously politically motivated, essentially turned all the facts around and implied that 9/11 was Clinton's fault. They need to tell the truth instead of just making things up! For example, I recently read an article printed by the Associated Press in 1996, with President Clinton [along with Tom Dashle] practically begging the Republican controlled Congress to pass stronger anti-terrorism bills. In response, they called it a "phoney" issue. And why hasn't Bush captured bin Laden instead of focusing on Saddan Huessen who had nothing to do with 9/11?? Why aren't more Republicans mad about this?