 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bill Clinton gets tough |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
emcee Red Super Koopa                   Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass Well, I know you said you're done with this thread, but I don't really think that means you're not going to read this so I'll reply anyway. My point wasn't that nobody knew Bin Laden was threat, the issue was knowing how much of a threat he was and using that information to make difficult decisions. Decisions that are very easy for us now after 9/11. For instance the article you linked to on Infowars says that Sudan was willing to hand over Bin Laden, but its not like they were just doing it out of the goodness of their heart, no strings attached. They wanted the oil sanctions put on them for supporting terrorism lifted in exchange. Now, today that seems like a pretty good deal knowing what Bin Laden was going to do. But the the sanction weren't just for harboring Bin Laden, or even just supporting al Qaeda, but for supporting and harboring numerous terrorists and groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas. So its not an easy decision to make to end sanctions just for turning over one guy, even if he was the leader of al Qaeda, especially if they thought Sudan might fold and stop supporting terrorism altogether. And I'm sure if the Clinton administration had taken the deal, and some other terrorist that was being harbored by Sudan attacked the US, people would be blaming Clinton because he let Sudan off the hook. Then there was the airstrike on Bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan, that apparently was called off by Janet Reno. Now we know we probably should have done it. But this was a military strike on another country during a time of peace, that would have most certainly killed 200+ women and children, with no certainy that that it would have gotten Bin Laden. That's no small decision. Especially since Bin Laden ran al Qaeda, but he wasn't al Qaeda, his death would've have likely been a huge set back for al Qaeda, but it wouldn't have destroyed it. But really this is all just politics. People like Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity know that for whatever reason, the public in general considers the Republicans to be tougher on terror. By putting all this blame on Clinton they can reinforce that idea, by saying that when a Democrat was allowed to run things terrorists were left to plot against the US. In other words, if you want to stay safe, you have to keep us in power. Then once they've stabbed with that they can really start twisting it around by saying that the problem was that Clinton was distracted by Lewinsky. And, I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. He was the president of the US, I'm sure he can multitask. The man deals with foriegn relations, meets with staff, works with lawmakers to write and pass legislation, and deals with press all on a daily basis, but apparently he just couldn't get a handle on national security because he was getting a blowjob every now and then? Come on, that's just stupid. |
|||
drjayphd Torosu OW! BURNY!   Since: 11-18-05 From: CT Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| In the name of piling on, I'd just like to sum up by linking to this.
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment He basically said what I've been getting at, only he's a whole lot more articulate than I. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
| "And in reference to Jomb, in many opinions (including textbooks that I myself have read) the media IN ITSELF is more liberal than conservative, although individual conservative mediums are generally more well-known. If you're not hearing anything from Democrats, then maybe you are deaf and blind, sir. I hear Bush-bashing each day and see it in the opinion section of the paper each day. Conservatives no longer really defend him, either, so it really is an open issue left to the Democrats altogether. "
Maybe in your area the media is more liberal than in mine. My local paper is not very biased either way and rarely tackles political issues (i live in a small town). I seldom watch TV in general so i dont watch the news on network TV. That leaves me with 3 channels of news: Fox news, CNN, and MSNBC. Fox is ridiculously slanted towards the right despite its claims of being "fair and balanced", with opinions being passed off as facts and the actual facts being slanted and spun a certain way. CNN appears to have little slant either way that I can detect. MSNBC seems to have individual shows with a right wing slant, but as a whole not as bad as Fox. The only other way I really get news is occasionally on a radio while driving in a car, and that is possibly even more slanted than Fox, it seems to be nothing but right-wing crackpots (see Rush Limbaugh). Where are the Left-wing crackpots? There does'nt seem to be any that get their own shows. Or maybe they just dont make it to my area. The supposed liberal slant of the media does'nt seem to exist to me. When the plain old facts go against the right (such as the statistics on how the war is going), that is not a liberal slant, that is just reality. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| But Jomb, what about Comedy Central? | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by drjayphd The George Orwell stuff was a bit much but I generally agreed with he said, except I don't know if just the fact that Bush was president at the time is enough to put the blame on him. But there does seem to be some very dirty politics at play. Clinton isn't even holding or running for offices and he still gets smeared. I have little doubt that Clinton really did try to get Bin Laden, or else there wouldn't have been a program in place to kill him in the first place. There just wasn't a way of doing it without considerable risk. Nobody knew at the time that they should have taken those risks, but now everybody knows, including Clinton himself, and I'm sure he feels bad about it. He got so close, but couldn't finish the job. But for people to say that the real reason he didn't do it had something to do with the Lewinski scandal is just cold. Then everyone acts so surprised when he gets angry. Clinton is being sacrificed for the Republican cause. They make Clinton look destracted by personal affairs, and limp-wristed on nation security, to make the whole Democratic Party look weak. But Clinton's actions show that he wasn't weak on national security. I seem to remember a time when he ordered the bombing of Iraq after their refusal to let in arms inspectors. He didn't try taking over the whole country, instead he focused on bombing suspected weapons plants. But the same people who supported Bush's ridiculous plan to invade Iraq after inspectors were allowed in, wouldn't support Clinton because they claimed he was just trying to take attention away from the Lewinski scandal. Now these same people are attacking Clinton, saying he was distracted from national security by the Lewinski scandal. Politics are just dirty. |
|||
MathOnNapkins  1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Well... politics are either just dirty or the politicians have short memories and hope nobody figures out the contradictions in what they spout. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bill Clinton gets tough |
| |
