(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album
11-01-24 12:04 AM
0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bill Clinton gets tough New poll | |
Pages: 1 2Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
Jomb

Deddorokku








Since: 12-03-05
From: purgatory

Last post: 6467 days
Last view: 6467 days
Posted on 09-26-06 08:41 PM Link | Quote
Anybody else see the interview where he loses his temper? I did'nt really think much about Bill Clinton before, but now I kinda like him. I think he was in the right to. More Democrats need to stand up and be heard, the other side of the spectrum has tons of outlets for their opinions (i'm thinking of all the conservative talk radio shows and most of the Fox news programming), while I rarely get to hear much from the Democrats. Seems to me that most of the time the right will start spouting off some absurd claims and propoganda and it goes unquestioned.
Rom Manic









Since: 12-18-05
From: Detroit, WHAT?!

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-26-06 09:06 PM Link | Quote
Honestly, I was about to make this same topic when I got home today

I agree though, he's kinda become sort of a hero for myself. A political figure like himself ranting on National Television about the president...

Oh yeah, and why do I get the feeling Condoleeza Rice is full of shit?

Condoleeza: There was no comprehensive strategy.
Reporter: So he's a liar?
Condoleeza: No, but THERE WAS ALOT OF PASSION DAMMIT!
||bass
Administrator








Since: 11-17-05
From: Salem, Connecticut

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 12:05 AM Link | Quote
Not only was there, infact, no evidence of any plan ever existing. Clinton had multiple oppertunities to take out Bin Ladin during his time in office. EVERY TIME he either pussied out because of potential backlash or just dropped the ball entirely.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 12:17 AM Link | Quote
It seems the Guardian of London disagrees with you. Four years ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,769398,00.html

I know nothing about this news paper though.


(edited by Croxadon on 09-26-06 11:17 PM)
Arwon

Bazu


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6466 days
Posted on 09-27-06 12:38 AM Link | Quote
Yeah, blaming Clinton for September 11.

THAT SHIT MAKES SENSE.
||bass
Administrator








Since: 11-17-05
From: Salem, Connecticut

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 12:44 AM Link | Quote
Actually it does: http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

I'm not blaming him, just saying that if he had DONE HIS JOB that things might have turned out differently. This was in the mid to late 90s though. We all know what (who) he was buzy with at the time.


(edited by ||bass on 09-26-06 11:48 PM)
drjayphd

Torosu
OW! BURNY!








Since: 11-18-05
From: CT

Last post: 6468 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 02:26 AM Link | Quote
Wait, someone actually believes that besides the writer of The Path to 9/11? Wooooooow. (poke)

(Psst: A consultant with the movie who had firsthand knowledge of what was going on then said Clinton told his advisors to ignore the whole Lewinsky thing. Thanks for playing. )
||bass
Administrator








Since: 11-17-05
From: Salem, Connecticut

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 03:34 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by drjayphd
Wait, someone actually believes that besides the writer of The Path to 9/11? Wooooooow. (poke)

(Psst: A consultant with the movie who had firsthand knowledge of what was going on then said Clinton told his advisors to ignore the whole Lewinsky thing. Thanks for playing. )
Other than that being totally irrelevant (the fact Clinton totally dropped the ball on several occations still remains (Thank YOU sir, for playing, enjoy your consolation prize. Feel free to check publically available (Googleable) documents that back up everything stated in the linked article about Clinton screwing the pooch. )). The guy who made the movie is a bit in the outfield, but if you honestly think "because HE wrote it, it's wrong", you ought to be sent to special school. Ad hominim, while tempting, only makes people shake their heads at you and frown. The simple fact remains that a 5 minute google search can yield documents that show the crosshairs locked onto Bin Ladin's turban with no action ever being taken. STOP [beep] left wing idology for three seconds, THINK for a brief instant, and ACTUALLY DO the google search, the information is really there, I promise. (Try the term [clinton "bin laden"] without the outer brackets. For god sakes the search turns up dated videos.)

Begin slight tangent:

The ad hominim attacks (due to lack of counterartguement) remind me of another issue worthy of discussion.

Anyone else notice what when Path to 9/11 came out, the liberal bitching and moaning went rampant with STILL no clear end in sight? This is going to be going for months. The tsunami of bitching from the left is just awe-inspiring. I've even heard some real screamers trying to get the movie taken off the air after it showed on BBC (I think it was BBC-5).

YET.
As I seem to recall, when that fatass guy made Fahrenheit 9/11, the negative media coverage from the right consisted of about a grand total of three people shit talking the movie (Michael Savage and two other guys). The rest of the right didn't give two shits because the movie was without merit as it contained large amounts of hearsay, unfounded theories, and nonexistant sources used to back up fabricated information. Besides, he fatty wants to make a movie, fatty makes movie. It's his right. (Seriously wtf is his name, you know who I mean.)

Apperantly this is the message we're trying to send: Remember kids, apperantly, if you ask the democrat on the street, freedom of speech is only free when it's LEFT WING SPEECH. Stray to the right and we'll be sure to rip you down and brand you a radical and a fanatic.

It's really sickening.

End tangent.

EDIT: Censored myself slightly on second thought.


(edited by ||bass on 09-27-06 02:34 AM)
(edited by ||bass on 09-27-06 02:35 AM)
MathOnNapkins

1100

In SPC700 HELL


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 04:48 AM Link | Quote
You do realize, ||bass, that if I took your last post and replaced "democrat" and "left" with "republican" and "right" there would be no fundamental change in content, right? I mean, I know you want to express your opinion about leftists, but generalizing a whole end of the political spectrum is not at all contributing to the debate. At the same time, this board's forum has a leftist bias, so I can't really blame you for getting pissed off too much.

The irony is that when you say things like "Leftists are closeminded", you yourself look closeminded .
emcee

Red Super Koopa


 





Since: 11-20-05

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 07:13 AM Link | Quote
I see some Republicans saying "We treat terrorists as combatants, while the Clinton Administration treated them as criminals, thats why Bin Laden got away", and maybe if Clinton had treated Bin Laden as a combatant he would have had authority to detain him. But he didn't, because that's not the way things were done then. But did the Bush Administration rush to change that when they took power? Did they immediately formulate a plan to capture Bin Laden? Did they even try?

It's real easy with the benefit of hindsight to say Bin Laden was big threat. But before September 11th, nobody was even talking about terrorism. Not the Democrats or the Republicans. A speech from a politician about terrorism would have been recieved like a speech about the environment, nobody cared because it didn't seem like something that effected them right at that moment.

So yeah, some neocons can go on about all the terrorists that have been caught because they're "Tough on Terror". But it only took 3000 dead Americans to kick them into action.
Arwon

Bazu


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6466 days
Posted on 09-27-06 08:58 AM Link | Quote
First person to invoke Ronald Reagan wins.

Oh look.
||bass
Administrator








Since: 11-17-05
From: Salem, Connecticut

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 02:03 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by emcee
I see some Republicans saying "We treat terrorists as combatants, while the Clinton Administration treated them as criminals, thats why Bin Laden got away", and maybe if Clinton had treated Bin Laden as a combatant he would have had authority to detain him. But he didn't, because that's not the way things were done then. But did the Bush Administration rush to change that when they took power? Did they immediately formulate a plan to capture Bin Laden? Did they even try?

It's real easy with the benefit of hindsight to say Bin Laden was big threat. But before September 11th, nobody was even talking about terrorism. Not the Democrats or the Republicans. A speech from a politician about terrorism would have been recieved like a speech about the environment, nobody cared because it didn't seem like something that effected them right at that moment.

So yeah, some neocons can go on about all the terrorists that have been caught because they're "Tough on Terror". But it only took 3000 dead Americans to kick them into action.
You're getting CLOSE to the point I'm trying to make. The issue was that there wasnt much hindsight necissary. The USS Cole and African embassy bombings were both HUGE news at the time and anyone who paid attention to the news already knew who he was and that he was a huge threat.

I'm not saying Bush didn't drop the ball either, he did, but my point is that so did Clinton. Nobody did anything about the problem until AFTER 9/11. Remember, during the time we KNEW Bin Ladin was a dick, Clinton had 8 years to do something. Bush was president roughly 8 months when all hell broke loose.

My big objection here is that the first few posts about Clinton are almost borderline fellatio despite the fact that there is PLENTY of well-deserved blame and fault to spread around to the last several presidents.
||bass
Administrator








Since: 11-17-05
From: Salem, Connecticut

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 05:08 PM Link | Quote
I'm actually going to be keeping out of this thread from this point on. The board in general isn't a particularly welcome place for the peppered conservative viewpoint and I think this thread is bordering on lost cause. The bottom line is people won't look at what's right in front of them just because I tell them to.

IMO the division of responsibility is as follows:
45% - Bush Senior's fault - setting him up in the first place
40% - Clinton's Fault - not stopping him when he has several chances
15% - Bush Junior's fault - he dropped the ball too but he was only actually president for less than 8 months before 9/11, you can't possibly dump the whole thing on him
10% - Other misc government people and agencies for not doing their jobs

The point is you cannot possibly say: "This is all X's fault". There are alot of people on multiple levels from both sides who blew it big. Don't be blinded by idologic loyalty. The Clinton worship is just as blind as Bush worship. I've taken up the job of offering the conservative viewpoint because this board is (IMO) overwhelmingly liberal. Shit like 9/11 only happens when a number of people on all sides don't do their jobs properly for extended periods of time. 9/11 is a direct result of more than 10 years worth of continual fuckups. All I'm asking is that people actually LOOK at the facts that are out there. Nothing is a biforcate issue. That's all I have to say about the matter.
Dr_Death16

970


 





Since: 05-07-06
From: Iowa

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 06:11 PM Link | Quote
Bottom line, the people prove that they are incapable of making rational decisions because they are uninformed greatly. They see media say "OMG BUSH SUXORZ" and then they accept this as truth. The guy did nothing great, but he didn't really do anything bad either. He was an average president, no question, some decisions and mandates good, others not as good. Neither he nor Clinton helped stop the attacks, but they're in the past, so assessing blame no longer even possible. We don't know everything, and we can't pretend to. Clinton knew things, Bush knew things, maybe they were worried about Al-Qaeda, maybe they weren't. Clinton was a fool in this way, though. Anyone who accepts the responsibility of the presidency and can't keep his dick in his pants around an aide such as Monica Lewinsky is just stupid. He is uncredible to me because he was couldn't even control himself, let alone lead a nation. Yet people such as yourselves seem to honor him as some sort of visionary while accepting what he says as something special. He, himself, did nothing great either, other than to almost get thrown out of office via impeachment. Is that now worthy of greatness? Or did you all forget about that (I think it was a big story a while back )

Don't fool yourself, this isn't about terrorism, this is more about liberal Bush/G.O.P. hating when it comes down to it, which really doesn't mean anything anymore now that he's in his last possible term. Clinton is gone, Bush will be gone, look forward to using your greatest power as a voter in 2 years. Or maybe even this year, considering the Senate is more powerful than the President himself.

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.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 08:20 PM Link | Quote
"The guy did nothing great, but he didn't really do anything bad either."

He appointed incompetant people to fill positions. His entire administration has been fear mongering, he has been trying to scare the sense out of the American people. (Or at least, he did it, intentional or not.)

I think this qualifies as a bad president.

What did Clinton do? Well, during his presidency the debt was getting paid back and we had a pretty low unemployment rate, compared to today at least. Things were running smoother during his presidency. I doubt it was his direct influence, but the fact is that it was better when he was around.

By the way, you're pissed at him for getting a blow job? A lot of poloticians and people do that. That doesn't make someone a good person or a bad person, it just makes them horny.

He didn't technically lie either, he didn't have sex with that woman.
Dr_Death16

970


 





Since: 05-07-06
From: Iowa

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 08:50 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Croxadon
"The guy did nothing great, but he didn't really do anything bad either."

He appointed incompetant people to fill positions. His entire administration has been fear mongering, he has been trying to scare the sense out of the American people. (Or at least, he did it, intentional or not.)

I think this qualifies as a bad president.

What did Clinton do? Well, during his presidency the debt was getting paid back and we had a pretty low unemployment rate, compared to today at least. Things were running smoother during his presidency. I doubt it was his direct influence, but the fact is that it was better when he was around.

By the way, you're pissed at him for getting a blow job? A lot of poloticians and people do that. That doesn't make someone a good person or a bad person, it just makes them horny.

He didn't technically lie either, he didn't have sex with that woman.


Point 1: Incompetent people? I'd think twice before questioning the worthiness of someone who most likely has far more education and experience than yourself and most others in this nation. And anyways, appointing people who are less than the best candidate is political tradition; doing favors for friends and supporters happens in every campaign. So, your point is irrelevant considering your boy Clinton did the same, and maybe he just got away with it. Not to mention the people he pardoned before leaving, including his own brother and a scamming tax-evader named Marc Rich (who surely gave Mr. Clinton a nice donation for his help). Again, what do we really know? As for scare tactics, what are his ends to the means of "scaring us all senseless"? You gave no facts to support yourself here. Sorry.

As ||bass said before, we had direct terrorist attacks during Clinton's administration. They were just off-shore and therefore normal Americans were too stupid to really care when Clinton sat by and did nothing but play them off as small things. So, if he had taken measures against said terrorists, we would've had a similar "War on Terror" during his term instead. Funny thing, eh? Where would that smoothness be, then?

Lastly, your third appeal really does not help you at all, because not only did I not say he was a "bad person", but you condone the fact that he was unable to keep his conduct to a professional level. He's the president. He has a wife. He did something unimaginably stupid. That's all there is to it. It does not make him better of a person, that's for sure, but it does makes him unprofessional and as such mostly unfit to be a president, which was my point in the first place, which you seem to have missed. Sure, any normal guy can do a stupid thing like that, but if I have to give leadership to someone, I don't want them to be a moron who cannot control himself.
Sinfjotle
Lordly? No, not quite.








Since: 11-17-05
From: Kansas

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 09:34 PM Link | Quote
I love how you can be hypocritical. I'm not allowed to question Bush or people I consider foolish, but you can go and question Clinton. Hey, Clinton probably had a better education than you, so who are you to tell him he's wrong!

Difference between Clinton and Bush, Bush got caught. Remember Katrina? You think his cabnit is full of people that know what they're doing?

Do you honestly think someone that can manage to shoot someone else in the face while hunting at a place that practically gives the bird to you is fit for his job?


And about ||bass's link. It seems his source may very well be incorrect.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz#Bin_Laden_.26_Sudan

Originally posted by SourceWatch
Bin Laden & Sudan

Commencing in 1996, Ijaz had a series of meetings with Sudan's president, Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan Bashir and the Islamic leader, Hassan Turabi and with Clinton administration officials including Sandy Berger. Both the United Nations and the U.S. Congress had imposed sanctions against the Sudanese government over the continued operation of terrorist groups on it soil. In February 1996 the U.S. government ordered the withdrawal of all its Embassy staff based on concerns about their security. (There were differences of opinion on how real the security threat was). [17] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2)

Ijaz argued the U.S. should adopt a policy of "constructive engagement" [18] (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1997_hr/h970610i.htm) with Sudan and, in return for providing intelligence data on the terrorist groups and deporting Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, ease the sanctions. Saudi Arabia refused to accept bin Laden. The U.S. government believed there were no legal grounds under which he could be indicted in U.S. courts at the time. On May 18 1996, under pressure from the U.S. government, the government of Sudan deported bin Laden. He then made his way to Afghanistan. [19] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2)

Subsequently, Sudan made further overtures via Ijaz in July 1996 and April 1997 to the U.S. offering counter-terrorism assistance and access to intelligence data. In September 1997 the Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright announced she was sending a team of U.S diplomats back to Sudan, a decision reversed a few days later.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon Ijaz and others accused the Clinton administration of having bungled an opportunity to catch bin Laden. [20] (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/568) The accusations have been rejected by Clinton administration officials including Sandy Berger and Susan Rice.

The following year, others, such as the conservative website NewsMax and Fox News's Sean Hannity, went further than Ijaz and claimed that Sudan had offered to extradite bin Laden direct to the United States. [21] (http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/showinside.pl?a=2002/8/10/230919) [22] (http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008) [23] (http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005) The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), stated that "former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim." [24]


Ijaz isn't a very good source, I wouldn't have figured that out alone personally, I had to have someone tell me about it. Another interesting read...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mansoor_Ijaz/Sudan


(edited by Pvt. Prinny on 09-27-06 08:34 PM)
Arwon

Bazu


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6466 days
Posted on 09-27-06 10:00 PM Link | Quote
Funny, I always thought September 11 was bin Laden's fault.

Honestly, I don't think there's much to blame anyone in America for it. It was unprecedented and the way it was executed, there wasn't much chance of stopping it.
Dr_Death16

970


 





Since: 05-07-06
From: Iowa

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 10:08 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Arwon
Funny, I always thought September 11 was bin Laden's fault.

Honestly, I don't think there's much to blame anyone in America for it. It was unprecedented and the way it was executed, there wasn't much chance of stopping it.
That's not the American way. We blame the President for what goes wrong if things aren't all great in Happy Land, and we give him all the credit when things are going well. It is hopeless because noone considers that there are these other few branches of government that do some important things as well (especially that Senate thing ).
drjayphd

Torosu
OW! BURNY!








Since: 11-18-05
From: CT

Last post: 6468 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 09-27-06 10:26 PM Link | Quote
Ad hominem attacks? I wasn't bashing the guy who wrote it because he's the guy that wrote it. Seriously, if I saw him somewhere, wearing a shirt saying "I'M THE GUY THAT WROTE 'THE PATH TO 9/11'," holding up a sign saying "THIS MAN WROTE 'THE PATH TO 9/11'," and the PA announcer repeatedly said "THE MAN WHO WROTE 'THE PATH TO 9/11' IS IN THE BUILDING, JUST LOOK FOR THE SIGN AND SHIRT," I'd still have no clue who he is.

Also, as for Michael Moore, let's go off of the following assumption:

Michael Moore : Democrats :: Ann Coulter : Republicans

'Sides, your point was Clinton was distracted because his dick was in someone's mouth that wasn't his wife. Mine was he addressed those concerns and told his advisors to ignore them. Totally relevant.

Mang, wouldn't it suck if bin Laden really was dead and no one caught him? I think we can all agree that no matter who was in power, he was the one pulling the strings, not the Commander in Chief, and ergo, it's bin Laden's fault. Pretty sure whoever actually went after him would get adulation across the spectrum, but there's really no point in attacking someone who's out of office for not doing something when the guy currently in office has actively pulled troops away from the hunt for... well, we know.


(edited by drjayphd on 09-27-06 09:27 PM)
Pages: 1 2Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Bill Clinton gets tough |


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.031 seconds; used 479.91 kB (max 617.82 kB)