Quote:
Originally posted by ViriiK
Copy of Inflammatory comment removed
|
Brilliant. Start with the ad hominem. Really brilliant. At this point, I know perfectly well that you have nothing of value to say, but since I'm in a good mood, I'll cheerfully tear it apart anyway.
Quote:
1: Clinton destroyed and demoralized the military in every possible way you can imagine... He gave away our nuclear secrets to china because he was being payed to by the Chinese.... Another thing was he allowed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” towards gays and personally it pissed off my father who is an Armed Force member because he disagreed as well as the rest of the men stationed where he works.
|
Clinton tried and succeeded to reduce the size of our military force because quite frankly, we had no need for a force that could fight two major regional conflicts at once. Saved billions doing it, too - and as you've see, the military that HE molded has done just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan, thank you. And your whole point about gays in the military, by the by, is nothing but rampant homophobia. Can't handle someone a little different from you? Tough. Nobody's making you stick around. The only important word in the long description of any randomly selected American soldier is: American. What else matters?
Quote:
|
2: ABM-Treaty only leaves millions of people being exposed to nuclear attack. Scrapping the Treaty with the now-debunked Soviet Union was excellent because no such country existed anymore. Plus the plan was to extend it to all of the NATO allies and any country that are under the threat of nuclear attack such as Taiwan, South Korea.
|
And what have we done about nuclear missiles? We've spent billions upon billions upon a second-gen "star wars" program that works worse, if possible, than the original did. ABM may have been outdated, but there's nothing wrong with getting the UN, the IAEA, and NATO together to put together something new. Would have cost LOTS less than this new missile shield that doesn't work.
Quote:
3: Kyoto Protocol was idiotic. Clinton signed the Protocol without congress approving it first.. Plus if you read the Protocol, it forced all major businesses to cut down and regulate their pollution. Plus we're still trying to understand if Global Warming exist.. So far over 500 expert scientist disagree with "Global Warming" because they concluded that the atmosphere has the capability to recycle itself.. As for the business concern.. Business would be spending whatever profit and revenue to keep their pollution down and chances of the business still running are at absolute 0%. It only destroys the Economy.. Afterall, most businesses in the United States are indiviually owned. 2nd thing is that it exempted developing nations such as China which is ironically in the trillions now on their economic strength.. Do they need to follow it? Yes but the exemption made the protocol stupid.
|
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder. Kyoto was a treaty much like any other, with strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately for the current administration, it was strong on dealing with corporate polluters. Therefore, it had to go. But I get the feeling that, considering that EVERY industrialized nation of the world has signed the treaty save one, that maybe there's something of value in the Kyoto protocol. Oh, extra credit if you can figure out who the lone non-signatory is. And, for the record, global warming exists. The report on the topic that this administration commissioned said as much... to which Bush replied that we need more science. You see, Bush only likes science if it agrees with his personal beliefs. But I can assure you, global warming is real.
Quote:
4: Clinton claimed that he was responsible for the economy. Well if you didn't know.. Reaganomics that GWHB continued was working at the end of his term and then Clinton claimed it.. Also in 1998 the economy went up higher because of the Internet Age which eventually collapsed in 2000.
|
Maybe when you get older you'll realize that "the economy" is chiefly a byproduct of how the consumer feels. If consumers are happy and comfortable and confident and EMPLOYED, they'll spend money, companies will make money, employees will get paid more, and they'll buy more, and so on. Clinton made the country feel quite good, in large part by knowing when to intervene to stop bad business from happening, and when to stand back and let things grow as the market willed. Clinton, quite frankly, deserves most, if not all, of the credit for our economic strength because he put the country in a place where it could grow and succeed. Okay, it got a bit out of control, but it was Bush who turned a correction into a recession. Oops.
Quote:
5: Clinton was horrible at law enforcement including pardoning people that didn't deserve it. Two examples: Waco and Marc Rich
|
Sure. So tell me, why hasn't Ken Lay been arrested yet? He's an executive, for the love of God. It's not as if he could run very fast. Bush's idea of law enforcement is to start pulling things out of the Constitution that he finds inconvenient, like the First and Fourth Amendments. You could say that's being tough on crime. You could also say it's making crimes out of previously legal activities.
Quote:
6: Terrorist attacks: 1st WTC Attack - He said he would bring those responsible to justice. Saudia Arabia Barrack Bombing - He said he would bring those responsible to justice. African Embassies Bombing (Kenya and Tanzania) - He said he would bring those responsible to justice. USS Cole - He said he would bring those responsible to justice.. You know what he did. Absolutely nothing. But as for the embassy bombing.. He just bombed an aspirin factory. Geez that’s revenge isn’t it?
|
Bush hasn't brought anyone to justice over 9/11. Where's Osama? Where's Mullah Omar? Why was anything mentioning Saudi Arabia pulled out of the 9/11 Senate report? Long story short, if Clinton was soft on terrorists, then Bush is an outright collaborator.
Just about what I'd expect for someone whose family fortune is based, in part, on the sale of munitions to the Nazi regime in World War II.
Quote:
7: Clinton lied under oath which is ironic because that’s the purpose of the executive branch. To enforce the laws of the land… But didn’t happen..
|
Yep, Clinton lied about getting a hummer from a slightly overweight intern. Bush has lied about just about everything else. How about those WMDs, hmm? And that nuclear material from Niger? What about those trailers? Clinton lied. So does Bush. Politicians lie. Difference is, one set of lies cost American soldiers their lives. One set didn't. You get bonus points if you can guess which is which.
Quote:
8: He failed in Somalia which GHWB sent troops to and expected Clinton to fix properly. He refused to let the Rangers and Delta Force have heavy gun support with AC-130 and Heavy Armor Tanks instead giving them Humvees and Black Hawks. The result – 18 Soldiers dead and thousands of Somalis. Had he given them the armor. The whole situation would have been prevented.
|
We've also failed in Afghanistan and Vietnam. That's what America gets for thinking it can intervene anywhere on a whim. Heh. And here I thought conservatives were supposed to be non-interventionist...
Quote:
9: Rejected the extradiction of Osama Bin Laden in 1996 by the Saudis but he “had no evidence” versus Bin Laden.
|
The President can't break the law. If he had no evidence, then he couldn't extradite. Whereas Bush has no trouble putting people in Guantanamo Bay and denying them access to anything remotely resembling due process. Secret intelligence courts, for God's sake?!
Quote:
10: Allowed NAFTA and GATT which affected our economy and Unions later in the future.
|
Whereas Bush "affected our economy" by sending millions upon millions of jobs straight down the crapper. Pot... kettle... c'mon, sing along.
Quote:
|
11: Drug Law Enforcement was completely destroyed and was not working. He poured more money into the “Drug Wars” and what we got in return was an expanding folly. The result: We have the biggest prison system and the richest illegal drug market in history.
|
One man's illegal drug is another man's medicinal substance. Clinton correctly realized that it is impossible to win the "war on drugs" with a Reagan-era mission statement. Better far to target the worst drugs and let the small stuff be for a while. Besides, decriminalization of marijuana would be a great way to up tax revenue. And guess what? State voters agree. But then, since when did Bush and Ashcroft give a rip about the will of the voter?
Quote:
12: North Korea: The 1994 Nuclear Accords sounded like a good idea but the problem was we had no means of making sure the North Koreans were agreeing to the treaty. Now it’s come back to bite us in the ass today. Hwang, a defector from North Korea said he believes they already have nuclear weapons. As well as testimonies from the IAEA stating “North Korea does not abide by the nuclear safeguard agreement of the NPT.” and “as a result of obstacles by and lack of cooperation from, North Korea, IAEA inspectors have so far been unable to verify the DPRK's assertion that it has frozen its nuclear weapons programs”
|
North Korea *does* have nuclear weapons. As do we. As does France, England, India, Pakistan, and a whole bunch of former Soviet FSRs. The World Has The Bomb. The point is to make it outmoded, not try futilely to keep people from ever getting it. What, do you think we're the only people who should be allowed to explore the possibilities of atomic science?
Oh, and if nukes are the issue, then why didn't we invade North Korea instead of Iraq? We
know the Koreans have the bomb. Iraq had nothing of the sort.
Quote:
|
13: Haiti: He put Marines there to implement democracy as well as putting an embargo/sanctions on Haiti. Most of those who fled Haiti were economic refugees. When Clinton put an embargo on Haiti, the economy crumbled and more people fled. A better policy might have been to end the sanctions and encourage economic development in Haiti. Some of the $3 billion spent on the invasion/occupation could have been better spent on this. With jobs and food, Hatians would have been less likely to risk their life in leaky boats on the trip to Florida. Sure they would have had a corrupt government that would have siphoned off some of the aid. But the lot of the common man would none the less have been better. With economic development and the growth of a middle class, chances for real democracy and the rule of law would have improved. As for national security interests in Haiti, there are none. The flood of refugees was no reason to invade. If it were, most of Central and South America would be under occupation now. These are economic refugees and the problem must be solved economically. In the end, where are we? What was accomplished? They are still poor, still fleeing although not in as great a numbers, and still racked by violence.
|
Another example in the case for non-intervention, plain and simple. We're not the world's grandmother. And I daresay that our democracy-building experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan are going *so* very well. Not.
Quote:
Anyways I got plenty more bitch about it.. This is enough examples
|
Pity all your examples are either wrong, hypocritical, or both.
God, I love Republicans. They quote FOX News at me and all I have to do to shoot them down is respond with the truth.