Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - GWB vs. Clinton, whos the better president?

2wolves · 07-26-2003, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ViriiK
Another copy of inflammatory comment removed

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.
Bush used the Clinton military to win victories in the 'Stan and Iraq. So you're still on the same path as your first statement.

"Payed by the Chinese" Curious that a $70 million dollar investigation could turn up no proof, only some head. Could you please bother to post a single fact before going off into Pat Robertson-land?

"Gays in the Military" Facing facts is difficult. There have always been gays in the armed forces of the U.S. . Always. Get over it. Your personal prejudices do not constitute law.

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.
The treaty was accepted by the new Russian state. Once again your grasp of basic information is stunning. Do you really believe all the warheads of the former USSR just went away? Have you noticed who lifted the supplies to the International Space Station? On a big rocket? D-oh!

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.
"Destroys the economy" Well. W certainly didn't need no stinkin Kyoto treaty for that now did he? As for your 500 scientists... the majority of them have been shown to be employed by the petro-chem folk. Don't be shocked, ok? I could easily take apart the rest of this paragraph but you're beginning to bore me.

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.
So it took twelve years for the Raygun miracle to happen? So by that logic anything that Clinton did, or did not do, will only kick in after 2004. Yet you cast blame. Bad logic, no donut.

5: Clinton was horrible at law enforcement including pardoning people that didn't deserve it. Two examples: Waco and Marc Rich
Or you could look at the rates of violent crime. You wouldn't because that would blow this point out of the water? What about Ruby Ridge for Bushie the Elder?

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?
The folk who attacked the WTC on the first occassion are in jail. Didn't you know that? You're flailing about and getting more boring.

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..
If you're referring to his testimony about having sex... well bucko you're just plain wrong again. The I.S.P. (Ind. Spec. Prosecutor) sat down with the judge and defined the terms. Clinton only beat them at their own game using their definitions. I think that's what really torques off the neo-cons the most that Clinton could whoop their asses like Ali taking on PeeWee Herman.

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.
You watch too many movies and believe them to be documentaries. Or maybe send in the Fantastic Four (in your world)

9: Rejected the extradiction of Osama Bin Laden in 1996 by the Saudis but he “had no evidence” versus Bin Laden.
Paging Rod Serling, Mr. Rod Serling please pick up the courtesy phone. Uh. Who gives you this disinformation? Karl Rove or Lush Rimshot?

10: Allowed NAFTA and GATT which affected our economy and Unions later in the future.
Name one, just one, national RNC or R president since Raygun not to endorse NAFTA? C'mon, at least get a bit of recent history correct. Just a little. A tad. A particle.

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.
Bwa-Ha-Ha-ha. You must be smokin some serious chronic.

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”
"Believes they may already have nuclear weapons" Sounds oddly familiar. Like the 45 minutes to WMD deployment of the former Iraqi state, or that the USSR was so big & bad we had to be able to destroy humanity 178 times over to stop them. To return to your point: The N. Koreans didn't do any real sabre rattling until W brought his isolationist policy to Washington and that's worked so well we've had a couple of wars.

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.
Oh goody now you're an international foreign policy expert as well. Funny, Haiti hasn't made any news for the longest time.

Anyways I got plenty more bitch about it.. This is enough examples
Bad, thoughtless, poorly reasoned, and factless expamples, but expamples nonetheless of modern neo-con propaganda. You sir, are a shining tribute to the efficacy of how to lead sheep.

Btw Zeld... 1st WTC Attack was during clinton's time not Bush...

2Wolves