Zeld2.0

The own U.S. gov't didnt believe in the terrorist threat until 9/11. 9/11 was as much a wakeup call for the regular citizen as the government. The fact the FBI and CIA and other intelligence organizations along with teh gov't not being able to get along to percieve the threat was already a big enough problem.

Had 9/11 not happened Bush probably woudln't give a shit about terrorists nor would most people here. Its that simple.

And if you want to be really technical, before Clinton the other presidents didn't care about the issue all that much as well.

The wave of terrorism started catching on late 60's to 70's and they became ever more rampant late 70's into 80's. Hell the U.S. said it would never deal with terrorists and we ended up dealing with Iran, Iraq, and other Middle East states that many wish to label as 'terrorist states.'

How many here honestly gave a rat's ass about the embassy bombings in Africa. Most people said "oh shit that sucks, ugh too bad people died" and what not - and a few weeks later they don't even care about it.

Had the 1st WTC event occured during the time of Bush Sr. i doubt much more would've been done other than what Clinton did - getting the direct culprits.

Honestly, how many before 9/11 and the Cole ever heard of Al-qaeda?

All of a sudden after 9/11 everyone knwos of al-qaeda and all of a sudden every bombing is linked to them.

Mass hysteria people - 9/11 was as much a wakeup call for the gov't as the country - you can't blame terrorists on Clinton who himself can blame it on Bush Sr. or Reagan who then can blame it on Carter then Ford / Nixon and what not.

Xell101

Well you can, we got a warning from another country about not taking Osama, Clinton didn't care, Osama was available to us on a silver platter, Clinton didn't care and declined. I doubt Bush would have passed that opertunity.

reconmike

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead.Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shi'ite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Two Libyan intelligence officers were tried under Scottish law in The Hague; only one, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was found guilty, in Jan. 2001.

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center; killing six and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 persons were killed, including 19 children and one person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly two years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near two U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men, two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors were killed in what was apparently a deliberate terrorist attack. Prime suspect thought to be Osama bin Laden, or members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 3,038, including the 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism .)

A timeline I found of terrorist attacks against america and american intersets.

It seems the brunt is during Slick Willies watch.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Xell101

http://www.mediamonitors.net/espac1.html

Some nifty information.

The_Dude

kinda funny that you listed OK city with other terroristic attacks by al queda and related groups

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Zeld2.0

Whoa whoa whoa Oklahoma city was defenitely not related to Muslim terrorists - terrorist no doubt but that one was so unexpected from ANOTHER american i doubt any damn president is responsible

these were just bombings as well, numerous hostages and hijackings and what not occured during the 80's

I hate to bring this up because I like Reagan but one of the things about his administration that I did in teh end not like was the entire dealing with Iran thing - give em their weapons and ask for lower terrorist activities against the U.S. I would say though that it factored into the entire deal.

Not to mention the Cold War at the time made many groups realize it couldn't get what it wanted not with the Soviet Union and United States still at odds - no point in ruling over a parking lot.

And I say again, had GWB or Bush Sr. been running the show at the time, not much probably would've been done simply because those situations seemed so random and no one really believed it was a calculated ordeal.

The reason 9/11 woke up so man ywas because it was so surreal - suddenly a -coordinated- attack that killed thousands made people realize it was serious.

And yes it woke up the gov't and would've woken up anyone at the helm unlike any other event.

The argument that it was Cliton's fault can be said to go all the way back to Reagan, then Carter, then Ford, Nixon, and keep going if you have to.

Sure shit happened under Clinton but the wakeup call should've occured long ago during the hostage crises of the 80's and also the one of '79 to '80 - not to mention long before in Munich, and all over Israel. The U.S. long ago already shrugged it off as nothing - or a foreign affair - hell even Clinton launched missiles against percieved threats - but who the hell would know that Al-Qaeda and what not is supposed to be the great network of the world. Now that blame can't fall on a man because those events happened, if the damn inteligence cant tell him I doubt you anyone would suddenly wake up one night and say "oh i got it, there gonna attack so-and-so because there just has to be a great terrorist network that doesn't exist right now"...

wwcd101

Historical analysis is good, but you have to remember what the goal was.

Up to the fall of the Berlin wall, the primary US goal was to stop the spread of Communism. Fortunately, we were successful. Unfortunately, we were then left with situations like Iraq, like Palestine/Isreal, like Iran, like N. Korea, etc. that are really just the baggage left over from the successful strategies utilized to win the Cold War. They aren't pretty, but each has to be looked at in the broader context. They have to be dealt with, but what's worse, nuclear annihilation or chasing down Saddam or Bin Ladin?

Fortunately, we are now dealing with them.

Thanks for listening.

darkmagex

Xell101: pulling out of the ABM? not signing Kyoto? rejecting the International Criminal Court? Just off the top of my head.

And if your going to say he didn't "break" them, then fine. The fact still stands that Bush kept us out of or by his actions made them cease to be.

m0ntyblack

Anyone who has looked at the economic figures concering the budget and its relation to gross domestic product would know that Clinton was by far the better president. The years that Clinton was in office are the only ones in the LAST 20 YEARS that show ANY (and I do mean ANY) marked improvement, and it is a quite impressive movement. Then Bush came into office, and we're facing a record deficit on top of a slow economy. Some may claim it was just a fluke that the years the economy was up was the Clinton years, but that is being fairly blind to the facts.


MB

Phaenx

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Nhanced1

Damn straight. But, the whole taste in women thing, Clinton has the same taste in women as any other man in this world, its just that he had to deal with what was around. like trying to make fine wine with week old grapes from safeway.

__________________
"Sell Crazy Somewhere Else, We're All Stocked Up Here," Jack Nicholson - As Good As It Gets

ViriiK

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.
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.
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.
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.
5: Clinton was horrible at law enforcement including pardoning people that didn't deserve it. Two examples: Waco and Marc Rich
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?
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..
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.
9: Rejected the extradiction of Osama Bin Laden in 1996 by the Saudis but he “had no evidence” versus Bin Laden.
10: Allowed NAFTA and GATT which affected our economy and Unions later in the future.
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.
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”
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.

Anyways I got plenty more bitch about it.. This is enough examples


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

ctembreull

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.

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?

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?!

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?

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.

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.

ViriiK

You thought I was a republican? Man you thought wrong... More inflammatory comment removed

Clinton I say again did nothing with the current military.. Today's military isn't Clinton's military... Nor will those that served under him give him credits for it... They will give GHWB and Reagan alot of the credit. The current weaponary we have today are still the same that we had in the 1980's and early 1990's. What is new that Clinton did? So tell me.

Also today is 2003 which means Bush has been in office for 2+ years and on average most of the United States military are at the average of 21-25 which most signed up during the Bush adminstration for the GI Bill which puts them through College.. My friend signed up in April 2001 and currently is serving in South Korea. How old is he you ask? 23...

I am the son of a current United States Armed Force member who has served his country since 1981. Nor will he give respect or salute to his former Commander-In-Chief. He holds the most upper respect for Ronald Reagan and his quote "Peace through Strength" which successfully worked and destroyed the Soviet Union itself. Today Russia is still on it's reconstruction phase but who said it'll be done in a day..


The ABM Treaty only answers to the threat of nuclear attack from rogue states such as North Korea, Iran, and perhaps China. I don't fucking care what you think about China.. but I don't trust the communist government there. My friend who works for Boeing is a mechanical engineer for the Anti-Ballistic Missile System and he's a brilliant rocket scientist (meaning science is a knack for him, nothing to do with rockets). He moved from Vancouver, WA to the burning Arizona desert because that's where they test the missile defense system as well as out in the Pacific Ocean. Today we are seeing progress as the Missile System get advanced and are seeing products.. Example: YAL-A1
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ndex.html#abl1 and they already have the prototype ready... Consider this project as a benefit to those companies working on the project and a boost to our military morale in the building up of our defense. You have to remember that we are to give the best we have to offer to our military in the world...


Now back to Kyoto.. Obviously you don't have a degree in climatology neither in business. You have to know that the economy is dependent on mostly individual businesses. When you kill the supplier which are the major polluters. They all suffer and what do you get.. Economic breakdown and depression. Hence

Listen to this

"Originally Introduced at the 1992 U.N. Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and backed by U.N. bureaucrats, the Kyoto "global warming" accords (never ratified by the U.S.) would require America to dramatically cut CO2 emissions.

That would mean radically curtailing every imaginable industrial activity - from production of electricity to use of cars and trucks to farming to manufacturing. However, Second and Third World countries such as India and China, which have far more polluting industries, would be exempt.

The net effect: U.S. manufacturers would be forced either to bankrupt themselves by complying or to leave America, taking millions of jobs with them and plunging the West into poverty. At the same time, global pollution would actually increase!"


Now on to the economics.. You do have to remember that corporations started cooking the books back to 1997. Now what's the problem here. Where's the SEC in all this. The purpose of the SEC is to kick the companies ass and make sure they're paying their debts off, not ripping off their shareholders, making sure there is no foul play and so on.

Another thing. Why did clinton launch his Anti-Microsoft campaign when we were faced by terrorist attacks over time? Today we're still debating with Microsoft and to no avail.


Now to Kenneth Lay. He has the right to a fair trial and the right to be quiet. If you can build up a case against him with him pleading the fifth. Then they can do so. You know it was the Bush Administration's SEC that tried to build the case against Enron's staff. The problem is the shredding of documentations which fails to build a case on. As for the rest. There are people in jail now for cooking the books such as Andrew Fastow the Chief Financial Officer of the company.


You think Terrorism is an easy task. Boy you are fucking wrong dude. "Oh geez searching the global is easy! He's in Antaratica under a pile of snow, We'll just come there and easily slap the cuffs on." As for Clinton. Yes he was soft on terrorist but I don't have the same view on Bush or should I say Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is not the man to fool around with because everyone thinks he's joking but he's not. This is the man that served his time in the United States Navy and knows what the fuck he's doing. As for Gitmo Bay, you do realize that those aren't people that aren't being picked out at random from Afghanistan. They are people that are defined as illegal Combatants that does not respect the rules of war (Rules of war as in No CW, BW, or NW for one's gain except for defense and etc). If you want to know what illegal combatant is. Go read the Geneva Convention Charter which defines Legal Combatant.


1 Fucking Sentence and Blair is already defending his own intelligence community for allowing that statement through... And you think that searching Iraq is a piece of cake too? Dude.. Do me a favor and let's say your bike got stolen in Texas. Go try to find it in the state of Texas. Since that Texas is the size of Iraq. Besides I don't trust the french, germans or the Russians nowadays dealing with those weapons anymore.


Afghanistan isn't over for your fucking information.

Vietnam was a whole different aspect because the soldiers were demoralized by the politics going on back home. Plus they were denied capability to attack the North Vietnamese Capital which would deliver a blow to their power control system. Just like we did in World War II and Korea. You attack their factories, supply lines, point of access for reinforcement. You are more likely to choke the enemy and prevent him from winning.. The only problem was politics back home denied that. Go look it up. I gaurantee you that you'll find results.


Yes the president can bend the rules just as every adminstration can.
Now on to Osama Bin Laden. You do remember the captured of Yousef? Who was supplied by Bin Laden and failed a plot to kill 4,000 people by blowing up 12-Bound Airliners. Now where's the problem here dude? We had prior evidence that he was plotting to kill Americans. We had the proof to hold Bin Laden. Defending American Citizen comes first for the government.


Okay you know that 37 million people are already abusing a controlled subtance. You know what that is. Alcohol. With 1 million drunk driving cases a year. You get me. A YEAR! I think one too many controlled subtance is enough. Cocaine is way worst than alcohol and I will not tolerate it.


Now. You do remember the Non-Profileration Treaty? Surely this has somehow eluded your brain. North Korea agreed and signed it and during this period was in violation of what they signed. Now does that show a great sign of trust? I think not. Same concept applies to Iraq.


With the war over for 2 months now in Iraq and democracy on the way. You are idiotic to think Iraq can be rebuilt in a day. It takes time and adjustment. Germany in this case. It took one fucking decade to get Germany back on track when the country was completely devestated after WWII.

Afghanistan is the same example..

Still more inflammatory comment removed

ctembreull

Again with the ad hominems as a lead. Your intransigence awes me, sir. At any rate, to paraphrase... "Republican is as Republican does."

Um... what changes did George II implement? How is this "his" force structure? The military is almost totally compliant to the Clinton-era design of a smaller, more mobile military.

It. Is. Clinton's. Force. Structure.

By the way, are you a military spokesman? Is it your intent here to speak for the entirety of the service? I doubt it. Which makes your sweeping generalizations somewhat inappropriate. Not to mention that it matters little who they credit for the military... it matters who actually constructed it. That, by the way, would be the Big Dog his own self.

...

(stuff about service member ages)

You miss the point entirely. It matters not who's in the army. It's a volunteer army and as such has turnover rates higher than any conscript army in the world. The point here is force structure.

(son of a preacher-man stuff)

That's nice. You're not the only one with parents who served. Personally, I consider your paternal unit's unwillingness to render honors to his former C-in-C a disgrace. Mind, that's just my opinion, but then, I'm a service kid, too.

So tell me, how does Dad feel about saluting a guy who got a politically-motivated sweetheart chance at the Texas Air National Guard while the rest of the country's youth was dying in Vietnam, then skipped a drug test and physical, got his flight status revoked, and *then* went AWOL for well in excess of a year?

Hmm.

But it's not about military service, right? It's about getting a hummer.

(Stuff about Reagan being intelligent)

Reagan was, pardon my language, a freaking lunatic, a senile old fruitcake, a downright poor statesman, and a reckless brinksman who felt no compunctions over carrrying the world to the very brink of a nuclear war in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Oh, and he lied about Iran-Contra, too - and then pardoned Ollie North. Marc who?

(Stuff about ballistic missile tests)

Not one of those tests has yet worked, at a total expenditure of TRILLIONS (that's thousands of billions) of American taxpayer dollars. Not one of the tests has yet been a success. Don't tell me future programs. Remember the V-22 Osprey? Yeah, that was supposed to be great too.
Show me a *working* ABM system, and THEN tell me how that's gonna stop the guy with the suitcase nuke. In short, Star Wars/ABM is an utterly inappropriate response to current world conditions. It's nothing more than a big payout to military-industrial complex campaign donors.

(Stuff about Kyoto)

So according to your logic, we should let businesses pollute all they want because they're employing people? Way wrong answer, dude. See, there's that whole Global Warming thing again, which as I pointed out before, is real. Unless you're George II, in which case, reports from your very own hand-picked science panel which state that global warming exists and is a danger.

So tell me again why Kyoto was such a bad idea, if we're the only industrialized nation on earth not signatory? Yep, we need to cut CO2 emissions. Yep, corporations are the big polluters. I fail to see how those two statements mean we should be the only industrialized nation on earth not signatory to the treaty. Unless you're trying to make the point that business profits should take priority over... oh... 100 million people on both coasts in the United States alone. Or how it should take priority over... oh... a worldwide climate shift on a scale not seen for millions of years.

Business über alles, hmm? It'll cost businesses money, so we can't do it. Great logic. Really great logic.

*applause*

(Stuff on corporate malfeasance)

Corporations, my good son, have been cooking books for time immemorial. It's a climate of deregulation that allows them to do it. Somewhere, some knucklehead free-market conservative decided we should limit oversight over corporate earnings reporting. Guess what happened? Enron. See, when you have deregulation, that pulls the SEC's teeth. They can't do anyhthing, they can't even ask to look at the books anymore. That's why the onus has fallen upon corporate whistle-blowers, because we've deregulated to the point where corporations are very nearly running the world. The SEC only comes into play now when there's evidence of market fraud. That's why Andersen-izing your corporate ledger is so popular now, because it takes years and years and years for the effects to become apparent. It's the dumb ones, like ImClone, who get caught for such low-rent corporate crimes like insider trading.

(Clinton and Microsoft stuff)

Clinton's DOJ filed, litigated, and WON its antitrust suit against Microsoft because Microsoft was a predatory monopoly, buying those companies it could not muscle out of business, and pulling pretty much every geeky dirty trick in the business. I can guarantee you, I know *all* about that stuff. I was there. Funny bit, this: Clinton's DOJ won its suit, and moved to the remedy phase of antitrust litigation. Strangely enough, once Bush took office, the DOJ changed its tune and played softball.

Business über alles. Good thing Microsoft doesn't sell oil or electricity. Bush might have had Gates coronated instead.

Here's a note to George II: Just because there are terrorists abroad in the world is no excuse whatsoever to ignore things on the domestic front.

(Kenneth Lay stuff)

To get his fair trial, that requires that George II's DOJ actually attempt to prosecute him. There's a veritable mountain of evidence against him. In fact, he was either called to testify or indicted, one of the two, then fled the country - and that was just about the last time you heard about any legal action regarding Kenny Boy. I'm waiting eagerly for Ken Lay's fair trial, but somehow, Bush and Ashcroft don't seem all that eager to prosecute their good friend and campaign donor, Kenneth W. Lay.

(Terrorism rant)

Yeah, yeah, yeah... the 'War On Terra' (catch the pun?) is a difficult thing. But then, if Bush is such a steely-eyed-rocket-man-with-the-codpiece-of-three-men, then why hasn't he gotten the job done? Why hasn't Rumsfeld, who's such a badass in your view, gotten it done? Oh, yes, Rumsfeld served. Pity Bush didn't. But what am I saying, the real question is,

Where the bloody blue hell is Osama?

Dead or alive. Yeah, right.

(Guantanamo Bay stuff)

Congratulations, you know that the military installation there is called Gitmo. So do I. No applause for you. But there's that nasty little bit about nobody being able to stop Ashcroft from naming ANYONE an "enemy combatant". See, all he has to do is go before a secret intelligence court and promise cross-his-heart-hope-to-die that so-and-so is a nasty terrorist sympathizer. And then he gets to go ahead and scoop that person up, regardless of evidence, regardless of the veracity of Johnny Fundamental's claims. And off they go down to "Gitmo" to be subjected to sleep-dep and interrogations and other such horrors.

So much for that fourth amendment, eh? By the way, as far as the Geneva Accords go, we might as well abrogate those, too. That whole thing about posting pictures of combatants and killing civilians, you understand. Trust me, the last thing you wanna wrap yourself in is the Geneva Conventions.

(The Famous 16 Words)

It's a great deal more than 16 words, dude. What about those weapons labs? What about that "He has the weapons, we know where they are"? What about 45 minutes from being able to turn us all into slightly glowing piles of carbon sludge? What about the fantasy connection between Iraq and Al-Quaeda (refer to the just-published Senate report on 9/11).

You see? It's more than sixteen words. It's an entire house of cards built on a foundation of lies.

(more rambling about the military here. Omitted for brevity and coherence.)

I've preserved this part verbatim, though, because it's just *such* a spiffy little bit of rhetoric, I expect to see it in every university debate team's manual of style within a few years. Such a gem.
Republican is as Republican does. And man, are you doing.

Cheers!

2wolves

What Clinton did was not to f*ck up a winning hand. Take a long look at the previous century and examine economic growth trends by presidential administration then tell me who is better for business a D or an R? (be prepared to show your work as I have lots of numbers to back up my stance)

Trickle Drown theory rehashed by tired old men from his daddy's (and Raygun's) admins didn't work before and it certainly isn't working now. In my opinion it was never intended to work as it was a ruse to strangle the the federal government into downsizing.

Not a bad idea unto itself but, like Iraq, there was/is no plan after initial victory. The resulting chaos has allowed anyone with the time in grade up on the Hill to push through pork of unprecedented scope.

I actually remember when R's were the fiscally adept party.

Barry Goldwater where are you when you're needed most?

2Wolves

ShadowWraith

Great work rookies, lots of good discussion goin on here. Glad to see you decided to join us over here at tilted politics rather then meandering over to tilted news and continuing the bitching

ctembreull

2wolves

Trickle-down/supply-side economics was, if I recall correctly, an idea sketched out by some Republican functionary on a cocktail napkin at one of those Beltway dinner parties.

I guess the problem with it - and yes, it's a smokescreen designed to limit the scope and effectiveness of government - is that when you decrease tax revenue and increase military spending, you can't increase overall revenue. It's just fiscally impossible. How to hamstring the government in one easy lesson.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

2wolves

2Wolves

2wolves

ViriiK,

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...litics.shtml#1

Without attacking the source can you deconstruct the reasoning and impune the research?

Think of it as a life lesson.

2Wolves

ViriiK

Berkeley? Home of the slanted news...

ctembreull

I'm wondering if this means that you read it and couldn't refute it, or if you just didn't read it in the first place.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

ViriiK

I did read it.. But it's still home of the slanted news..

ctembreull

Viriik:

So tell me, where *else* do you get your news? MSNBC, perhaps? FOX?

All news is biased. Every farking bit of it. The difference: this is research, not news.
That being the case, can you refute it?

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

JadziaDax

Ok, I didn't find a need for this before, but I am seeing things getting out of hand now.

The topic of this thread is "GWB vs. Clinton, whos the better president?" not which news source is slanted, or who can shout longer and louder.

Please stick to the topic at hand without flaming each other. You've already been warned once, and if you can't continue the debate like civilized human beings, the debate will be ended for you.

If you don't have anything nice to say (or anything of importance to add to the conversation), don't say anything at all. Or take it private (to PM's). Leave it out of the public forum.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Politcal thread...

DocTrevena

Then are you equally upset at France and Germany for trying to tell the U.S. how to make foreign policy?

2wolves

Didn't think you could.

Game, set, match.

Please insert another twentyfive cents to play again and better luck next time.

2Wolves

JadziaDax

which part of didn't you understand?

The forum Tilted Politics and the threads that are contained within are not a place for a public pissing contest. Cease and disist this obnoxious behavior now, and attempt to debate the original topic like CIVILIZED human beings.

This is my last warning before I shut down the thread. Got it?

oh yeah

I dont think either of them was that good of a president. But between the two of them I would say Clinton was better than Bush. With Clinton at least some people had a job.

Kadath

I'd be in support of you closing it down. There's nothing of value to be garnered by futhering this argument.

__________________
it's quiet in here

thedrake

I won't even argue with anyone, because I think the majority of the people would agree Clinton by far was the better president, economically of course.

isandro

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can remember, what they did was refuse to cooperate and vote for the UN to participate in the action. They might've used their veto, I'm not sure.
Anyway, I believe there's a large difference between voting against and telling people what to do.

__________________
-Life, liberty and the pursuit of hamburgers.

mml

I truly believe that in time Clinton will be regarded as the better president, unless President Bush begins to turn things around. However, let's be honest, neither will likely be considered one of "The Greatest".

Both men have made mistakes during their presidency, but the advantage that Clinton appears to have is that he was capable of learning from his mistakes. He made a number of errors during his first term as Governor and his first term as President. Both times he studied his errors, learned from them and came back stonger. The question remains as to whether President Bush will learn from his mistakes.

There is no question that Clinton is the more intelligent of the two men,(not that being smarter makes you a better president) and that he has an active intellectual curiosity. I do not subscribe to the myth that President Bush is dumb, just that he lacks that intellectual curiosity and dislikes complicated issues. If he can overcome these dislikes he may have a chance, but I still have to give it to Clinton.

P.S. I voted: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Gore. (just for the record)

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

smegal

According to the poll, it seems that most of us find Clinton a better president. I believe that was the point of the thread.

The interesting thing about politicial opinion is that all of us (including myself) really really really want to be right.

It doesn't take much looking to see that no political party has your best interest in mind, but many of us will defend it to the death as if they do.

Gorgo

Gore is the better President. The only President in recent history not to have screwed up at all while being the President, mostly because he doesn't do anything.

Oh, you mean the guy currently living in The White House?

Well, GWB wasn't elected, he was appointed by the Supreme Court to fill in until we elect a new one next year. Hopefully, he doesn't screw-up our economy or invade another country before his fill-in term is up. Oops . . . too late.

---------------
Seriously, Clinton was better for America, at least he acted like he cared about people who earned less than $100,000 a year . . .

__________________
Will Code for food . . .

Sty

Closed the thread, it was thru it's usefulness and majority of arguments are starting to circulate.

__________________
br,
Sty

I route, therefore you exist