Profile
Search
Register
Log in
How is the Clinton administration to blame? At ALL?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21595
How is the Clinton administration to blame? At ALL?  Reply with quote  

Shane and others who believe the Clinton administration is just as much to blame as the Bush administration...

Why?

I respect your viewpoints. I need to hear your side of the argument. Everything I have come to learn in the aftermath of 9/11 has shown that Clinton had his thumb on the pulse of terrorism and the impending doom. When Bush took office they completely switched gears and tried to abandon a lot of things established by Clinton. Except for his army of course.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

I dunno. Clinton did bomb an aspirin factory cause he thought it was manufacturing biological weapons, killing many innocents.

That, and he was instrumental in continuing the embargoes of Iraq, which lead to many deaths (over a million) from things like not having treated water, or medical supplies.

This was one of bin Laden's greivances he voiced while trying to inspire his holy fighters. (Im not justifying al Qaeda's actions in any way by the way, just acknowledging motivational factors, and martyrs are always a factor)

Clinton didn't mind terrorism if it was state sponsored, like Israel (ouch, touchy subject)

Or better yet, he championed Plan Colombia, or 1.6 billion dollars for arms to a terrorist nation. I'd urge you to do some research on Colombia and what's really going on there. The bodies are stacking at a rate that makes me feel sick to my stomach.

Clinton didn't get bin Laden, and we will never really know how much effort was ever put into it because of the cloak of national security. Secrecy is very anti-democratic.

One thing you should know. The Republicans and Democrats are more alike than they'd like you to know. Bells should ring in your head at the fact that G.W. kept on George Tenet as head of the CIA.

I'd like to thank you for giving a forum for such discourse.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MYOWNCLICHE



Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 3886
Location: In side YOUR head
 Reply with quote  

Clinton knew and didn't let us know the extent of it. He is guilty too!! Now I don't trust anybody but myself.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bandini
WIZARD APPRENTICE


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 4669
Location: jerk city
 Reply with quote  

You shouldn't take a pulse with your thumb. It has a pulse of its own.

Clinton is to blame too, but not as much as W. Tenet testified there were huge cuts to his agency and it was somewhat disordered, saying today at the commission hearings that it needs to be "rebuilt" and thatit will take another 5 years to do that. W inherited the FBI and CIA from Clinton, so many of the problems with those agencies would be Clinton's fault.

It is reported that Clinton put terrorism on the highest of priorities, but I dont think the same can be said for Bush.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:39 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

one point I'd like to make clear.

Things aren't so clear.

Sometimes they are grey, abiguous.

We're scrambling right now to find out how we weren't tough enough before the attacks, when there is a possiblity that the attacks were because we were too tough.

It doesn't make much sense, but sometimes life is like that.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21595
 Reply with quote  

fuck my thumb reference. I thought I was spitting a cliche, but I fucked it up.

fuck it.

At any rate, no, I do not believe that Clinton is one of the people to blame. I mean...he is as much to blame as Nixon is. Which is...a little bit.

But Clinton had the security of the nation in mind when he put so much attention on possible attacks that could happen on our soil. His aim was to kill Bin laden, who posed a very serious threat. The Bush administration decided to call his concern "paranoia"

now what's up with Iraq again?
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
still illiterate



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1941
Location: Iowa
 Reply with quote  

Colombia is not a terrorist state, but it is constantly under attack from national terrorists. The country is in bad shape because they have little money, little resources, and pretty much the whole country is constantly under attack from, guerrilla fighters, and paramilitary groups, both are funded by drug lords. Kidnappings are an all too common occurance. Unfortunetly the only areas that are really under gov't control are the big cities, Cali, Bogota, Medellin, etc. You go outside those cities 30 miles and you'll be in area's were the gov't really can't protect you. It a shame, the gov't really needs as much military and monetary help it can get. I was back for the first time in a while last november, and the country seemed to be on the upside, but the guerrilla and paramilitary groups pose a constant threat to the security of the country. It's a country about 3 times the size of Montana and has about 14,000 more murders per year then the US. It's murder rate is about 12 times what it is here. Plan Colombia is really just there to give the Government it's country back.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MYOWNCLICHE



Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 3886
Location: In side YOUR head
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
fuck my thumb reference. I thought I was spitting a cliche, but I fucked it up.

fuck it.

At any rate, no, I do not believe that Clinton is one of the people to blame. I mean...he is as much to blame as Nixon is. Which is...a little bit.

But Clinton had the security of the nation in mind when he put so much attention on possible attacks that could happen on our soil. His aim was to kill Bin laden, who posed a very serious threat. The Bush administration decided to call his concern "paranoia"

now what's up with Iraq again?


Clinton should have been more agressive and ""vocal"". He was after all our commander and chief
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MYOWNCLICHE



Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 3886
Location: In side YOUR head
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
fuck my thumb reference. I thought I was spitting a cliche, but I fucked it up.

fuck it.

At any rate, no, I do not believe that Clinton is one of the people to blame. I mean...he is as much to blame as Nixon is. Which is...a little bit.

But Clinton had the security of the nation in mind when he put so much attention on possible attacks that could happen on our soil. His aim was to kill Bin laden, who posed a very serious threat. The Bush administration decided to call his concern "paranoia"

now what's up with Iraq again?


Clinton should have been more agressive and ""vocal"". He was after all our commander and chief
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21595
 Reply with quote  

he should have been more VOCAL? Why??? He was trying to have someone assassinated.

His job was not to warn us, but it was to protect us.

Maybe you think all of these color code warnings are the way to go. I certainly don't.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

still illiterate why don't we continue this thread elsewhere so we dont hijack this ish.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MYOWNCLICHE



Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 3886
Location: In side YOUR head
 Reply with quote  

Sage Francis wrote:
he should have been more VOCAL? Why??? He was trying to have someone assassinated.

His job was not to warn us, but it was to protect us.

Maybe you think all of these color code warnings are the way to go. I certainly don't.



Fuck color codes all I ask of my goverment is the truth so that I can make decision for my life, no matter who it is, Clinton or Bush. Again I don't trust any of them.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:08 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MYOWNCLICHE



Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 3886
Location: In side YOUR head
 Reply with quote  

Now do you want to discuss what Regan knew?!
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21595
 Reply with quote  

don't be an idealist in this case.

you aren't ever going to know the full truth from the govt

I mean...I don't even tell you the full truth for fuck's sakes.

You gotta figure it out.
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MYOWNCLICHE



Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 3886
Location: In side YOUR head
 Reply with quote  

And doesn't that scare the ****ing shit out of You!! If we don't speak up against it who will!!
Post Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:28 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon