Clinton launches withering attack on Bush on Iraq, Katrina, budget

[Jay Master Jay]

Every man and woman gets a vote so why do Bush lovers get mad when someone saids they dont like him as a President? When people said things about Clinton no one got upset it was their opinion. We all know Bush isn't a better President then Clinton dont we? He will leave this country in worse shape then when he became President. I dont blame him for the Hurricane but where is Osama? We still haven't captured him but our troops are in Iraq. What in the hell is really going on with you people where you back this clown that misled our country. He gave up misinformation to go into Iraq and you still want to defend him? We our broke and we still dont know when our troops are coming home or when gas will be $2.00 again. Oh I know it's Bill Clinton's fault RIGHT??

[Skins fan out West]

Republican President - 5 years

Republican congress - 10 years

Republican Senate - 3 years (And 8 out of the last 10).

And yet some how, some way, everything wrong in this country is still the democrats fault.

Freakin amazing.

[Sarge]

Fair enough. I agree with you.

Let me ask you this question though. How many troops do we have now? Do you have the breakdown from 2000 to 2005? I'd like to see those numbers as well.

Here you go. This is from "Airman" magazine. It's an Air Force publication but it's unbiased. It's been known to take shots at both the senior leadership and administrations. Feel free to take a look around, and if you need acronym help, let me know. Also, to get budgets further back in the 90's, just go to any year of the almanac and take a look

http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2005/0505structure.pdf

Sit back ladies and gents, school is in session.

Let's turn our screens on page 56, "People"

Keep in mind the last clinton budget was FY 01

Look at Air Force active duty for enlisted. Note that the deduction in FY 05 is force strength reduction to pay for new equipment coming on line. That's our choice right now,personnel or equipment. If you all want both, please feel free to write your local Congressman and/or Senator

Below that is Armed Forces Manpower Trends, End Strength in Thousands

Again, look where we were in FY 99, and the jump in FY 02

Next, go to "Budgets" on page 60. Now look at AF budget, a 10 year perspective from 96 to 05. The Air Force budget bottomed out in 97

UNderneath that is Major Force programs, again bottoming out in 97

On page 64 is historical budgets in 06 dollars. Bottomed out in 99. Only Carter has historically spent less on the military, and we kow where that went :doh:

Page 67 is our next problem. "Equipment" Look over on the far right hand side of the page, "average age". Basically what we are doing is riding what is left of the military built up by Ronaldus the Great. Now we have to replace it while simultaneously fighting a war

Most of our platforms were not designed to go for more than 20-30 years. And that is chronological age. Actual use only accelerates the aging process, and our stuff has pretty much been in continual use since Desert Storm, almost 15 years

Bottom line, our stuff is old, especially that KC-10's and KC-135's, our in flight refueling fleet. Without those, we don't project global air power.

Now, someone that took national security issues seriously would have used the relative peace of the 90's to re-equip. But we had someone in office that could have cared less about the military and cared more about nailing fat chicks than keeping up the military. And on top of that increased our deployment workload about 300%

Page 69 shows the decrease of flying hours during the 90's.

Like I said earlier, if you want a complete picture of the 90's, find any Almanac from probably 97 and look back.

Bottom line, we are paying the price right now for taking 10 years off from military upkeep.

[chomerics]

Here you go. This is from "Airman" magazine. It's an Air Force publication but it's unbiased. It's been known to take shots at both the senior leadership and administrations. Feel free to take a look around, and if you need acronym help, let me know. Also, to get budgets further back in the 90's, just go to any year of the almanac and take a look

http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2005/0505structure.pdf

Sit back ladies and gents, school is in session.

Let's turn our screens on page 56, "People"

Keep in mind the last clinton budget was FY 01

Look at Air Force active duty for enlisted. Note that the deduction in FY 05 is force strength reduction to pay for new equipment coming on line. That's our choice right now,personnel or equipment. If you all want both, please feel free to write your local Congressman and/or Senator

Below that is Armed Forces Manpower Trends, End Strength in Thousands

Again, look where we were in FY 99, and the jump in FY 02

Next, go to "Budgets" on page 60. Now look at AF budget, a 10 year perspective from 96 to 05. The Air Force budget bottomed out in 97

UNderneath that is Major Force programs, again bottoming out in 97

On page 64 is historical budgets in 06 dollars. Bottomed out in 99. Only Carter has historically spent less on the military, and we kow where that went :doh:

Page 67 is our next problem. "Equipment" Look over on the far right hand side of the page, "average age". Basically what we are doing is riding what is left of the military built up by Ronaldus the Great. Now we have to replace it while simultaneously fighting a war

Most of our platforms were not designed to go for more than 20-30 years. And that is chronological age. Actual use only accelerates the aging process, and our stuff has pretty much been in continual use since Desert Storm, almost 15 years

Bottom line, our stuff is old, especially that KC-10's and KC-135's, our in flight refueling fleet. Without those, we don't project global air power.

Now, someone that took national security issues seriously would have used the relative peace of the 90's to re-equip. But we had someone in office that could have cared less about the military and cared more about nailing fat chicks than keeping up the military. And on top of that increased our deployment workload about 300%

Page 69 shows the decrease of flying hours during the 90's.

Like I said earlier, if you want a complete picture of the 90's, find any Almanac from probably 97 and look back.

Bottom line, we are paying the price right now for taking 10 years off from military upkeep.

Sarge, first, let me thank you for getting me the information, I knew you'd be able to find it.

Second, lets look at what this debate was about. . . Your contention was. . .

My assertion is that if we had the troops that were gotten rid of in the 90's, we could do both

Well, how many toops do we have now? Looking at your pdf file, you will notice something a bit odd. . .

From FY99 until FY05 the total active forces decreased by 790 troops. Civilian personel decreased by 1,228 personnel, and the Guard and Reserve forces decreased by 10,000. Funny huh. . .

So please enlighten me Sarge, tell me how come Bush has had 5 years to increase the military troop levels and he hasn't. We are fighting two different wars, and there is no need for more troops? I agree that Clinton dropped the troop levels, but we were not at war then.

Is there a defense on why Bush didn't increase the levels, especially when held up to the fact that we are fighting two wars simultaneously?

[Sarge]

Sarge, first, let me thank you for getting me the information, I knew you'd be able to find it.

Second, lets look at what this debate was about. . . Your contention was. . .

Well, how many toops do we have now? Looking at your pdf file, you will notice something a bit odd. . .

From FY99 until FY05 the total active forces decreased by 790 troops. Civilian personel decreased by 1,228 personnel, and the Guard and Reserve forces decreased by 10,000. Funny huh. . .

So please enlighten me Sarge, tell me how come Bush has had 5 years to increase the military troop levels and he hasn't. We are fighting two different wars, and there is no need for more troops? I agree that Clinton dropped the troop levels, but we were not at war then.

Is there a defense on why Bush didn't increase the levels, especially when held up to the fact that we are fighting two wars simultaneously?

End strength did increase, starting in FY 02. This year we've taken a cut, again to pay for equipment replacement and equipment coming on line. It's a sh!tty arriangment, but that's what we're faced with. Again, if this re-equip had been done in the 90's, we might be able to afford to keep what troops we have now.

THe Guard decrease is a bit deceiving, because while they are on active duty they are counted in active manpower. SOm eof the decrease, along with active personel cuts, are Guard/Reserve units going back to home stations

If you go to the 2000 almanac

http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2000/0500structure.pdf

you'll see active troop strenght in 94, which was 341,000. At the end of FY 01, we were at 280,000. Don't think we couldn't use those 60,000 troops in the Air Force right now?

We jumped in total strength from 353,571 to 368,271 from FY 01 to FY 02, so not quite sure what decrease you are seeing

[BlueTalon]

I served in the Navy from '83 to '89. I got out, got a couple of bachelors degrees, did a little of this and a little of that. In 1996, I tried to come back in the service. The Army at the time was not taking prior service people! It was in the midst of the Clinton drawdown, and that was the only period I can remember that the Army wasn't taking prior servicemen. That's just my anecdotal confirmation of what has already been posted.

Chom, you're wondering about why the numbers are lower? You have to remember that it's an all volunteer force. The policy of the Clinton administration was to thin out the ranks of the military, and spend the peace dividend on 100,000 cops, and 100,000 teachers, and 100,000 of whatever else. Morale in the military was crap. On the other hand, it's the policy of the Bush administration to increase pay, increase bonuses, etc., and increase the numbers of the military. It's not Bush's fault that some recruiting goals are not being met (reenlistment goals are exceeded every year, that should tell you something). It's actually somewhat amazing that recruiting goals are being met as well as they are, given the increasing hostility of lefties in attempting to bar recruiters from high school and college campuses.

[DarkLadyRaven]

Chom, you're wondering about why the numbers are lower? You have to remember that it's an all volunteer force. The policy of the Clinton administration was to thin out the ranks of the military, and spend the peace dividend on 100,000 cops, and 100,000 teachers, and 100,000 of whatever else. Morale in the military was crap. On the other hand, it's the policy of the Bush administration to increase pay, increase bonuses, etc., and increase the numbers of the military. It's not Bush's fault that some recruiting goals are not being met (reenlistment goals are exceeded every year, that should tell you something). It's actually somewhat amazing that recruiting goals are being met as well as they are, given the increasing hostility of lefties in attempting to bar recruiters from high school and college campuses.

Is it even far to compare the military actions of a Peace time president to a war time president?

From my understandng the benifits of re-enlisten were boosted AFTER some recruiting goals were not meet.

I also dont think that lefties banning recruiters have anything to do with low recruiting goals. Every dumass in this country knows about the armed forces and the benifits. the military has existed for most of this countrys history. Just join up- How is more ad time going to help.

I think its the parents of potential recuits thats hampering the process. My mother told me if I joined any of the Armed Forces she will disown me. My mothers word is law for me. ( Despite the fact she served 22 years in the Navy along with my Marine father- she hated it, and Iraq as well).

I have heard other stories on this campus of a simular nature as well. There was a post about "not in my back yard" in regards to Utilities this country needs in another thread. Now we have " Not My Child".

[Sarge]

Is it even far to compare the military actions of a Peace time president to a war time president?

From my understandng the benifits of re-enlisten were boosted AFTER some recruiting goals were not meet.

I also dont think that lefties banning recruiters have anything to do with low recruiting goals. Every dumass in this country knows about the armed forces and the benifits. the military has existed for most of this countrys history. Just join up- How is more ad time going to help.

I think its the parents of potential recuits thats hampering the process. My mother told me if I joined any of the Armed Forces she will disown me. My mothers word is law for me. ( Despite the fact she served 22 years in the Navy along with my Marine father- she hated it, and Iraq as well).

I have heard other stories on this campus of a simular nature as well. There was a post about "not in my back yard" in regards to Utilities this country needs in another thread. Now we have " Not My Child".

Ummm, why did your Mom stay 22 years if she hated the miltary?

[BlueTalon]

Is it even far to compare the military actions of a Peace time president to a war time president?

From my understandng the benifits of re-enlisten were boosted AFTER some recruiting goals were not meet.

I also dont think that lefties banning recruiters have anything to do with low recruiting goals. Every dumass in this country knows about the armed forces and the benifits. the military has existed for most of this countrys history. Just join up- How is more ad time going to help.

I think its the parents of potential recuits thats hampering the process. My mother told me if I joined any of the Armed Forces she will disown me. My mothers word is law for me. ( Despite the fact she served 22 years in the Navy along with my Marine father- she hated it, and Iraq as well).

I have heard other stories on this campus of a simular nature as well. There was a post about "not in my back yard" in regards to Utilities this country needs in another thread. Now we have " Not My Child".

The pay increases were put into the works before 9/11, and when I reenlisted in 2001 before 9/11, I got a nice hefty bonus -- but bonuses are always in a state of flux. However, they have trended steadily upward under this President.

I think you're dead wrong about "every dumass in this country" knowing about the military and benefits. They all know that Army and Navy are out there, that much is true -- but "every dumass in the country" does NOT know the specifics of what is available, and it's the job of the recruiter to provide that information. It's a little hard to do when antiwar protesters start lobbing garbage at them -- or when they can't get on the campus at all.

You are right about parents hampering the process too, though. But not as much as you might think. The military isn't looking for children, it's looking for adult men and women who can think for themselves and sign their own contracts. If your "mothers word is law" for you, you probably aren't a suitable candidate anyway.

[big z]

Mr. Bill should continue to do what he can to help instead of doing advance campaign work for his wifey...she will LOSE anyway Billyboy.

and you have got to just LOVE his monday morning QB'ing...

I can play the game too, Hey Bill, IF YOU HAD DONE DUE DILIGENCE AND RID US OF AN ALQAIDA GROWING THREAT THE EIGHT YEARS YOU WERE IN OFFICE, Then Maybe 9/11 does NOT HAPPEN...food for thought the next time you choose hummer over national security.

I try to have respect for the man and his accomplishments while he was in office, even though I never voted for him, but pseudo concern and junk just makes it difficult...

[big z]

and if you care to discuss the Iraq war, I will justify it in the face of ANY CRITICISM, SO please, feel free to bring it on...

IF Billy Clinton had done the EXACT SAME THING, Libs would be lining up to say it wasn't his fault...so spare the dramatics and lets look at facts.

Has there been an attack on US soil since the iraqi/afghanistan LIBERATIONS?

ARE our BRAVE SOLDIERS who are giving their lives doing so for the benefit of American Civilian Lives and Iraqi/Afghanistan Civilian Lives? Yup.

Is there an OBVIOUS interest in the Middle Eastern Oil in these countries and other strategic purposes...YES.

Our PRESIDENT, Mr. Bush is responsible for this nations security and this nations prosperity. Day by day, things are getting better, whether you want to believe it or not. Godbless our Troops!

and if you want to criticize our President, feel free to attack his border control policies/problems. I agree wholeheartedly that he has alot of work to do...and YES, I even agree that President Bush dropped the ball with Katrina. He should have been there lighting fires under asses from day one to make sure people were evacuated, fed, and medicated as necessary. He finally woke up a few days later and the ball is rolling. I'll focus on the positive and mourn those lost as they are gone forever...Godbless them.

[chomerics]

End strength did increase, starting in FY 02. This year we've taken a cut, again to pay for equipment replacement and equipment coming on line. It's a sh!tty arriangment, but that's what we're faced with. Again, if this re-equip had been done in the 90's, we might be able to afford to keep what troops we have now.

THe Guard decrease is a bit deceiving, because while they are on active duty they are counted in active manpower. SOm eof the decrease, along with active personel cuts, are Guard/Reserve units going back to home stations

If you go to the 2000 almanac

http://www.afa.org/magazine/May2000/0500structure.pdf

you'll see active troop strenght in 94, which was 341,000. At the end of FY 01, we were at 280,000. Don't think we couldn't use those 60,000 troops in the Air Force right now?

We jumped in total strength from 353,571 to 368,271 from FY 01 to FY 02, so not quite sure what decrease you are seeing

Sarge, on page 56, it lists the total amount of troops from 99' to 05'. Starting at 99, the first year listed, there were 360,590 troops. In 05' there were 359,700 troops. This is a net decrease of 790 troops from 1999 to 2005. The reserves were just as I listed it as well. If you take from when Bush took office in 00, it is a slight increase of troops, but nowhere near the 100K I'd expect.

The jump in strength of 15K had to do with 9-11, as there was a large influx of people who wanted to join like Pat Tilman, but the number of active troops has since decreased to 1999 levels.

Do you see why I ased you this question? You are contending that Bush didn't have the military because of Clinton. You claimed that we were shortstaffed because of Clinton, but the numbers tell a more interesting story. If we were short staffed as you say, how come we are still at the same levels? Why haven't we increased troop strength by 60K bare minimum?

The excuse Talon tried isn't a valid one either, because we can sweeten the pot for recruitment, and give our soldiers a nice signing bonus, and other incentives. If we need the troops, we can get them.

[chomerics]

Mr. Bill should continue to do what he can to help instead of doing advance campaign work for his wifey...she will LOSE anyway Billyboy.

and you have got to just LOVE his monday morning QB'ing...

I can play the game too, Hey Bill, IF YOU HAD DONE DUE DILIGENCE AND RID US OF AN ALQAIDA GROWING THREAT THE EIGHT YEARS YOU WERE IN OFFICE, Then Maybe 9/11 does NOT HAPPEN...food for thought the next time you choose hummer over national security.

Really, kind of revisioninst history Z, because if you remember it was REPUBLICANS, like yourself, who were MUCH more concerned with Clinton getting a hummer then trying to get Bin Laden.

I guess you don't remember the wag the dog comments do ya :doh:

[rictus58]

Really, kind of revisioninst history Z, because if you remember it was REPUBLICANS, like yourself, who were MUCH more concerned with Clinton getting a hummer then trying to get Bin Laden. :hammer:

I guess you don't remember the wag the dog comments do ya :doh:

Let me get this straight, It's the REPUBLICANS fault for not getting Bin Laden during the Clinton administration as well as failing to get him during the Bush Admin....Well I'll be. Democrates must the best people to ever set foot on this planet. They don't do anything wrong do they?

Come on Chom, instead of your CONSTANT complaining about the Admin, why don't you tell us how YOU would have done it.

Better yet, tell us what you are doing to help since EVERYTHING that happens under the bush admin you have a problem with.

[Burgold]

What he was talking about was when Clinton ordered airstrikes against a camp where Bin Laden was supposed to be. The Republicans said that attacking Bin Laden was a waste of time and a diversion from the Monica Scandal. Hence, the wag the dog reference.

[ccsl2]

Mr. Bill should continue to do what he can to help instead of doing advance campaign work for his wifey...she will LOSE anyway Billyboy.

and you have got to just LOVE his monday morning QB'ing...

I can play the game too, Hey Bill, IF YOU HAD DONE DUE DILIGENCE AND RID US OF AN ALQAIDA GROWING THREAT THE EIGHT YEARS YOU WERE IN OFFICE, Then Maybe 9/11 does NOT HAPPEN...food for thought the next time you choose hummer over national security.

I try to have respect for the man and his accomplishments while he was in office, even though I never voted for him, but pseudo concern and junk just makes it difficult...

1. Advance campaign work for Hilary...That is a good one I have to admit. :laugh: Her losing...we will see...she can't do as bad a job at President than GW has that is for sure!

2. His Monday Morning QBing. GW and the conservatives out there have to just deal with it...It comes with the territory...especially if the President you elected isn't doing a good job.

3. We don't know what type of due diligence Clinton...I know one thing, 9/11 did not happen when he was President..and if GW was in office long before 9/11...so you are telling me that there was nothing GW could have done to stop 9/11?? A hummer over National Security?? :bsflag: You mean just like Bush chose to use some bogus/half a** intelligence reports to use as his rationale to go to war in Iraq instead of using some real, concrete, accurate intelligence reports????

4. Instead of bashing Clinton, how about bashing the President on how bad he has run this country into the ground since he took over.

[chomerics]

and if you care to discuss the Iraq war, I will justify it in the face of ANY CRITICISM, SO please, feel free to bring it on...

IF Billy Clinton had done the EXACT SAME THING, Libs would be lining up to say it wasn't his fault...so spare the dramatics and lets look at facts.

Has there been an attack on US soil since the iraqi/afghanistan LIBERATIONS?

How many attacks were on our soil when Clinton was in office? How many Americans died from an attack on American soil while Clinton was president? How many were killed while on Bush's watch?

ARE our BRAVE SOLDIERS who are giving their lives doing so for the benefit of American Civilian Lives and Iraqi/Afghanistan Civilian Lives? Yup.

Is there an OBVIOUS interest in the Middle Eastern Oil in these countries and other strategic purposes...YES.

Your point? I support our soldiers, I honor them and I want them to succeed.

Our PRESIDENT, Mr. Bush is responsible for this nations security and this nations prosperity.

Yep, too bad he dropped the ball more then once in protecting us. I guess vacations come before national security huh. From the outside it sure appears that way doesn't it. I mean he was on vacation when he received a briefing stating Bin Laden determined to attack the US

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

What did he do? Did he call a staff meeting? Did he cut his vacation short to discuss the matter? Nope, he went fishin'. :doh:

Hell it's Clinton's fault anyway right? At what point do you ask the question maybe Bush could have done something more then he did. Why did Bush do nothing about the Cole? Why did Bush ignore Bin Laden's threats? I mean Bush was obviously privy to the information Clinton had, how come Bush didn't do anything?

Day by day, things are getting better, whether you want to believe it or not.

Actually, I do NOT believe it. do you know why? Because all I have heard is it is just great over there. I've heard that terrorism was in its last throes, it wasn't. I heard that they knew where the WMDs were, they didn't. I heard a complete bunch of lies, and I don't believe them anymore. It is as simple as that.

Godbless our Troops!

I agree wholeheartedly that he has alot of work to do...and YES, I even agree that President Bush dropped the ball with Katrina. He should have been there lighting fires under asses from day one to make sure people were evacuated, fed, and medicated as necessary. He finally woke up a few days later and the ball is rolling. I'll focus on the positive and mourn those lost as they are gone forever...Godbless them.

I completely agree with the rest of your post.

[chomerics]

Let me get this straight, It's the REPUBLICANS fault for not getting Bin Laden during the Clinton administration as well as failing to get him during the Bush Admin....Well I'll be. Democrates must the best people to ever set foot on this planet. They don't do anything wrong do they?

No, that it not what I said. Big Z said Clinton put getting a hummer before the nations security. I replied that it was the repubs. focusing on the hummer, and not Clinton, he was focusing on Bin Laden. Do you remember the wag the dog comments?

[rictus58]

No, that it not what I said. Big Z said Clinton put getting a hummer before the nations security. I replied that it was the repubs. focusing on the hummer, and not Clinton, he was focusing on Bin Laden. Do you remember the wag the dog comments?

And what did Clinton do towards capturing Bin Laden if he was "focused" on capturing him.

To blame an administration for the attacks of Muslim extremists is beyond ridiculous. Its Western Civilization they hate. Do you think that if Al Gore was President that 9/11 wouldn't have happened...oh right..it would have...because the GOP would have been focused on trying to ruin his administration right?

[chomerics]

And what did Clinton do towards capturing Bin Laden if he was "focused" on capturing him.

Clinton did a large number of things to combat terrorism during his term. Read Clarke's book as well as the 9-11 commission report, they are both full of stuff Clinton did.

To blame an administration for the attacks of Muslim extremists is beyond ridiculous.

Again, I'm not arguing about this with you. I never saidt Bush should have been blamed, there was enough to go around. I do take offense though when people want to balme Clinton for everything, and ignore Bush, so I point out the glaring weakness in their argument.

All I have heard for 5 yeras has been yea, but Clinton. . . but Clinton did this, or Clinton did that. Well, Clinton is NOT our president, and I am tired Bush supporters blaming everything on Clinton.

I was pointing out to Big Z the absurd notion that Clinton cared more about a BJ then our security is a complete and absolute farce. If ANYTHING, it was the other way around, hence the wag the dog comment.

Again, I am not saying 9-11 WAS Bush's fault, I am just stating the obvious that people should look at their own parties actions before trying to cast blame on somebody who hasn't been president for 4 1/2 years.

[rictus58]

Clinton did a large number of things to combat terrorism during his term. Read Clarke's book as well as the 9-11 commission report, they are both full of stuff Clinton did.

Again, I'm not arguing about this with you. I never saidt Bush should have been blamed, there was enough to go around. I do take offense though when people want to balme Clinton for everything, and ignore Bush, so I point out the glaring weakness in their argument.

All I have heard for 5 yeras has been yea, but Clinton. . . but Clinton did this, or Clinton did that. Well, Clinton is NOT our president, and I am tired Bush supporters blaming everything on Clinton.

I was pointing out to Big Z the absurd notion that Clinton cared more about a BJ then our security is a complete and absolute farce. If ANYTHING, it was the other way around, hence the wag the dog comment.

Again, I am not saying 9-11 WAS Bush's fault, I am just stating the obvious that people should look at their own parties actions before trying to cast blame on somebody who hasn't been president for 4 1/2 years.

And Bush supporters are tired of everything being blames on him. What has/is happening in New Orleans isn't SOLELY Bush's fault. While he is the President, his power is NOT absolute. When things go wrong, it is the fault of both political parties in many cases.

As far as the fiscal state of the US is concerned, you appear to be intelligent enough to grasp the notion that the actions of Clintons fiscal spending has effects that last longer than his term as president did. The same will be true of GW when he exits office.

I'm not going to say GW is without fault. He has many. But a time has to come when people like you need to realize in a democratic system, you cannot lay the blame at the feet of one man. Its the Presidents fault as well as Congress' fault they way things are.

[ccsl2]

. Its the Presidents fault as well as Congress' fault they way things are.

And who controls Congress?? REPUBLICANS

[Funkyalligator]

As for all those that are trashing Clinton for his cutting the military budget.....um.....he didn't cut anything it was Congress that took care of that....and Congress is composed of members of both parties...so all the blame at Clinton should be spread all over both parties...

[BlueTalon]

Really, kind of revisioninst history Z, because if you remember it was REPUBLICANS, like yourself, who were MUCH more concerned with Clinton getting a hummer then trying to get Bin Laden.

I guess you don't remember the wag the dog comments do ya

I remember when an Air Force general was giving the briefing about launching cruise missiles at targets in the wake of the twin bombings of American embassies in Africa. The first question asked by a reporter in the Q&A was (paraphrasing), "general, have you seen the movie 'Wag the Dog', and is this situation in any way similar?" At which point the Air Force general got mad.

Please note, it was not a REPUBLICAN that asked the question, it was a reporter.

[mrdoctor]

man Clinton was such a good president.. i wish we could bring him back