Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Leave me alone, I'm on a roll tonight!After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today. AN INTERESTING QUESTION: This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why is it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 His legacy you ask...... http://www.womenatplay.com/imagefile/billyboy.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge Leave me alone, I'm on a roll tonight!After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today. AN INTERESTING QUESTION: This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without casting stones, it is a legitimate question. There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why is it that the Clinton Administration spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past eight years than Osama bin Laden? Well, given that GWB knew full well about Al Queda, and that strong warnings from intelligence agencies were misrouted/ignored under his watch prior to 9/11, I'd say he didn't do much better. Not to mention the fact that Osama, Saddam and their top henchmen are still on the prowl. Or that WMD's have yet to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 They did put some people in jail for the first WTC bombing. Clinton treated that as a criminal case and not as a terrorist case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Author Share Posted May 10, 2003 Well, given that GWB knew full well about Al Queda, and that strong warnings from intelligence agencies were misrouted/ignored under his watch prior to 9/11, I'd say he didn't do much better. Unfortunately, change takes time. Change from a leadership that took national security as a joke and impressed that mentality on our security and intelligence apparatus. Recovering from severe budget cuts takes time, as well. clinton had EIGHT years to be on top of this, and just plain BLEW it. One of his greatest errors (aside from not accepting the gift wrapped bin laden) was not being more involved with the remnants of the Soviet Union. We had a chance to guide them and not allow them to become the WMD black marketeers for the world, which is where the proverbial genie came from. And he blew that as well. In fact, about the only thing he didn't blow was himself, but he had help with that, and probably while he should have been more occupied with national security. What a record to be proud of. Meanwhile, back at the White House, we have kicked the hell out of the taliban and chased them to the hills or killed them outright, taken out hussain and his barbarian cronies. A lot more than firing a few cruise missles, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 1. Under this President the U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country) and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq. Answer: Who was President Ronald Reagan? DING! Correct! 2. This President signed the National Security Decision Directive which authorized aid to Osama Bin Laden and the mujahideen in the form of arms (65,000 tons annually) and military training. Answer: Who was President Ronald Reagan? DING! Correct! How convenient for you Air Sarge to start and stop history with Clinton's Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Author Share Posted May 10, 2003 How convenient for you Air Sarge to start and stop history with Clinton's Presidency. Iraq was a counter to Iran at the time. The lesser of two evils, if you will. They filled a purpose. So you've had the same friends all of your life, eh? Never gotten pissed at any of them, huh? Let's see, who was fighting the Soviets in Afganistan at the time? Bingo. The Mujahadeen. Better them than us being in there, wouldn't you agree? You do know that before WWII, we were friends with Japan, right? In fact, we supplied them with large quatities of oil and scrap iron. Probably some of that same scrap iron went into building the aircraft carriers that took those planes to Pearl Harbor. Gonna blame Rosevelt for that? I never said every other president was as pure as the wind driven snow, but clinton was, in my opinion, downright criminal in his neglect of our national security apparatus. All talk for the polls/media, no action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 "Unfortunately, change takes time. Change from a leadership that took national security as a joke and impressed that mentality on our security and intelligence apparatus." Air Sarge If this is true and it probably is, then you have to lay the bombing of the World Trade Center on the Intelligence morale and preperation of Bush. 1993 was only a year into his presidency, certainly the intelligence and mechanisms built in were Reagan/Bush at that point. I'll say that 1995 and on probably can be fairly laid at his feet, but '93 is at least the joint responsibility of whoever was caretaking the government before then. Let's say that Clinton and Bush shared responsibility. Just as you can say Clinton Bush shared responsibility (or at least their intelligence community did) for disregarding or underresponding to the September 11th attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Author Share Posted May 10, 2003 If this is true and it probably is, then you have to lay the bombing of the World Trade Center on the Intelligence morale and preperation of Bush. 1993 was only a year into his presidency, certainly the intelligence and mechanisms built in were Reagan/Bush at that point. I'll say that 1995 and on probably can be fairly laid at his feet, but '93 is at least the joint responsibility of whoever was caretaking the government before then. Let's say that Clinton and Bush shared responsibility. Just as you can say Clinton Bush shared responsibility (or at least their intelligence community did) for disregarding or underresponding to the September 11th attack No doubt planning was taking place on 41's watch. Thing is, check the clinton budget cuts for both the intelligence and military sectors during his first four years, not to mention his second. The intelligence apparatus President Reagan left was the one that helped win the Cold War. It and the military were both downsized some on 41's watch, but the first Bush had a famous quote in a speech to Congress, " This far and no more". Being former CIA, he knew what we could get by with. It's hard to maintain current expected operations when your personnel are cut in half, or when you are hamstrung by stupid directives about the type of people you can recruit, or by the stupid directive of doing most of our intelligence gathering by satellite instead of HUMIT. Trust me, clinton was no friend to either the military or intelligence communities, and he did this country no service by letting both of these apparatus sink to the levels that he did. We are still not recovered in the military from the cuts he made during his tenure, and probably won't be until after W's second term is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 where did that come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 maybe the budget cuts that clinton made were refusing to pay $1000 for toilet seats and what-not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Author Share Posted May 10, 2003 maybe the budget cuts that clinton made were refusing to pay $1000 for toilet seats and what-not. No, I'm pretty sure that it stemmed from the liberal thinking that military operations and intelligence gathering are somehow "bad" things. If he could have gotten away with it, I believe he would have eliminated both altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 so all liberals are against military use and intelligence gathering... sound like a bunch of commie operatives to me... just trying to set the US up for the big take-over... who are they working with? China? Vietnam? Cuba.....:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Author Share Posted May 10, 2003 Funny you should mention China, one of the biggest contributors to the DNC during clintons time. Or you could just consider it payback for all the nuke tech they were allowed to "borrow" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 call me a commie, call me a dem, i am neither, but i think that china will prove to be our greatest ally in the coming years. they are slowly moving towards a more democratic environment and realize that with the US we could dominate world policy. the two super-powers on opposite ends of the world. they are too large to ignore, money and might, and we would be best served finding ways to strenghten our relationship. unfortunately there is the whole Taiwan issue... one neither side is willing to budge on. maybe clinton sees the world differently. instead of trying to destroy all those not like us we could work to build a better tomorrow?... does that sound like some liberal spew or what.... a kinder, peaceful world... bush, peace, an oxymoron? they obviously have different agendas and different contributors. which i am in favor: neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Originally posted by Phat Hog His legacy you ask...... http://www.womenatplay.com/imagefile/billyboy.gif that's funny as $hit!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 I'm a third of the way through retired USAF Lt. Colonel Robert Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty". I don't know if anyone here has read it or not, but so far Air Sarge seems to be hitting the nail on the head. The book seems to give verifiable information that if untrue, would be an open door to lawsuits. To my knowledge, there are none pending. Since both Clintons are lawyers, as were many mentioned so far in the book, one would certainly have to believe that Patterson's assertions are true. To me, Clinton was like a dog humping your leg. If he was your dog, you thought it was cute. If he wasn't your dog, you kicked the SOB. He weren't my dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Originally posted by RiggoDrill Well, given that GWB knew full well about Al Queda, and that strong warnings from intelligence agencies were misrouted/ignored under his watch prior to 9/11, I'd say he didn't do much better. you gotta be kidding?? President Bush was only in office 8 1/2 months conpared to Clinton's 8 years.:jerkoff: :jerkoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Author Share Posted May 10, 2003 call me a commie, call me a dem, i am neither, but i think that china will prove to be our greatest ally in the coming years. they are slowly moving towards a more democratic environment and realize that with the US we could dominate world policy. the two super-powers on opposite ends of the world. I won't call you anything but ignorant of the facts. China has global aspirations. They are building their military up at an alarming rate. They are active and very good at obtaining and reverse engineering technology that they stole. Ten years ago, they could barely launch a firecracker more than a mile in the air. Thanks to clinton and the export laws he changed, they obtained rocket tech that brought them from the 50's to the 90's. Then they just plain stole all of our nuke secrets due to extra lax security at nuke facilities. With me so far. Now, with rockets and MERV (multiple re-entry vehicle, meaning they can load more than one nuke per rocket) that are suddenly capable of reaching the US and nukes to put on top of them, how safe do you feel? That, combined with Chicom philosophy, is a dangerous thing. I don't mind trading with them, but trust me, when push comes to shove, and it will over Tawain, it will be an ugly thing.What we should be doing is buying our rubber dog sh!t from anywhere but china. Ironically, our dollars are fueling their military buildup, even as we speak. And when (note I said when and not if) they manage to get a rocket to US shores, we will only have clinton and his lax a$$ed attitude toward national security to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Originally posted by stratoman you gotta be kidding?? President Bush was only in office 8 1/2 months conpared to Clinton's 8 years.:jerkoff: :jerkoff: No, and that's a pathetic excuse. Had Bush tried to make any headway and failed due to problems stemming from the previous administration then you'd have a point. But in fact the outgoing Clinton administration tried repeatedly to stress their rising concern about terrorism to Bush's people. It was described to them as the #1 foreign policy concern at that time. The Bushies had very little interest. That doesn't let Clinton off the hook. But hindsight puts them both in the same poor light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Originally posted by JimboDaMan No, and that's a pathetic excuse. Had Bush tried to make any headway and failed due to problems stemming from the previous administration then you'd have a point. But in fact the outgoing Clinton administration tried repeatedly to stress their rising concern about terrorism to Bush's people. It was described to them as the #1 foreign policy concern at that time. The Bushies had very little interest. That doesn't let Clinton off the hook. But hindsight puts them both in the same poor light. 8 years is not the same as 8 1/2 months..due the math.:puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROSTY28 Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Relax. I mean, the guy's not president anymore. When he was prez, I don't remember the dems going out of there way to bash 41 all the time. Then again, maybe all this Clinton bashing is based on fear -- his supporters would argue that is true legacy was turning around the economy, something they'll definitely harp on come 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Author Share Posted May 10, 2003 I don't remember Bush 41 Getting hummers in the White House Perjuring himself in testimony Saying, "I did not have sex with that woman......" Relaxing export controls and transferring sensitive tech control from the military to the commerce department And on And on And on When he was prez, I don't remember the dems going out of there way to bash 41 all the time. Then again, 41 had the decency to follow unspoken presidental protocol and keep his mouth shut about foreign policy and presidential policy in general, instead of going overseas and undermining the current administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 10, 2003 Author Share Posted May 10, 2003 But in fact the outgoing Clinton administration tried repeatedly to stress their rising concern about terrorism to Bush's people. A link please. From something other than the New York or LA Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 Sarge, I'll poke around, but I ain't paying money to dig it out of archives. In your line of work you might have been pretty busy back then but there was quite a bit in the newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.