http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html

carina just told me about it. i guess this is for all the republicans that cashed the clinton era checks. hah! if I would rather some one bombing someone's dress with white goo than bombing little kids running from school.

.. I vote for the kids running from school one.


wait where am I?

Clinton genocidally burned Branch Davidians at their Texas compound when it was unclear if they had broken any laws. Bush has not yet done this. Thus, Clinton is closer to Stalin than Bush.

Nah, Clinton just sat aside as 3,000,000 Rawandans were massacred.

Wallace is a pussy.

Wallace is too much of a coward to ask tough questions to the neocons

i just watched the 3 part series on youtube. i'm so sick of the bush/rove political slander campaign that's been going on for 6 years. freedom haters. evil-doers. they feed off of polarizing this country and clinton is the only one i've seen stand up and intelligently dismiss it. clinton may have made mistakes in office but he has more character than anyone in the bush administration.

clinton could have killed bin laden at least 3 times but was too much of a fucking panty waiste to do it because he was too afraid of the political fall out. He also was offered him from saudi arabia but believed that he didn't have the authority to hold him. ( even though bin laden had already attacked us troops in yemen, us embassys in africa, etc.) the guy is a fucking disgrace. That why he is pissed lately, because people are catching on to this.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/010903clinton.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1764035,00.html

what a fucking faggot pussy, but nooooooo, all the red diaper commie libs would still defend clinton's legacy and hold till their death that 9/11 was bush's fault. I wonder what exactly clinton was trying to hide when he had sandy berger (burgler) steal documents out of the national archives during the 9/11 commission?

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/remember_sandy_berger/

Clinton ordered bombs to be dropped on Iraq too. A lot of people choose not to remember that. The question then becomes what's worse, dropping bombs on a country for a war nobody wanted, or dropping bombs on a country to delay your impeachment hearings. I don't have answer for that.

The last 3-4 American presidents have been scumbags.

the_reverend said:

i used to drive a truck, and one time i was out near Watertown NY, so it was a pretty desolate stretch of road, and i saw this 18 wheeler with what looked like a ballsac hanging from the back. i pulled up close behind the guy and stared for about 10 minutes trying to figure out what it could be, and the only thing i could figure was that it was a fake nutsac. now i see that i was not crazy.

hungtableed said:

"The documents included an after-action report prepared by Richard Clarke that asssessed the Clinton administration's response to the terrorist threats accompanying the millennium celebrations.

"From our standpoint, the primary matter of concern was: Had we seen all of the documents we needed to see? The answer to that question was yes....Berger was reviewing copies of documents that the commission had already acquired.

"After his interview with commission staff, Berger went to the Archives and found documents that the commission had not yet seen that he wanted us to see. In February, Bruce Lindsey complained that the White House had failed to give the commission the full 10,080 pages of Clinton documents that the Archives had assembled in response to our document requests. Apparently, the White House had taken a narrower view than the Archives of what was responsive to our requests."

(all from Without Precedent The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission which was co-authored by the co-chair's of the Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton (Republican and Democrat respectively). Hell, I'll give you the page numbers. 183-4, also look at 297.

First of all, when you go and substantiate a claim that Berger was acting on behalf of Clinton with some random blog on the internet you: a) sound like a lot of the liberal conspiracy theorists people waste so much energy on hating and b) don't actually substantiate anything.

Judging by your link the only thing that suggests that it was Clinton's bidding is this crap: ""Honest mistake" my white ass. Berger is taking one for the Clinton team. Those documents pointed to something big. Big enough to convince a former cabinet member that jail time and a heavy fine is an acceptable price to pay for making it all go away."

So...because she thinks that...it's true. Oh, ok then. She sounds she hasn't done her research. It's obvious because she's talking about the documents Berger removed like they're mysterious...THEY'RE NOT. The documents in question have been declassified. This was a non-issue until months after the incident it went public. Then each party's go-to pot stirrer got on their soapbox and said ignorant shit and made it into a faux consipiracy.

He didn't hide anything. It's proven that the commission saw everything Berger saw months before he removed the documents.


I love how people are trying to figure out who did a shittier job not getting a job done. What exactly is going to come from any conclusion (which we'll never have)? We'll have that one person to blame? Christ, people. They both fucked up, blame them both. Then do your research and realize that you can blame about another 100,000 people on top of them.

I don't know, whatever.

Look at the total number of people killed under Bush's war policies (hundreds of thousands) compared to Clinton. To say Clinton was responsible for standing by while Rwanda happened is no different than Bush now standing by while Darfur happens; they are more the result of inaction, not action. Objectively speaking, in terms of the number deaths caused by intentional actions, Bush's war policies are worse than anything we have seen in thirty years, and Clinton is perhaps our greatest modern president, rivaled only by Kennedy.

Although everyone should have taken terrorism more seriously before 2001, it was no more a problem for one party than another; both share the blame. G.W. Bush however, does deserve A LOT of blame, which is why the Rove political machine has done everything since 9/11 to try to deflect the blame to Clinton, including the recent conservative-made movie aired on ABC full of blatant lies about 9/11 in order to implicate the Clinton administration.

Bottom line: Clinton declared war against Bin Laden in the late 90's and committed resources to fighting terrorism, it's a matter of official record, so I don't know why anyone falls for the propoganda that says that Clinton was unwilling to pursue him. Bush on the other hand, dedicated far less time and resources to Bin Laden or terrorism in general, and that is also a matter of official record. When Richard Clarke (counterterrorism chief under George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush) tried to bring things to their attention, they weren't interested, even when he specifically mentioned Al Qaeda plans to fly planes into buildings. This included a memo over a month before 9/11 that said "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States", in response to which the Bush administration did NOTHING.

Now imagine what would happen to Clinton if he had done that. Can you imagine if Clinton had come into office, spent far less time on terrorism than the previous administration, spent 42% of his time pre-9/11 on vacation, and ignored a memo over a month before 9/11 telling us that Bin Laden planned to attack us with airplanes? He would have his HEAD ON A PIKE, the guy would be getting SO MUCH SHIT right now, and you know what? He would deserve it, and I would be right there giving him shit along with everyone else, because this isn't an issue of politics, it's an issue of competence. We all have to put that ahead of left vs. right bullshit when it comes to our security.

hmmmmmm the documentation of the documents were very well mmmmmm.....documented.

word.

Definitely, good job deconstructing that propaganda about Sandy Berger. The neo-con strategy is to constantly put across conjecture as fact, and too many people fall for it.

Nixon was our best modern day president. Jesus, get something right!

What's really funny is that, as many journalists and conservatives have pointed out, Nixon would have been considered too liberal a candidate for today's Republican party. The Republican party used to mean something completely different; there was political diversity, there were moderates, and they had many prominent leaders in the Northeast and other current "blue" states. Being Republican didn't mean you were necessarily conservative, and it certainly didn't mean you backed reactionary neo-con policies.

Today, the Republican party, in terms of thought, politics, and polity, is something completely different. It consists merely of neo-conservative think tanks of the rich and entitled (none of whose families will ever see military service) that change foreign and domestic policy with the sole purpose of benefitting big business, and whoever they can trick into following their propoganda. Most of the people they trick are religious fundamentalists, who are vulnerable due to their zealotry, but after enough endless propoganda, many other more well-adjusted and well-read people slowly began to sympathize with and defend their positions, and that's what we've seen over the last five years. Sadly enough, it is a mirror image of what we see in the Middle East with the terrorist movement: a minority of rich and entitled idealogues who want to change policy (Bin Laden/Zawahiri/etc.), and whoever they can trick into following their propoganda. Most of the people they trick are religious fundamentalists, who are vulnerable due their zealotry, but after enough endless propoganda, many other more well-adjusted and well-read people slowly begin to sympathize with and defend their positions, and that's what we've seen over the last five years.

Clinton was also a racist. In his 138 documented affairs and coercion sex encounters, he only had one Jewish girl and no black, Mexican, Asian or mentally-disabled lovers.

What about Paula Jones? She seemed mentally disabled to me.

First off: I don't see how anyone can stick up for Burglar because he admitted to not only sneaking the documents out by stuffing them in his socks and boxer shorts, he also admitted to destroying the ones he didn't return.

Secondly, people can piss and moan about bush's lack of action before 9/11 - but, how does his 8 months of holding office and not acting even remotely compare to clinton's 8 years of non action? Clinton was terrorism stance was softer than a faggot’s dick at a whore house.

I love how everyone gets their panties all in a fucking knot when you knock on their beloved clinton - because they, like he, convinces themselves that the lies constructed to protect his legacy are in fact true.

Clinton was an open-minded bisexual.

PatMeebles said:


Big fuckin deal ! We do more than just sit aside as Israel fuckin slaughters all non jews around her. WE PAY FOR IT. In tax dollars and american blood. Fuck Rawanda ! and FUCK ISRAEL ! I was never a big fan of Clinton ,but he's right on this one.

I never inhaled.

ah, the long shameful legacy of Bill Clinton. Giving away vital long range missle technology to Red China, shamefully inviting terrorist Yasser Arafat to the white house (pause for the cheering from all the Nazi's), appointing ACLU radical Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the supreme court, bombing civilians in Kosovo, turning a cheek when Al Qeada bombed, the WTC in 93, The USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the embassies in too many countries to list. Fleeing from Somolia. Those were the good years, never a dull moment when Clinton was president.

Politicians are the lowest.

I say this everytime someone points to the 93 attack as a shining example of Clinton's failure at fighting terrorism.

"You know who really thinks Clinton did a shitty job responding to the first WTC attack? Ramzi Yousef. Go have a spirited exchange with him about how shitty Clinton was at fighting terrorism. I'll even give you his mailing address.

USP FLORENCE ADMAX
U.S. PENITENTIARY
PO BOX 8500
FLORENCE, CO 81226

You'd better hurry he's only got consecutive life sentences to serve."

So we caught the bomber. For one, I don't think Clinton had to anything with the investigation, so he hardly deserves credit. Secondly, thats like a terrorist capturing one U.S soldier out of hundreds of thousands and claiming total victory for his cause.

You could also ask Ahmed Ressam, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, Eyad Ismail, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, and Wadih el-Hage. And conveniently enough, most of those dudes have the same address as our friend Ramzi.

yea but how about Mohammed Atta, Khalid Almihdhar,Majed Moqed,Nawaf Alhazmi,Salem Alhazmi,Hani Hanjour, Satam M.A. Al Suqami,Waleed M. Alshehri,Wail M. Alshehri,Abdulaziz Alomari,Marwan Al-Shehhi,Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad,Ahmed Alghamdi,Hamza Alghamdi,Mohand Alshehri,Saeed Alghamdi,Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi,Ahmed Alnami,Ziad Samir Jarrah? they clearly didn't fear Clintons wrath as they all entered the country for their mission during Clintons time in office.

Allah That said:

I never exhaled.

Killer weed dude,thanks.

hungtableed said:

Well that should be easily answered with one of you guys' own favorite talking points when trying to defend Bush: "We haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11." Well, remember the first WTC attack, which happened WEEKS into Clinton's Presidency (keeping in mind presidents don't set up their administration until the first 100 days; Bush had about 250 days in office by 9/11). Anyway, after the first WTC attack in 1993 under Clinton, we weren't attacked on American soil for over EIGHT years, and for the duration of Clinton's presidency.

Neo-conservatives don't want to admit that, yet they brag about every single day that we're not attacked on American soil under Bush. I dare anyone to explain this total contradiction in logic to me.


hungtableed said:

Clinton's legacy is not just about political debate, it is how the eight years in office affected the population he governed in comparison to other presidents.

Instead of us engaging in unending hypothetical arguments that can never be proven one way or the other, like would we have been attacked on 9/11 if someone else was President, we can instead look at objective factors like the economic record, how much time our country spent at war, how many soldiers we lost, how many people in other countries we killed, and his approval ratings over time. I hated Clinton when he ran in 1992, he was my least favorite of all three candidates at the time (and this is against Bush's father and Ross Perot). It was immediate, I just had a bad vibe about Clinton from the start, thought he was a smooth talking sleazeball, and I always have. But looking at the record objectively considering the factors I listed above, one can certainly argue that Clinton is our greatest modern President, and perhaps one of our greatest ever.

(And really, who knows how many of our great presidents were sleazeballs in their personal lives before the age of mass media? If true, it wouldn't make them lesser presidents, even though it might make them lesser men. There is a difference.)

Bush smoked too much dope. His ex-coke dealer was found dead.

ShadowSD said:



half the crap you accused me of, I never said - esp. about 'not getting hit since 9/11' - either way, Clinton failed getting bin laden because he was a panty wearing red commie liberal and did not have the testicular fortitude to bag him because he is far more concerned with his legacy and what people think of him. Bush, on the other hand, at least has the balls to use men in uniform to kill these bastards when the only action Clinton really took in regards to the military was cut their pay and veterans benefits.

Well everyone can always defend clinton for what he did wrong? What exactly did he do that made him "the best modern president"

hungtableed said:

I only used the word you in the first sentence and just once, when I said "you guys' favorite talking points", using the term you guys broadly as people who defend neocon positions. I didn't mean it was anything you had said personally, sorry if it sounded like that; maybe I should have worded it differently.


hungtableed said:

Well, you haven't answered any of the points I just made that completely condradict that, so I'm not going to repeat them. But certainly, if no one here can give a reasonable answer to any of the points I've made, they clearly hold up.

Ultimately though, everyone who is defending Bush here needs to read the 9/11 commission report, written by both Republicans and Democrats, and see whose point of view it backs up.

americaninfidel526 said:

I called him a sleazeball, and he is. I don't defend that, nor should anyone.


americaninfidel526 said:

I listed five factors that are good ways to objectively measure how good any president is, regardless of your politics: the economic record, how much time we spent at war, how many US soldiers were killed, how many people we killed, and his approval ratings over time. Compare those factors against other presidents, averaged by the number of years in office, and the figures are clear. With the exception of perhaps Kennedy (who is ahead on the war questions, but only because he died before Vietnam started to escalate), Clinton is our best president since at least the thirties. Look at the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

ShadowSD said:

Not this crap number again.

ShadowSD said:

Actually, no. Clinton agreed with the UN and held restraint. Bush has been pushing for a peacekeeping force inside the Sudan, but the UN doesn't want to for fear of offending Muslims.

ShadowSD said:

The main source for that movie was Richard Clarke. Did you even watch the rest of the movie to see if Bush was portrayed in a good light?

ShadowSD said:

Gee, maybe it was the multiple times that foreign countries tried to hand him over and he refused that clued people in.

ShadowSD said:

Man, I haven't heard that talking point in a while. That number included weekends at Camp David (not vacationing), and hosting foreign leaders in Crawford (also not vacationing). For pictures of his "vacationing," go to this link

http://lawroark.blog-city.com/the_michael_moore_watch.htm

Plus, you guys forget, it wasn't like Clinton called all the shots. Newt Gingrich hauled Clinton, kicking and screaming, onto a free market economy. And to say that the economy isn't good now can only be the result of total brainwashing.

ShadowSD said:

Of course, Joe Leiberman getting kicked out of the Democrats has no effect on this statement whatsoever. Nope. not at all.

And, you forget how many differing opinions there are when it comes illegal immigration, spending, etc. Republicans go from Lincoln Chaffee to Tom Coburn. Democrats go from Tom Harkin to Zell Mil... oh wait, Democrats hate him, too. Gee, it's almost like Republicans actually have a better grasp on "big tent" politics than Democrats do. Your whole post is moot.

Ah my old advesary, I salute you...


PatMeebles said:

WHATEVER number you accept have been killed as a result of Bush's actions is still vastly greater than the number killed by Clinton's actions. So you've done nothing to counter the actual point being made there.


PatMeebles said:

If Bush really wanted to put troops in the Sudan, he wouldn't have put all our troops in Iraq; most UN peacekeeping forces are to a large extent American, and if we can't contribute any troops because we're stretched to the limit as it is, then we're telling them to do something we won't do ourselves or even help them with. Also, if Bush really wanted results from the UN, he wouldn't have such a hostile attitude towards them, sending in a controversial combative figure like John Bolton, and making one of the neo-con talking points in the lead up to the war that the UN is irrelevant and should be ignored (if not outright disbanded). When that's your angle, it's hard to trun around and ask the UN to send a major peacekeeping force you don't plan on contributing many troops to.



PatMeebles said:

No, the main source was a Republican who spearheaded the whole project, I need to look up the name because I don't remember it off the top of my head, but Clarke spend years after 9/11 speaking on television and writing books that clearly blamed Bush for not trying as hard as Clinton.

But all that aside, there's a clear bias in the movie. Three reasons why:

1. The movie was advertised as being based on the 9/11 commission report.

2. The movie glaringly contradicted the 9/11 commission report.

3. The movie only contradicted the 9/11 report in ways that presented the Clinton administration in a negative light, and suggested they were less proactive against terrorism that the commission's report says they were.


At the end of the day, if those three things are true, you have to admit the movie is biased with a pro-Bush/anti-Clinton slant, regardless of whether the rest of the movie also criticizes Bush for stuff the 9/11 report says he should be criticized for.



PatMeebles said:

If I am to believe that, what's the theory behind why he did it?



PatMeebles said:

Let's say it's not 42% then, for the sake of debate. Certainly he spent more time vacationing than other presidents, even conservatives don't try disputing that.

And even if you take vacationing out of the equation, my point there still stands. Had Clinton reduced our time and resources on terrorism from the previous administration, and eight months later we were attacked by a method already anticipated by the very counterterrorism experts being ignored after that reduction, let alone over a month after the "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" memo came across his desk, Clinton would be BURNED ALIVE politically. And that's not even including if his administration blocked every effort to make a 9/11 commission after the fact.

the_reverend said:

Gosh, I'm sick of all these political threads. They keep wrecking the board.

PatMeebles said:

You'll have to explain this one further, I'm not sure I see your point. And was Lieberman kicked out of the Democratic party in the last few days when I haven't been on top of the news? Last I heard, he still is a member of the party, still holds his committee positions, and if he wins as an independent, will still be welcome as a Democrat (whether he chooses to accept that or not). Personally, I think he should be kicked out for ignoring his own party's primary. Right now, with Republican Schlesinger taking 4% of the vote, Lamont is essentially taking on Lieberman for the second time in a two man race. Lamont has to win twice to get the seat, and only has to lose once to be out of it for good, while Lieberman only has to win once, and can afford to lose the first time. There's something very anti-democracy about that.


PatMeebles said:

I don't dispute that there are differing opinions at the lower levels. My point is the RNC leadership, which guides the political message and policy in lockstep, will never let any of those opinions have any impact. As long as we have their candidate as President, spending will not be reduced, and the Republican party already put the final nail in the fiscal responsibility reputation they had for so long by re-electing Bush after he's been the most fiscally irresponisble leader in the history of the world.

Immigration is the best example that the lack of Republican diversity exists where the real decisions are made, because immigration is an issue that most conservative voters at the grassroots disagree with big business. Guess who wins? Big business, the rich and elite, who the Republican leadership belongs to. Now, why do pro-border patrol voters continue to follow the kind of party leadership who will NEVER enforce the border? As I said earlier, it's for the same reason Republican voters outside of the rich and elite are voting against their own economic self-interest all the time: propaganda.



PatMeebles said:

As I've pointed out, the Republican diversity is not reflected at the top of the chain, where all the real decisions are made, and thus the views of most Republican voters are not being echoed in policy, even with a Republican President and Congress. Looking at the top of the Democratic chain though in the last several years, one could point out a similar problem; Gore/Lieberman and Kerry all ran as neutered centrists that didn't represent the interests of most their own voters either. Only now, with Democratic voters' rejection of Lieberman, can one suggest that the Democratic voters are actually being represented, the first step towards presenting an actual alternative to a Republican party of candidates that itself continues to polarize, to the point where the last moderates like Lincoln Chafee are on the verge of extinction this year.

hungtableed said:

Wasn't "sticking up" for Berger's actions. I was stating facts about the situation. A connection between Berger's actions and Clinton is pure conjecture and ultimately, whatever he was trying to hide obviously wasn't significant enough considering that the 9/11 Commission saw all of the documents Berger saw and the report didn't make Clinton's administration any more or less to blame than Bush's. The report displayed both long-running and short-running flaws. Equally to blame. Let's not play this argue for our party b.s.

George Washington would have bitch slapped Bush or Clinton

"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America." - George Washington

Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.

He would have bitch slapped alot more than Bush and Clinton...

todd, please post the who gives a fuck cherry pretty please.

I'm glad we're posting progressive, anti-racist, enlightened leftist propaganda and drowning out the regressive, racist, ignorant rightist propoganda.

ShadowSD said:

Except for the fact that all Bush did was follow through on the Clintonian policy of regime change in Iraq. And besides, this is like saying "well, Chamberlain's policies were better because not as many people died under him than under Churchill."

Shadow SD said:

We've been pushing for the African Union to take control of the region, not just an average UN force.

ShadowSD said:

No, that's the guy who wrote the script. If you watch the movie, both administrations get the blame, while Richard Clarke looks like the messiah.

ShadowSD said:

It's a DocuDRAMA. It can make up scenes, as long as it adheres to the general history that it's relating to, which is that Clinton, when handed Bin Laden on a silver platter multiple times, refused.

ShadowSD said:

That statement contradicts itself. If it criticizes Bush for what he did wrong, then it's not being Pro-Bush.

ShadowSD said:

What conservatives do you talk to? Do you even think that Bush is ever REALLY on vacation?

ShadowSD said:

Well, it's not like anyone can stop the guy from registering as one.

Anti-Racism said:

I'd go back further than 3-4..but yeah...pretty much. Clinton was definately a scumbag, but they impeached him for bullshit, he should've been impeached for Waco, or Kosavo, the first attack on the world trade center, or any other number of similar things. That said, the current administration is far worse and I'm glad he told them to fuck off. Bush was in office when 9/11 happened, Bush ignored the memos warning of an attack, and Bush sat in a classroom with a book he probably couldn't even read and his thumb up his ass for over 5 minutes after he was told about the attacks, and he blocked the 9/11 commision from getting documents.

This was just on the news five minutes ago about the memo the Bush administration received over a month before 9/11: "The August presidential daily brief, warning the President that there was the possibility of Bin Laden attacking, was specifically written by George Tenet's people at the CIA to try to get the President's attention. He was at his ranch, and they were trying to again alert him to the fact that Bin Laden was a threat. They had been warning, and as the 9/11 commission testimony indicated, George Tenet's 'hair was on fire' over this issue - so they didn't do anything, but they were trying to get the President's attention, they said, and it was too late." Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Washington Correspondent, 9/27/06 at 11:25 am on MSNBC

Any President who's that out of it, whether Bush or Clinton, Republican or Democrat, deserves all of our disdain. Competence is not a left or right issue, it's a requirement we should all demand in our leadership; otherwise, national security becomes nothing but a catchphrase.

~

HailTheLeaf said:

Clinton was an anti-Slav racist who attacked Kosovo to make himself look better, but Bush is a white supremacist male supremacist homophobe Christian who wants us all to die in his anti-Muslim crusade. Luckily, however, he is very far from being anti-Semitic and I'm thankful for that, yes.

Anti-Racism said:

"very far from being anti-semitic" is a goddamned understatemant. Hes more loyal to the jews than he is to his own and you know it.