Remember the good old days?

  • News
  • Thread starter Zero
  • Start date
  • #36
kat
39
0
Originally posted by Zero
Let's take this one...I don't defend Clinton on your first point, and your last one is right-wing spin, not worth bothering with. If a president spends 7 years fighting terrorism sucessfully, as Clinton did, and comes to the conclusion that radical measures need to be taken, what should he do? Obviously he should act on those radical plans...except in this instance. The planning for the next phase in the war on terror, the creation of a 'Homeland Security Agency' and other actions, was done in the last months of teh Clinton administration. Rather than hand Bush a war in progress, he turned the plan over to Bush, with the hopes that HE would act on it, with his own ideas and staff involved. Instead, Bush went on vacation.
Neither president did more then "planning" on homeland security prior to 9-11 because, quite frankly, neither of them had enough public support to be able to do more then "plan" such a controversial dept. until after Americans got the UNOWHAT scared out of them. Silly to even argue that point. As for fighting terrorism, isn't the CIA, and wasn't the head of (then and now) the CIA a clinton apointee? With the failures of cia under clinton against terrorist during his term, why the heck would Bush retain the same leadership?
 
  • #37
russ_watters
Mentor
22,055
9,152
Originally posted by Zero
If a president spends 7 years fighting terrorism sucessfully, as Clinton did...
The Vietnam War was a war where we won virtually every battle, but the media spun everything as a loss. I guess Clinton's term is the corrolary: a success despite being hit numerous times by terrorists.
Rather than hand Bush a war in progress, he turned the plan over to Bush, with the hopes that HE would act on it, with his own ideas and staff involved. Instead, Bush went on vacation.
The first WTC bombing was in 1993. Are you saying it took Clinton FIVE YEARS to decide something needed to be done about it (accepting for now that Clinton DID finally decide something should be done - which I'm not convinced of)? And when he made his decision, it STILL wasn't important enough to do himself? Thats pathetic. Thats weak. Thats dereliction of duty.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Originally posted by kat
Neither president did more then "planning" on homeland security prior to 9-11 because, quite frankly, neither of them had enough public support to be able to do more then "plan" such a controversial dept. until after Americans got the UNOWHAT scared out of them. Silly to even argue that point. As for fighting terrorism, isn't the CIA, and wasn't the head of (then and now) the CIA a clinton apointee? With the failures of cia under clinton against terrorist during his term, why the heck would Bush retain the same leadership?

What failures under Clinton are you talking about?
 
  • #39
Originally posted by russ_watters
The Vietnam War was a war where we won virtually every battle, but the media spun everything as a loss. I guess Clinton's term is the corrolary: a success despite being hit numerous times by terrorists. The first WTC bombing was in 1993. Are you saying it took Clinton FIVE YEARS to decide something needed to be done about it (accepting for now that Clinton DID finally decide something should be done - which I'm not convinced of)? And when he made his decision, it STILL wasn't important enough to do himself? Thats pathetic. Thats weak. Thats dereliction of duty.

This is nonsense...as you are smart enough to know. How many times did Islamic terrorists hit America after 1993? I am NOT saying it was 5 years until Clinton did something, which you also know.

Nice...you lie about what I said, and then use name-calling at the end.

So, when did you find our little website, Mr. Hannity?(I'm teasing!)

(Just a BTW, before I move on...somehow, some people blame both the 1993 AND 2001 attacks on Clinton, which just shows that some people are complete idiots.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Let's talk about more good times under Clinton, shall we? Health care for children went up, crime went down, poverty went down, millions of jobs were created, we had the world community acting with us...what wonderful times!

And, if taxes went up at all, it was only for teh richest, who still avoided paying taxes on most of their income, and it was necessary to get us out from under the 'fiscally conservative'-created deficit. (BTW, the highest tax hike in American history was under Reagan)
 
  • #41
russ_watters
Mentor
22,055
9,152
Originally posted by Zero
This is nonsense...as you are smart enough to know. How many times did Islamic terrorists hit America after 1993?
FOUR times (during Clinton's term). Embassies, military bases, and ships are soverieign US territory.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by russ_watters
FOUR times (during Clinton's term). Embassies, military bases, and ships are soverieign US territory.
Ok, enough about this...my poiint was never to say how perfect Clinton was...but weren't the 90s great, compared to the 80s, and compared to now?

Yes, they were.
 

Suggested for: Remember the good old days?

Replies
1
Views
146
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
349
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
663
  • Last Post
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
483
  • Last Post
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
333
Replies
7
Views
426
Top