It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton Administration mess

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
This just crossed my mind,

Now just think about this for a minute.

President Clinton, during his terms in office the Twin Towers were bombed by Muslum Crazies, and he failed to act on the opportunity to take out OBL in Sudan.

Now the Towers are gone and we are at war fighting these Muslum radicals in Afganistan and Iraq, and possibly Iran and Syria all because a mad man was not arrested or killed.

During President Clintons 2 terms, the Chinese were trying to launch a manned space flight.

The Chinese rockets kept crashing and they were having a hard time getting their rockets to fly straight because of gyro and stabilization problems.

So the Clinton administration in an act of good will helped the Chinese with their space program, and China placed a man in space.

Now with the Chinese advances in rocketry they have taken this knowledge and used it in military missiles for nuclear weapons.

Just today a Chinese General said they will use nuclear weapons against the US in response to defense of Tawain?

Where did the Chinese get this technology to fire nuclear missiles and have them hit the target.

The Clinton Administration.

Just think, the U.S military could be fighting a second war brought on by the liberal thinking of the Clinton Administration.

And everyone calls President Bush the fool, he is just cleaning up the mess left behind from the Clintons.




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Wow, just what we need, another Rep or Dem trashing thread. It adds so much to ATS.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
watch those one line posts.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Yeah, just a trashing thread.

SIRR1, if you go back far enough, I'm sure you can blame this mess on a number of different people according to their contributions to it.

Can you maybe see past the partisanism to how this mess today has been accumulative? Blaming things only Clinton does not make Bush any less of a horrible president.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Well, I guess this won't be well recieved.

We can have hundreds of "Evil Bush that Nazi 9/11 Planner Who Started A War For Oil And Secretly Is Responsible For Everything" threads but looking at Clinton's record is wrong.

"I NEVER had sexual relations with that woman."



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
People that hide behind party loyalty make me sick. I wouldn't say it's unreasonable that Bush may have had to clean up some of Clinton's mess. But I also don't think it's reasonable to say Bush has done a great job of doing it. Gas prices are through the roof, the economy is bad, we are fighting a war we can't win, we're losing liberties and don't even have a right to our own property anymore, all that happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. If you can't do good on the domestic side or the foreign then you also can't be called a good President. I'm right, you're wrong that's just the way it is.



[edit on 15-7-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Wow, just what we need, another Rep or Dem trashing thread. It adds so much to ATS.


No, this is an attack on Bill Clinton, and his points are valid. The easy route here is to call this partasin and go back to the Bush bashing threads. Why not, instead of just dismissing this as partisan, you address his points? From the tone I read your comment as, you believe the statements are unfounded and are ment to stir up controversy, nothing more. Show us why. If it's a thrashing thread, cut Sirr1's legs from under him and explain exactly why his points are invalid right wing spin.

Crakeur: That was hilarious, I gaffawed when I read that



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
You know, I think I'm going to have to write this post's URL down. This is starting to be a really comical imitation of how I percieve Washington.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SIRR1
President Clinton, during his terms in office the Twin Towers were bombed by Muslum Crazies, and he failed to act on the opportunity to take out OBL in Sudan.

Now the Towers are gone and we are at war fighting these Muslum radicals in Afganistan and Iraq, and possibly Iran and Syria all because a mad man was not arrested or killed.


Bill Clinton took office on January 20, 1993 and the WTC bombing happened on February 26, 1993. He barely had time to unpack his stuff before the bombing occurred.

He tried to get Bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan through Operation Infinite Reach but if I recall correctly, the Republicans faulted him for that at the time. They called it 'wag the dog'.

They were busy crucifying him for the Lewinski thing while he was trying to fight a war on terror. The republicans didn't seem to think fighting terrorism was that big a deal back then. They were too busy attacking the President over trivial matters.

You can't blame Clinton for George Bush's decision to go into Iraq and the subsequent chaos from a mismanaged war.
That was purely George's choice.


[edit on 15-7-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
See? The whole matter shall become "How DARE you say bad about Clinton and it's all Bush's fault anyway" for a thread content.



ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.

For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.

Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. Those goods were never delivered. While it's hard to know what significance, if any, to ascribe to this information, it fits a pattern described in recent CIA reporting on the overlap in the mid-1990s between al Qaeda-financed groups and firms that violated U.N. sanctions on behalf of Iraq.


The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed

reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said. "There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique."

That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up "chatter" among bin Laden's deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.

www.weeklystandard.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Under Clinton you had the '93 World Trade Center booming....OK you say...he wasn't in office long enough..........but Bush is responsible for 9/11.


Under Clinton:

2 embassies were bombed and also the USS cole, classifed information was given to China, a bogus deal for Nuclear reactors for North Korea ('94) enabling them to process urainium to biuld Nuclear bombs, the 'infamous' I did not have sexually relations with that woman....to everyone that was watch TV that day. Numerous opportunities to get Bin Laden were not followed through, an asprin factory was bombed, 8 years of UN resolutions were allowed to be ignored by Saddam.....and the list goes on......



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
ferretman, could you go more into depth on those points and give us some sources for that information? It was a great list describing the bad sides of Clinton's first three weeks of the presidency (
) but I think it would go a lot farther if you fleshed it out a bit more.

Also, if anyone else has time (right now I don't
Deadlines up the wazoo) and an economics background, could you go into Clinton's actions leading to the recession Bush has been blamed for? Danke!



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
While you can't really blame Clinton for the first WTC attack, you certainly can criticize him for failing to really do anything substantial in response to it, which allowed al Qaeda to continue to grow and execute other attacks including the African embassy bombings, the bombing on the Cole and 9/11.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by intrepid
Wow, just what we need, another Rep or Dem trashing thread. It adds so much to ATS.


No, this is an attack on Bill Clinton, and his points are valid. The easy route here is to call this partasin and go back to the Bush bashing threads. Why not, instead of just dismissing this as partisan, you address his points? From the tone I read your comment as, you believe the statements are unfounded and are ment to stir up controversy, nothing more. Show us why. If it's a thrashing thread, cut Sirr1's legs from under him and explain exactly why his points are invalid right wing spin.

Crakeur: That was hilarious, I gaffawed when I read that


Oh spare me, I'm tired of the bashing on both sides. It reminds me of children, "My dad can beat up your dad". And if you can't see this as partisan, you're obviously party blind.

C'MON GUYS, JUST SAY NO TO POLARITY!



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Intrepid, you're the exception to the rule, in my book. After I read your statement here, I looked into your previous posts. You are consistant, if you show up on a bashing thread, you fight against the bashing, regardless of sides. Sadly, you're one of the few intellectually honest people here who talk politics. You'll defend what others are saying about someone wrongly, even if you are at ideological odds with the person in question. Most of us, including myself at times, are not that honorable. This thread is an instance of how I've done that. I used your words to make a point about partisinship, though clearly you have not displayed such behavior. Unfortunately for you, you phrased the request to drop this the best, and it fit right in with what Zed was saying, causing me to use your post as the example.

It wasn't fair singling you out for crimes you have not committed, but both sides have committed crimes along the lines I indirectly accused you of, and I used you to make that point. Again, you had phrased your post the best for the message I wanted to get across. My advise to you is to stop being so damn eloquent


EDIT: To seeing this as partisin, I do. However, there is a lot of Bush bashing going on out there, and I think that Clinton is responsable for some of the things Bush is being bashed for. By bringing those things to light here, it brings balance to the site. If you read my post on Umbrax's thread on RATS, you'll understand how I feel. However, both sides will have to trust one another before the partaisan politics stop, and that's not going to happen any time soon. Instead, all the knowlege has to be brought to light. It's unfortunate that the information has to come from both Bush haters and Bush lovers through different threads, but the information has to get out. That's the only way this website can be non-partisan. People aren't going to stop bashing Bush, and people aren't going to stop bashing the Democrats. Instead of complaining about them, we need to take those threads to the next analytical level and present information and a case, changing them from being partisan. It may have started partisan, but there's no reason it has to stay that way.

[edit on 7-15-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
every president spends a good deal of time reworking the policies of the previous administration. While I believe Clinton did manage to a mess with his policies, Bush did help make them worse.

If you want to point fingers at presidents that didn't do enough to stop the rising tide of terrorism, you can point those fingers at all of them, and point a few at Ronnie. His withdrawing the troops after the barracks were bombed, showed the the terror organizations that we will react in the manner they want when pushed. Had we kept the troops in place and flexed some muscles in the process, the attacks on US properties around the world might not have escalated to the point we are at today.

Then again, the terrorists have shown themselves to be equal opportunity killers so it might still have reached this point with the same speed and ease.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Maybe weather it's a mess or not is in the eye of the beholder...
wish we could just look at the past without the partisan eye for awhile and ask ourselves.....what does all of it put together add up to.
after all, who was it that sold Saddam some of his wmd's...the same party that is now fighting to get them out of the middle east?

maybe the objective of both the republicans and the democrats are essentially the same and the only conflict is the imaginary one that we insist is there?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
actually I have a real hard time balancing my check book, but the rip off the Enron, Worldcom and a few others were in such a large scale (that with the addition of 9/11) seriously hurt our economy. Now people are going to say that Enron, Worldcom...etc. were under Bush. If you recall these scams were found out in the early part of Bush's first term. You don't steal 100 million+ within a year....so there was a lot of corporate fraud going on during the Clinton years which was overlooked or ignored.

//I had to take a phone call and lost my train of thought......



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
... "That all depends on what the meaning of "Is" is." Because, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman (referring to his fugly wife, Hitlary)." And because the Chinese were going to develop complicated missile guidance systems, stabilization systems, solid rocket fuel and complex comminications systems on their own... eventually anyway. And besides that, the Chinese had already stolen a laptop from Lawrence Livermore Labs that had all of the detailed design info on our newest multi-stage thermonuclear missile warheads... or perhaps it was purchased with that 100$ Million "donation" that Clinton accepted from that Chinese businessman? Then again, it is probably more likely that the laptop got lost in all of the shuffle of the classified FBI files on the Clinton's political rivals that Hitlary "found" in her closet. But at the end of your term, does any of it really matter? I mean, you could just go ahead and grant everyone a pardon and clemency in exchange for their money and their silence... Mark and Denise Rich did it.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by kozmo]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Don't forget that Bill Clinton passed up the oppurtunity to back a coup in Iraq in 1995. What exactly was going on in Mena, Ark? And why did he give the Chinese our tech?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join