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 faults Bush on bin Laden

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
During Clinton, we had peace, prosperity.


I refuse to defend Bush, but this can't go unspoken either... We had prosperity, if that is what an internet bubble that blows up leaving jobless rates at an alltime high at the end of his administration really is, but it is a real disaster of intellectual honesty to say Clintons policy's were for the advancement of peace.

During Clinton, while enjoying our peace the World Trade Center was bombed, two of our embasseys were blown to bits, an army installation in Saudi Arabia was destroyed, the US Army basically surrendered in a humanitarian mission to Somalia, and one of the most powerful warships in the world was nearly sunk in the Middle East.

In response, the US fired cruise missiles into a field in Afgahnistan, destroyed a factory in the Sudan, and bombed a country from 15,000+ feet with mostly unguided weapons indiscreminately killing thousands, leaving a mess in Kosovo that is still a disaster to this day.

All while watching Pakistan, India, and North Korea become nuclear powers, allowing Saddam in Iraq to continue to fester as a sticking point in American Middle Eastern foreign policy, including near daily bombings of Iraq by the USAF throughout the 90s, while wasting resources for a Mid East peace process that did absolutely nothing for Middle Eastern peace, and oh btw gave China access to some of our most important military technology including the Patriot Missile, the AEGIS defense system, and technology data of our nuclear submarines.

People who paint Bill Clinton as a beacon of Foreign Policy have to do so without mentioning a single success in the Clinton Foreign Policy, because quite bluntly, there was none.

Like I said, I won't defend Bush, but I'm not going to let the myths of Clinton fly either. No president is perfect, but Clinton's foreign policy was a disaster for America. His strengths were in domestic issues, and the two obvious qualities lacking in this administration: Statesmanship and Leadership, although the black dress stained that reputation in the end (pun intended).




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
To me, though, the facts point to a lengthy process, whereby, many presidents cooperated with the evolvement of the NWO...So to pick on "Clinton" specifically


seems appropriate to blame him more if it is a lengthy process. 8 months vs. 8 years?

For the record, and I've stated this uncountable times, they are equal in the blame department for many reasons. One dropped the ball longer and one dropped the ball with more impact over a short period.


Originally posted by dgtempeSo to pick on "Clinton" specifically for the sake of smearing the little woman is just dirty politics....I dont know how else to put it.


so now this is an effort to smear her thru him? She has enough skeletons on her own.

I'm not a huge fan of hers but I am hoping that, come election time, she will stick to the issues of the day and not allow herself to harp on old news and mudslinging. The democrats method of running lately seems to be a platform of "I'm not him" and that clearly doesn't work.


Originally posted by dgtempe
During Clinton, we had peace, prosperity. During Bush, we have war, famine, lies, deaths etc. .......Bush is the culmination of all that was planned


Per your own statements, during Clinton we had a phony show of peace while he was planning and plotting the war, lies and death of the Bush era. The famine issues have been going on for decades. The location of the famine moves around, or should I say the attention we give to the locations moves around.


Originally posted by dgtempeI do blame them all, but Clinton is the lesser of the evils.


Again, per your words, Clinton plotted and planned this for 8 years. Bush merely allowed it to happen. Wouldn't Clinton be the more evil of the two if he is the strategist who put this game into action?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

original quote by: darksided
Like I said, I won't defend Bush, but I'm not going to let the myths of Clinton fly either. No president is perfect, but Clinton's foreign policy was a disaster for America. His strengths were in domestic issues, and the two obvious qualities lacking in this administration: Statesmanship and Leadership, although the black dress stained that reputation in the end (pun intended).


I would have to agree... His domestic policy was much better than his foriegn.. but even then there was WACO. And they handled that dismally



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
OK.

You paid me to come up with a plan to kill your spouse. I plotted and planned, bought the gun, got the gettaway car, etc...I handed you the gun and YOU shot your own spouse. Dead.
Who do you think will get the longest jail sentence? The one who actually pulled the trigger, or the accomplice? I believe its the one who pulled the trigger.
Though both may serve lifetimes, the one who commited the actual murder will have a harsher sentence.

That is what i mean.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
DG, are you now suggesting that Bush had Clinton do all this planning for him? That Bush was the mastermind and Clinton merely put his action into effect?

If you are saying there's another, smarter, third party to this and he/she/they are pulling all of the strings well, let me simply say this.

The boss tells his second in command to put a hit out on someone. The second hires a hitman to do the deed. The hitman gets caught, he rats out the one who hired him and cuts a deal. The hiring man rats out the boss for a better deal.

the boss spends more time in jail.

So, if Clinton put this all together, he would get equal time with the trigger man unless the trigger man turned over for the cops.


I understand your wanting to let Clinton off the hook somewhat since we all enjoyed a better economy during Clinton's term but the economy is cyclical and not the presidents fault. Clinton's terms saw a great turn upward and the start of a great turn down as well. He tweaked the cycle to great effect both up and down.

The reason we didn't have any real military action during Clinton's term is because he dropped the ball regarding when it came to military action against the cole and embassy plotters and the nations that harbored them.

Now, I am not gung ho on invading nations, killing innocents etc but I do firmly believe that, had Clinton made some kind of actual military effort to control the growing problem of organizations like Al Qaeda and Al jihad (I think that was what Zawahiri called his group), we might not have been hit on 9/11.
Perhaps he might have stalled the plans or at least put a bit of fear into some of these countries that most definietely aid and abet the organizations that commit the terror acts.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Ohhhl, lordy be...

I didnt mean "Clinton" put it all together specifically, i mean that PAST presidents have had a hand in the culmination of all that is here now.

Yes, they're all cultable. Yes. they're not to be trusted. Yes, Clinton has had a hand in it.

YOU are RIGHT. THEY'RE ALL TO BLAME. YES> Clinton is NOT without sin.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Round and round and round........


9-11-01 - On Bush's Watch, not on Clinton's.

Bush should at least be the first in line at the chopping block...

[edit on 26-9-2006 by tha stillz]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
The Clinton legacy, An affair in the white house

The bush legacy, The down fall of the American supremacy and the biggest blunder in the middle east.

Yes I can already see the history books trying to make the worst president in US history as a just president that wanted to bring democracy to the heathens of the world.


A true Martyr and a crusader the religious fundamentalist will say.

A true hero will the misguided patriots will say.

But for the rest of the population that knows better he will be the president that wanted to bring totalitarianism Bush style.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tha stillz
Bush should at least be the first in line at the chopping block...


agreed.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Oh great!!! so now we all agree that Bush is much more culpable.

He is.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The bush legacy, The down fall of the American supremacy and the biggest blunder in the middle east.


Can someone quantify this objectively? Whether you agree with the war or not, clearly the above statement is factually inaccurate. If anything, America is increasing its supremacy economically, technologically, and militarily over the rest of the world, and that last comment is just plain ignorant.

This type of comment rolls out like it is supported by a never ending supply of facts that back this statement up. It is very, very hard to make the argument Iraq is 'the biggest blunder in the middle east,' particularly without any context Given only the facts we have, it is not even accurate to call Iraq a 'big' blunder yet.

I don't understand the wisdom of those who can already determine the relative success or failure of ongoing strategic foreign policies. Aren't policies better evaluated at the end rather than in the middle of implimentation?

There is a long list of blundering in general in the Middle East, and to put the US policy in Iraq at the top of the list would be to show an incredible lack of historical perspective, an incredible lack of military historical perspective (hell even just US military history), and an even more incredible lack of Middle Eastern historical perspective.

It is possible to dislike the Iraq war policy and not have to make wild exaggerations.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
not much more culpable, just the first one line for the firing squad. Get the trigger man and interrogate him until he gives up the next guy and so on.

Bush and his cohorts, under scrutiny, have been pointing fingers at Clinton saying "hey, we just took the lead from them." Because Bin Laden et al only started their "work" in the mid 90's, Clintons cohorts can't point at Bush the elder so they pull the I'm rubber, your glue defense.

Also, many of the folks who worked under clinton now work under Bush. Those guys couldn't convince Clinton that Bin Laden was a serious enough threat so how could they be expected to convince Bush of the same thing? Bush is less inteligent so the task should have been easier with Clinton, no?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Ummm...well, no crackeur...They didnt start dealing with Bush...you know he's the puppet...they were dealing with the royal cojones of the government...Cheney & Co.
What better opportunity to take to unite an otherwise divided country over the stolen elections?
I'm telling you, this is right out of a horror movie.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
the problem with these slippery politricksters is that there is always truth mingled in with their lies... so much so that it becomes impossible to ever take any of them at their word.

But, then the obvious comback is "not my representative"

Yup... your reprehensative too...

With the way Daddy Bush and Bill have been all buddy buddy; I cant help but think.. are they really that different? If this plan to usurp Ameica is true.. then Arent both sides of the political isle just as culpable as the other? For if there is such a dastardly plot afoot; wouldnt those planning it control both sides of the political spectrum?

after all... "Never put all your eggs in one basket"

Besides with the last election I thought it illustrated itself quite clearly...remember... remember... remember...wavy line segway into flashback..

Kerry and Bush both admit on "Meet the Press" that they are both bonesman.. and that its too big a secret to talk about.

end flashback.

So you see the demon has presented itself before us... while we bicker back and forth over which one is more evil.. we are playing right into their hands... If the evil plot is afoot; of course.

United we stand. Divided we fall.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   


9-11-01 - On Bush's Watch, not on Clinton's.


Exactly!

Personally, I felt that Bill Clinton did a great defensive job against Chris Wallace's obviously planted question. I also believe he told the truth, at least his side of it. But, understand this; at may age one has enough life experience to comprehend that, when you speak of "truth" regarding the Free World and any country's foreign affairs, there are always 2 Truths-- the real truth and what we call "the Washington Truth". The later is the story told at the end of the day. Recent example: Condescending Rice's visit to the middle east and impending visit to Lebanon--which was canceled by the Lebonese Govt. Yet, the report forwarded the very next day stated that Ms. Lice canceled the Visit--ergo--the Washington Truth-- forwarded to intuit that we had some kind of control over the situation--which we never did.

You know, it would appear to me that the first op of any country at war, particularly with an enemy as illusive as international terrorism, would be to seal it's borders. Well-- unfortunately, our Borders are not limited to international airports. It would appear that our current administration can't get their heads around the idea the Terrorists do not necessarily fly into this country.

If 9/11 was the only travesty that happened on Dubya's watch, it could almost be forgiven. Unfortunately, it isn't. Iraq happened, Katrina happened, etc, and etc. It isn't the disaster--it's the response--which has been either grossly inappropriate, or nearly non-existant. The commonality with ALL of these disasters and responses is that they all wreak of Tactical Mistake after Tactical Mistake. I could line it all out for you, and tell you where and what specifically, but not now.

Right now, consider yesterday's news, when a young female congressman regarding the Iraq War stated, "The Iraqi People have more Freedom now than they have ever had!". Freedom to what? Freedom to die by virtue of sectarian violence? Freedom to become collateral damage? Oh, yes, I have no doubt that the Iraqis have loads of Freedom under their new democracy, BUT, they have no Liberty, and there can be no Freedom without Liberty--which is the ability, linked integrally with the Quality of Life,
to exercise one's Freedom. They don't have that, and it will be a very long time before they do.

My take on actually winning the War on Terror. This will never happen until the Free World as a whole sets up a Free World Force with the liberty to strike Terrorists at their roots, anywhere and at any time, witout regard for either International Law or International Borders. In other words, an organization like the Masad, and just as effective. Yes, I am proposing that any act of Terror can be prevented by a timely bullet to the head.

Yes, I am dangerously a Free man, and intend to stay that way.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
The differnce between Bush and Clinton can be seen on a personal and political level.
Clinton wouldnt be considered a good husband but he had a good grip on reality and most situations that arose.
Bush on the other hand hasnt cheated on his wife (not that the public knows of ) but as president he is way out of his depth. I rank Bushs naive Iraq policy as worse then Clinton failuare to kill or capture Bin Ladin.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The differnce between Bush and Clinton can be seen on a personal and political level.
Clinton wouldnt be considered a good husband but he had a good grip on reality and most situations that arose.
Bush on the other hand hasnt cheated on his wife (not that the public knows of ) but as president he is way out of his depth. I rank Bushs naive Iraq policy as worse then Clinton failuare to kill or capture Bin Ladin.


I would be hard pressed to believe Bush would know what to do if he managed to get a woman in bed...



On what day was the Gold Mohur Hotel (in Aden, Yemen) bombed?

[edit on 10/6/2006 by Majic]



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tha stillz
I would be hard pressed to believe Bush would know what to do if he managed to get a woman in bed...


Have you failed to note that Bush is married and has two daughters?




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I didn't read all of the pages but I got a good idea what is going on, so I'll put this in the pot .
Your welcome.

newsbusters.org...


Roper



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I have to admit that in that interview, Smith makes Katie Couric seem, well, "fair and balanced."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join