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.

 

All right...here it is...Bash Clinton all you want here.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by insite
Kram - Bill Clinton slipped up by not delivering Osama Bin Laden? Where is Bush now with OBL's head?


He's either dead or hiding like a cave rodent, which is fine with me. The point is that he's no longer in control of a well-organzied, well-funded terrorist group, which is EXACTLY what should have happened 7 years ago.




posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
What about 20 years ago? Oh, because Reagan and the CIA can fund and help train these people. No president has his hands clean of this mess.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



when is a normal person going to run for president, that isn't selfish, narcissistic and dillusional??


I thought that was a normal person



Normal for a Liberal Democrat.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
What about 20 years ago? Oh, because Reagan and the CIA can fund and help train these people. No president has his hands clean of this mess.


1) They were not our enemies back then.

2) We as a nation did not support them knwoing that they would one day turn their weapons against us.

I guess we should be upset at the Reagan administration because their crystal balls weren't working, huh?



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Then, how can you blame Clinton for the whole 'failure to capture Osama' stint. Was he expected to have a 'crystal ball' as well?

Besides, Ollie North warned everyone of him during the Reagen administration. Everyone in power in my mind is somewhat guilty.



posted on Jan, 23 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   


Normal for a Liberal Democrat.


republicans too

I am a libertarian to me both sides should be ashamed of themselves.

All that BOTH are interested in is gaining more power and stealing more money and freedoms



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
Then, how can you blame Clinton for the whole 'failure to capture Osama' stint. Was he expected to have a 'crystal ball' as well?

Besides, Ollie North warned everyone of him during the Reagen administration. Everyone in power in my mind is somewhat guilty.



LOL "Ollie" didn't warn ANYONE of Osama. That was an internet rumor. He discredited that rumor live on Fox.

Wow!

And excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't the 1st WTC bombing happen in 1993? Ah yes.. It did. February '93 to be more exact. This means Clinton had until 2000 to do something about him. No crystal ball needed... Just a little strong-arming.



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   
All I'm trying to say is that everyone has had their arm in the cookie jar as far as these terrorist. No party is innocent. Up until the events of 911, the Taliban was still receiving money from us. It has been going on since the beginning of the 80's.

Also, I believe, I cannot find any articles for it, that it was ruled as Muslim extremist, not yet Al-Qaeda, responsible for the bombing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot find an article for WTC bombings without finding 911 information.

To say that any President in the past twenty years is not responsible to some varying degree responsible for Bin Laden is blind. But to say that Clinton is the main cause of all the problems is #ing retarded and childish. How can one person be so dead set against one person to blame them for everything. It is frustrating.



posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
To say that any President in the past twenty years is not responsible to some varying degree responsible for Bin Laden is blind. But to say that Clinton is the main cause of all the problems is #ing retarded and childish. How can one person be so dead set against one person to blame them for everything. It is frustrating.

I don't think people blame Clinton for everything, Just the things that he had a direct hand in:

1.) Not taking USAma when able to (O. North has nothing to do with it!)

2.)Allowing the Chinese to acquire sensitive nuclear secrets from Los Alamos with no repercussions.

3.)Humiliate our Country during the Lewinsky hearings [I had no problem with the guy gettin' his freak on, just don't get caught and commit perjury in front of the world]

4.)Don't try to ammend the Constitution for your own self serving purposes.


The list goes on and on and on, but it gets boring fast...

[Edited on 1-24-2004 by krankinkx]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK
Then, how can you blame Clinton for the whole 'failure to capture Osama' stint. Was he expected to have a 'crystal ball' as well?

Besides, Ollie North warned everyone of him during the Reagen administration. Everyone in power in my mind is somewhat guilty.



I SAY blmae the RUSSIANS. they coulda done some good in afgahinstan if they had killed him there. he was driving a bulldozer while soviet hind attack chopper were attacking. HOW #ING HARD IS IT TO HIT A BULLDOZER!



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   


1.) Not taking USAma when able to (O. North has nothing to do with it!)

2.)Allowing the Chinese to acquire sensitive nuclear secrets from Los Alamos with no repercussions.

3.)Humiliate our Country during the Lewinsky hearings [I had no problem with the guy gettin' his freak on, just don't get caught and commit perjury in front of the world]

4.)Don't try to ammend the Constitution for your own self serving purposes.


How about the fact that he cleaned out the Whitehouse, or Airforce 1? No one seems to care about that.

Or when he destroyed the military by slashing funding and creating the 'warm and fuzzy' effect.

The man was a liar, a theif, an adulterer, a traitor, a sneak, and an embarassment to our country. How can you libs who supported Clinton think Bush is bad. Clinton makes him look like the #ing Easter Bunny! I guess I'll never get these political double standards.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   
"And just think those dangers could have been avoided, but only if we stopped listening to the media idiots that fed us a diet of blow-dried nonsense.

It is the big media and the hack politicians that led us to this nightmarish day.

The media say we shouldn't point fingers. (Funny, isn't it, how the media have spent 30 years pointing fingers at Richard Nixon for his alleged crimes, but when one of their liberal favorites is due for some blame, they feed us the mantras like "Let's move on!" and "No time to point fingers!")Common sense, in fact, dictates that we need to critically examine the people who are to blame for this incident, both the perpetrators (and if you believe Osama bin Laden was the major mastermind behind this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you) and the people we pay to protect us that is, our national security agencies.

Without question, these agencies failed miserably in preventing this sophisticated, wide-scale and coordinated attack against America.
This operation was ingenious in its simplicity, which would have limited the size (number of people, actions) of the operation and hence detectability. But it could not have been that small for at least a dozen men to hijack four carefully chosen aircraft (routes, fuel load) with carefully coordinated timing. And to get through security with knives big enough to subdue four relatively large crews. If the intell and security systems claim that this challenge is simply too hard for them, they have to be replaced, root and branch. Because this challenge is the challenge. It is now pretty self-evident that claims of reform and adjustment [at the intelligence agencies] to new realities that we've heard over the past eight years or so are hollow."

Of course, it's obvious why the media doesn't want any finger pointing.

Guess who ran the U.S. government and was responsible for our national security for the past eight years?

Yes, you got it: Bill Clinton


The Clintons were supported vociferously by the media through the worst imaginable scandals. throughout that period, Bill Clinton's personal corruption was wholesale and mirrored how he was corrupting America's national security.

During eight years, Clinton decimated America's military. Our forces were cut almost in half under his stewardship.

Research and development on all new weapons systems were brought almost to a halt as other nations continued to build. Clinton destroyed nearly our entire arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Monsters like Saddam flourished as Clinton bombed aspirin factories, tent cities in Afghanistan and worthless radar stations in the Iraqi desert.

But Clinton, the ever clever bastard, was more insidious. Little, systematic changes were undertaken to destroy America's intelligence agencies."

And there you go.




posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
for you anti war dudes. He mobilized more troops by one president in US history.

He and hillry killed Foster after a swing with him and his wife.

While in college according to his roommates, he "bedded" a different girl EVERY night in thier room.

Troopers who guarded the gov's mansion testified that he heard anti-semite insults between the couple regularly as well as other seedy things to say.

He raped a few women.

There were several stories suspicious like the pretzle choke of bush. Like when he fell down the stairs after loosing his balance at 1 am in the white house or the time he was found passed out on the white house lawn lolol

he sold nuclear secrets

he illegally rented out rooms of the whitehouse to major contributors.

There was an insane amount of crap done when bush won the election in 2000.

His budget still ran for months after Bush got the total blame for the market crashing.

He passed the largest tax increase in history, while riding the technology pony harcore.





There are TONS more



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Want more discusting information on the bill clinton era?

Here's some disturbing

Clinton and Women: [Part 1]

stories.www.newsmax.com...
a=1998/10/25/175658

Clinton and Women: [Part 2]

www.newsmax.com.../10/27/64122


Arkansas' Murderous Ways

www.newsmax.com.../10/22/05948


Clinton Harem Tied to White House Database Scandal

www.newsmax.com.../10/16/51313

Clinton-Connected Bribes, Break-ins, Beatings, Death Threats

www.newsmax.com.../10/12/52542

Monica Backs Perot on Clinton Drug Charge

www.newsmax.com.../10/7/62808

Tripp Tape 'Doctored' where Monica Speaks of Death Fears

www.newsmax.com.../10/6/61744

Blumenthal Testimony: "Darkness at Noon"; A Threatening Call From Clinton?;

www.newsmax.com...=1998/10/4/160807

Go to archives if you wanna see more.



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
how come we need a thred started to bash clinton but the liubs bash shrub and the consevatives in every other thread?



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Because GW is the current Sucker in Charge of this great country. My reasons for starting this sentiment that just because someone else #ed up something in the past does not give next person in line to do the same thing. Example, "We do not approve of the invasion of Iraq"; Retort, "Well your man Clinton tried the same thing." Justifying something wrong with something else that was wrong is the worst and flimsiest statement. Also, it keeps the debate to centralized theme. Bringing it whereever you want to just to point out that someone is a hypocrit is dodging the issue. WRONG IS WRONG. I don't care who perpetrated it first or if someone in the past that I may like did the same damn thing...WRONG IS STILL WRONG. Nothing will change that statement. I would love to see people stick to the issue and figure out which is wrong and which is right. This goes for both sides of the argument.

BTW, I am a Clinton fan, but it is not his politics that I am a fan of. But I still point blame where it is due. He #ed up alot of things and I give the lil-devil credit for it. Perhaps I'm the only one here who does. I would just love to see some debate about GW without seeing "You mornical douchebaggish hypocrit. Clinton did this, that and the other thing and that makes you a mornical douchebaggish hypocrit" or a Clinton bash-based post that reads something like "You bible-thumpin', gay oppressin, rapist/murderer of Africa CONservative Repugnant asshole hypocrit didn't like when Clinton did this, that, and the other thing but praise Bush for doing this, that, and the other thing. Damn bully, cheap labor conservative Repugnant hypocritical hippopotamus." Granted this is the damned mud-pit, but it has gone from cheap zingers to childish antics and debate styles on both sides. With that being said, I must bid you all farewell and goodbye. See ya'll after work.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
how come we need a thred started to bash clinton but the liubs bash shrub and the consevatives in every other thread?


I don't know if you've noticed or not, but "Political Mud Pit" should be called "Libs: Sling Mud Here". Conservatives are just that - conservative. We generally don't shoot our mouths off about anyone who doesn't agree with us every time we open our mouths (or type, in this case).



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brainded

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
how come we need a thred started to bash clinton but the liubs bash shrub and the consevatives in every other thread?


I don't know if you've noticed or not, but "Political Mud Pit" should be called "Libs: Sling Mud Here". Conservatives are just that - conservative. We generally don't shoot our mouths off about anyone who doesn't agree with us every time we open our mouths (or type, in this case).


This is such a lie. When I first arrived at ATS, it was the repugnant haven, a conservative's paradise. All the libs and democrats were too afraid to make a peep. That all changed when I showed up.



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   


This is such a lie. When I first arrived at ATS, it was the repugnant haven, a conservative's paradise. All the libs and democrats were too afraid to make a peep. That all changed when I showed up.


Got a slight ego there Colonel. I remember being here before you came, and there were plenty of libs. And there is always one loud annoying one who catches more attention.(now you) Then they get ganged up on, because they are too loud and come up with too much ridiculous propaganda. Though I must say you are one of the louder ones. Nope, you're just another part of the cycle in ATS. (my last favorite was Karl Molarus)



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner


This is such a lie. When I first arrived at ATS, it was the repugnant haven, a conservative's paradise. All the libs and democrats were too afraid to make a peep. That all changed when I showed up.


Got a slight ego there Colonel. I remember being here before you came, and there were plenty of libs. And there is always one loud annoying one who catches more attention.(now you) Then they get ganged up on, because they are too loud and come up with too much ridiculous propaganda. Though I must say you are one of the louder ones. Nope, you're just another part of the cycle in ATS. (my last favorite was Karl Molarus)


How can this be so when you only have 1200 or so ATS points?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join