Why The Left Is Targeting Bill O�Reilly & US military under Clinton ??

Originally posted by keholmes
let�s see cut R&D just as I said�.cut operations and maintenance�..paid out a bundle after the cuts to duplicate an already present capability�cut procurement�.gee, I guess he really didn�t reduce goals, and cut scope�..

that is just a hilarious analysis. lets see blame it on congress...wasn't congress still in demo hands at that time?

Thanks, genius, you just proved MY point. Congress was in REPUBLICAN control during the Clinton administration. Do you even bother to check things before you spout them as fact? I guess not. I would post many laughy faces but that is getting old. So yes, blame the Rep. Congress for those budget cuts. And you also failed to address that Clinton was given a few options in regards to his military plans, he chose the one the pentagon preferred. But anyways about your imaginary Congress in demo hands:

President Clinton vetoed a major spending bill Monday and signed another, as the Republican-led Congress forced him to narrow his budget priorities for the year and acknowledge the delay or possible death of initiatives such as enhancing HMO patients� rights, tightening gun restrictions and adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

Unable to circumvent the Republican majority on these issues, the president is focusing on a significantly smaller wish list in final budget negotiations with Congress, White House officials said. It includes hiring 100,000 new teachers and 50,000 police officers, toughening some environmental regulations and devoting more money to foreign aid.

Highlighting the difficulties still facing congressional and administration budget negotiators, the president accused House and Senate leaders of promoting �schemes,� �gimmicks� and �corporate welfare.� He threatened to veto more spending bills, raising the possibility that Congress will have to pass yet another stopgap resolution late this week to keep the federal government operating while the various appropriations bills for the new fiscal year are completed.

On Capitol Hill, Republican leaders hailed the defense bill�s signing as a signal of both GOP potency and the ability of the two branches of government to reach accord on spending measures. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the president �realized that while there may still be some disputes over the budget process, it�s time to put partisan politics aside and work together to further our security interests.�

Clinton said his congressional allies probably could have narrowly sustained a veto of the defense bill, �but I didn�t think it was fair, frankly, to put the Democrats in the position of being attacked by the Republicans for being against the defense budget that the Democratic Party has basically pursued.�

The giant military spending bill is popular in both parties, in part because it finances a 4.8 percent pay raise for military personnel, the biggest increase in 18 years.

www-tech.mit.edu...

He must have been trying to divert attention from something�I wonder what that might have ohhhhh ohhhhh ohhhh

Oh wow! You dropped a bombshell there. Still obsessed with that BJ I see. I'm sure that's why he attacked Iraq, so I guess that means Bush must be involved in homosexual orgies then, that's why we invaded Iraq! What a great way to cover up scandals, kill people! I can't believe you seriously posted that.

Now let�s go though my points�.

OK

clinton (Republican congress)gashed R&D, operations and maintenance, and didn�t allow new weapons systems�.what was your quoted post�.clinton (Republican congress) gashed R&D, operations and maintenance, and fewer weapons systems�.and gashed procurement while doubling up on stuff we had in abundance�.wow, thanks.

You're quite welcome!

yeah, he did and unfortunately after he found him on 4 separate occasions he screwed up and let him go (allowing the murder of 3000 Americans a few short years later).

He tried to kill Bin Laden covertly, but had no proof that Bin Laden was involved in pre-9/11 terror attacks, so he could not launch an all-out military offensive. Who else had the opportunity to catch Bin Laden? Ohhhh Ohhhh, GW.

Must have been busy with something else

Seems to be the norm then.

wait this just in congress actually made clinton say no to striking bin laden

Probably so, the REPUBLICAN Congress made things very difficult for him.

������. the procurement account remained the focus of cuts.

thanks

Don't thank me, thank the Republicans.



[edit on 24-10-2004 by 27jd]

27jd,

thanks genius, you just proved MY point�.i believe we were discussing the FY 1994 budget during the Clinton administrations.

................CBO examined the track record of four Congresses: the 103rd Congress, which had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate..........In January 1993, as President Clinton took office, CBO projected the deficit would reach $357 billion by 1998. Two years later, when Republicans took over Congress.............
www.house.gov...

as you�ll see that is a congressional source�.do you even bother to check things out before you spout them as fact? I guess not. but anyways I guess you failed to notice the prior post of mine with the general decrying the fact that Clinton did not in fact choose the pentagon plan. I guess you also missed noticing in your prior post a 2.2 % increase and in this post a 4% increase in military pay�.wait are you M. Moore? do you always post about one date and then find conveniently backing data from another hehehehe....gee let's see 1993....+2.....1995......hmmm, I wonder how the 1995 republican controlled senate passed the 1993 budget?

���What a great way to cover up scandals, kill people! I can't believe you seriously posted that.

As I remember it we bombed some empty tents, with some million dollar bombs. Question being what people?

�����.He tried to kill Bin Laden covertly, but had no proof that Bin Laden was involved in pre-9/11 terror attacks, so he could not launch an all-out military offensive. Who else had the opportunity to catch Bin Laden? Ohhhh Ohhhh, GW.

Must have been covert to the CIA too, cause he stopped them on at least two occasion. But its pretty funny that you compare knowing exactly were he is and failing to act....except to bomb empty tents...with not know exactly were he is and yet still acting.



[edit on 24-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
i believe we were discussing the FY 1994 budget during the Clinton administrations.

Really? When was that decided? I was referring to the Clinton administration in general, not any specific year. Please point out where it was made clear we were discussing 1994? Here's yet ANOTHER article supporting my point, AND making the point that Bush is actualy the one hurting the military:

Clinton not only did not accelerate the cuts proposed by the first Bush administration, he actually spent $2 billion more on defense than Bush Senior had projected for the 1994-1999 time frame. More importantly, the military that the current President Bush and his national-security team have correctly praised for performing so brilliantly on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq was bequeathed to them by Clinton. The Bush defense budget went into effect Oct. 1, 2002, nine months after major fighting ended in Afghanistan and only five months before actual combat began in Iraq. None of the funds in this budget has had time to have any impact on the caliber of the men and women who went to war, their readiness for battle or the weapons they used. Based on the rhetoric of the Bush team and the 2000 campaign, one would not have believed that the Clinton military could overthrow two regimes with fewer battlefield casualties than the Marines suffered in Lebanon in 1983.

The current defense budget, even if one adjusts for inflation, is already above Cold War levels and has been rising significantly since 1998, when it reached its post-Cold War low of "only" $300 billion. Even the $300 billion figure accounted for 40 percent of the world's military expenditures that year and was higher in real terms than Richard Nixon's last defense budget in 1975.

This nation is already spending 10 percent more than it did on average during the Cold War and more than it spent on average during the Vietnam and Korean wars.

Moreover, the total number of full-time employees on the Pentagon payroll is not much lower that it was when the Berlin Wall came down. The number of people in the active force and on the civilian payroll declined from 3 million to 2.1 million over the last decade. But the number of defense contractors, who perform tasks such as providing security at Central Command headquarters in Qatar, has grown by 700,000. In addition, the Pentagon has kept more than 200,000 military reservists on full active duty since September 2001.

It is difficult to argue that the nation can afford to spend more on defense when its annual budget deficit, excluding the Social Security Trust Fund, is currently running over $600 billion -- or 5.7 percent of the nation's GDP. While defense takes a lower percentage of the GDP than it did during the Cold War, it already consumes more than half of the discretionary funds in the federal budget.

This is not to say that the U.S. military does not have problems or challenges. But these problems are not caused by the amount of money it receives. This becomes clear when one analyzes some of the large programs being funded. Each of the services continues to waste significant sums on Cold War relics that are not needed to wage the war on terrorism or even to enter a conventional conflict on the Korean peninsula. President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have argued that some of these programs should be canceled. But so far they have refused to spend the political capital necessary to take on the military industrial complex to do so.

The Air Force, for example, is spending $70 billion to buy 295 F/A-22 Raptors -- a Cold War-era fighter plane that is behind schedule, over budget, plagued by technical problems and designed to take on sophisticated Soviet fighters rather than the modest regional fighter forces it is likely to encounter today. The Navy plans to buy 30 Virginia-class submarines for $74 billion, even though its current submarine fleet is the best in the world and has no perceivable enemy; moreover, many submarines are being retired before the end of their useful lives. The Army is spending more than $16 billion to purchase 650 Comanche helicopters, despite the fact that the average price for the helicopter has more than doubled, and that the Army has had to eliminate two of the helicopter's primary missions (transport and attack) since starting the program. This makes each Comanche a $30 million reconnaissance platform, a function that could easily be performed more cheaply and effectively by unmanned aerial vehicles such as the Predator. Finally, the Marines want to spend $46 billion to buy 458 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft despite their high cost and continuing technical and safety problems, which have already resulted in the deaths of 23 Marines.

www.prospect.org...

but anyways I guess you failed to notice the prior post of mine with the general decrying the fact that Clinton did not in fact choose the pentagon plan.

Yes you did, AFTER I provided a source that states he did, again:

Clinton was offered four policy alternatives for force levels and chose the Pentagon's preferred win-win option.

www.global-defence.com...

I prefer to believe this source over you. And I'm sure any other intelligent individual would.

As I remember it we bombed some empty tents, with some million dollar bombs. Question being what people?

Actually, I was referring to the people we are bombing now. You said Clinton attacked Iraq to deflect attention from his BJ, I then stated that killing was a great way to cover things up, so Bush must have been involved in a homosexual orgy because we just bombed the hell out of alot of people, those people. I'm just gauging the amount of bombong in conjunction with the depth and severity of the scandal it is covering, that's all. Quick BJ=couple of precision strikes, homosexual orgy=full scale invasion and occupation, seems logical.

Must have been covert to the CIA too, cause he stopped them on at least two occasion. But its pretty funny that you compare knowing exactly were he is and failing to act....except to bomb empty tents...with not know exactly were he is and yet still acting.

Covert to the CIA? You make things sooo easy:

Bill Clinton gave the CIA instructions to get Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, but lacked sufficient information or international support to carry the order out, the former US president said this weekend.
Government sources have said the Clinton administration gave the Central Intelligence Agency approval to conduct covert operations targeting bin Laden in 1998, following the bombings that year of two US embassies in east Africa.

Echoing President George Bush's approach, if not his words, Mr Clinton said: "At the time we did everything we can do. I authorised the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama bin Laden and we actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it.

"We also trained commandos for a possible ground action but we did not have the necessary intelligence to do it in the way we would have had to do it."

Mr Clinton said any action against Bin Laden now could have greater chances of success given the broader international support for US action following the aerial suicide attacks.

"Now we have support from people who would not have supported us then, and they give us many more tactical options than were available then," he said.

www.guardian.co.uk...

He didn't stop anything, glad you know exactly what intelligence they had, maybe you could fill us in since you must have clearance. It clearly states here they lacked intelligence and support, but they must not have consulted you, regardless, the president does not just have the authority to go to war, being as he serves the people and has to run it by us first, at least then he did. When this country was not so close to a dictatorship.








[edit on 25-10-2004 by 27jd]

Originally posted by 27jd
Really? When was that decided?

well, your post was referring to FY93, FY94 and maybe FY95�..i was responding to your post�.sorry you conveniently now don�t want to talk about your post�.so spin away.

Originally posted by 27jd

but anyways I guess you failed to notice the prior post of mine with the general decrying the fact that Clinton did not in fact choose the pentagon plan.

Yes you did, AFTER I provided a source that states he did, again:

Clinton was offered four policy alternatives for force levels and chose the Pentagon's preferred win-win option.

www.global-defence.com...

I prefer to believe this source over you. And I'm sure any other intelligent individual would.

Hmmmm, lets see general or ditzy internet reporter�.general or ditzy internet reporter. I can�t make up my mind on militarily speaking who is more qualified to speak about the military�I guess you win

Actually, I was referring to the people we are bombing now. You said Clinton attacked Iraq to deflect attention from his BJ, I then stated that killing was a great way to cover things up, so Bush must have been involved in a homosexual orgy because we just bombed the hell out of alot of people, those people.

I'm just gauging the amount of bombong in conjunction with the depth and severity of the scandal it is covering, that's all. Quick BJ=couple of precision strikes, homosexual orgy=full scale invasion and occupation, seems logical.

I guess I was being too subtle, I was joking because your analogy was so lame. hint: two inches up....same thing

www.guardian.co.uk...
thanks, all the dust on your link has my allergies acting up now�.so have you seen the information from the CIA recently�.or is that what caused the fishing trip for this little piece of nostalga?


[edit on 25-10-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes

www.guardian.co.uk...
thanks, all the dust on your link has my allergies acting up now�.so have you seen the information from the CIA recently�.or is that what caused the fishing trip for this little piece of nostalga?


[edit on 25-10-2004 by keholmes]

IN clintons defense , he did target him many times, just never gave the ok to shoot. To worried about polls and causulties.

Originally posted by edsinger
IN clintons defense , he did target him many times, just never gave the ok to shoot. To worried about polls and causulties.

Thanks for defending Clinton, maybe your not so brainwashed after all.
But let's look at the polls and casualties statement, honestly, isn't that the same thing Bush is worried about in Iraq? The exact same reason this administration allows insurgent controlled cities to remain standing? John McCain has said several times that this cannot wait, we must destroy their strongholds, but the insurgents still run many cities. Bush is waiting until AFTER the election to take them out, because they know it's gonna get real ugly.

To be honest, please read the 911 report and you will know what I meant by that statement.

He had the shot, but no balls to take it. He wanted absolute PROOF that OBL was there.....100% would never be available becuase of the law Clinton himself put in force on the limits in HumanINT.

Originally posted by edsinger
To be honest, please read the 911 report and you will know what I meant by that statement.

He had the shot, but no balls to take it. He wanted absolute PROOF that OBL was there.....100% would never be available becuase of the law Clinton himself put in force on the limits in HumanINT.

I will fully agree, Clinton should have acted more aggressively, I will not dispute that. But back then, OBL had not yet killed 3,000 of our citizens in one shot. He had attacked military installations and a feeble attempt at the WTC, which did not kill that many people to my knowledge. There was more of a threat from domestic militias at that time, remember OK City? Clinton did not have the support at THAT time for such action. But hindsight is always 20/20, right? Also, to be fair, in the 9/11 report, which I have read, it is pointed out that the Clinton administration tried to pass the baton to the Bush administration, who at the time also did not see it as a high priority, so the blame can be evenly distributed, just as the commission determined. Even if Clinton HAD killed OBL, do you really think 9/11 wouldn't have happened? It still, most likely, would have, IMO.

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by edsinger
To be honest, please read the 911 report and you will know what I meant by that statement.

He had the shot, but no balls to take it. He wanted absolute PROOF that OBL was there.....100% would never be available becuase of the law Clinton himself put in force on the limits in HumanINT.

I will fully agree, Clinton should have acted more aggressively, I will not dispute that. But back then, OBL had not yet killed 3,000 of our citizens in one shot. He had attacked military installations and a feeble attempt at the WTC, which did not kill that many people to my knowledge. There was more of a threat from domestic militias at that time, remember OK City? Clinton did not have the support at THAT time for such action. But hindsight is always 20/20, right? Also, to be fair, in the 9/11 report, which I have read, it is pointed out that the Clinton administration tried to pass the baton to the Bush administration, who at the time also did not see it as a high priority, so the blame can be evenly distributed, just as the commission determined. Even if Clinton HAD killed OBL, do you really think 9/11 wouldn't have happened? It still, most likely, would have, IMO.

We can agree on that for the most part then, both fu**ed up!

But as for Ok City, I am not sure who is at fault for that one...

[edit on 25-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by keholmes
well, your post was referring to FY93, FY94 and maybe FY95�..i was responding to your post�.sorry you conveniently now don�t want to talk about your post�.so spin away.

Originally you did not want to discuss the budget at all, you wanted specific equipment Clinton approved. When I provided that, you said it was already in production, in your own spin. NO $HIT!? You mean Clinton did not actually produce those weapons himself? Regardless, he still approved the continuation of those weapons. How many weapons has Bush PERSONALLY created? Maybe an explosive device he could put in the asses of terrorists, as if they were frogs! I can just picture him in a lab coat. While we're discussing budgets, let's move on to somebody who is actually running for office THIS YEAR, yes, Cheney, did he not cut defense spending himself? Let's see:

BAKERSFIELD, California (Los Angeles Times) -- Dick Cheney, the Republican vice presidential nominee, acknowledged Wednesday that military cutbacks began during the Bush administration but said further cuts under President Clinton had "gone too far."

archives.cnn.com...

I know I gave you a "freeby" as you will see it, because Cheney says Clinton took it too far, but what else would he say? He was running for Vice President at the time of this against Al Gore, but the key is, he began the cutbacks. Let's read some more:

It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. And Richard Cheney himself, who is now Vice President but who then was Secretary of Defense, also proposed canceling the Apache helicopter program five years after Kerry did. As Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee on Aug. 13, 1989:

Cheney: The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward, AH-64; . . . I forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years.

Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle as well. It was among 81 Pentagon programs targeted for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. "Cheney decided the military already has enough of these weapons," the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Does that make Cheney an opponent of "weapons vital to winning the war on terror?" Of course not. But by the Bush campaign's logic, Cheney himself would be vulnerable to just such a charge, and so would Bush's father, who was president at the time.

www.factcheck.org...@docID=177.html

Hmmmm, lets see general or ditzy internet reporter�.general or ditzy internet reporter. I can�t make up my mind on militarily speaking who is more qualified to speak about the military�I guess you win

I DO win, who's the most likely to be biased? Who is most likely to spread misinformation to the public? A "ditzy" internet reporter, or a general who gets his paycheck from this administration? What am I thinking? The government is always so honest with us, how silly of me.

I guess I was being too subtle, I was joking because your analogy was so lame.

Gee whiz, I guess I'll have to sign up for analogy classes then.

thanks, all the dust on your link has my allergies acting up now�

Sorry, try Claritin, it's OTC now, works pretty well.

so have you seen the information from the CIA recently

No, I haven't been able to make it to any briefings lately, with work, the gym, and my son, I just can't find the time anymore!



[edit on 25-10-2004 by 27jd]

Look Cheney had to cancel quite a few programs, remember the Peace dividend? He wanted to make sure that we ahd parts to actually use what we had.

He HAD to make choices and I hated him for it, the F-14 broke my heart.



But Clinton went dangerously the other way, Congressman with the districts interests, clouded the right decisions all around.

Clinton took it dangerously the other direction, this I firmly believe as I had stated about the f-15's in Alaska.

And just for your information, remember during the Clinton years that the military was complaining that their budget was in trouble as they were spending to much on 'peacekeeping' missions and everything else was suffering. Remember that?

[edit on 25-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
And just for your information, remember during the Clinton years that the military was complaining that their budget was in trouble as they were spending to much on 'peacekeeping' missions and everything else was suffering. Remember that?

[edit on 25-10-2004 by edsinger]

I do remember, and peacekeeping was pretty much our military's main mission during Clinton's presidency. But that's the key word here, peace-KEEPING, meaning the world was trying to become a peaceful place, and there was peace to KEEP. That's exactly why I think it was better under Clinton. The military had a new role because theire were no major wars on the horizon, at least that we could see. The Soviet Union had fallen, thanks to Reagan, I was a young kid during his presidency, even though he had been involved in questionable events, I still felt like when he spoke everything was OK. Too bad the republicans have such a poor excuse for a president these days. There were no other major enemies, we were having better than usual relations with China and the Palestinians and Israelis were closer than ever to an agreement. Now peacekeeping must take a backseat, because there really is not much peace to keep. That's why I lean to the left, I'm not an all out Democrat, I dislike both parties personally, they're both crooked. But I really dislike Bush, and it wasn't until after Iraq that I felt that way. After 9/11, when we went into Afghanistan, I felt like we had a kick-ass and take names President, that was going to bring us Bin-Laden's ass. Then, after missing him in Tora Bora, for whatever reason, the focus shifted. Things became more and more fishy, and things went downhill from there. I don't think if Kerry is president he will make such decisions, I KNOW he can't make any WORSE ones. I think he will focus MORE on the terrorists than Bush, if we can successfully help Iraq back on it's feet and get us out of there, I think he will get FAR more support internationally, gain intelligence and permission from other countries to act alot more effectively than Bush. Is he a totally honest politician, no, there's no such thing to my knowledge, but he is a far better alternative to the current president. And can you honestly say, with such a huge outcry for action, and the International support Clinton already had, but would increase ten fold after 9/11, that Clinton would not have gone into Afghanistan just like Bush? You'd be lying and it would be obvious if you did.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by 27jd]

Originally posted by edsinger
The Fox News Factor:Why The Left Is Targeting Bill O�Reilly


If anti-American leftists aren�t destroying Bush-Cheney campaign offices across the country or committing massive, Al Gore-style voter fraud, t
...
[clipped
...
Well I guess as y'all alerady know, I like FOX News, I even like Colmes although he can be a ditz sometimes.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

Bill O'Reilly gets what is comming to him. You don't go around flipping your lip at people and not expect returns. A lot of people are blind to the arrogance of BO, more than enough guests have left his studio practicly ducking in doorways to either keep from punching him out or being punched out. Bill, Rush, Colmes, Franken, Tucker etc they're all just mouth pieces to make money and for media mogals to make money. It's all just a big reality entertainment show. I listen to some of it, but I go find the subject myself and try to find unbiased sources. We have to see around these people and wake up to what is happening to this country and return to being a people that look out for everyone.
To a Democrat, Colmes is just a neocon in a donkey suit! I don't know a liberal out there that takes anything he says as serious, no offense intended towards Mr. Colmes for playing his part on the show.

BTW, I would like to see evidence of the Al Gore style voter fraud and the truth about Floridas giveaway.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by AlabamaCajun]

Originally posted by 27jdI do remember, and peacekeeping was pretty much our military's main mission during Clinton's presidency. But that's the key word here, peace-KEEPING, meaning the world was trying to become a peaceful place, and there was peace to KEEP. That's exactly why I think it was better under Clinton.
[edit on 25-10-2004 by 27jd]

And yet the plotters plotted ?

Clinton
1993 WTC 1
OK CTY
TWA 800
KOHBAR
COLE
African Embassies

GW Bush
911

then

Afghanistan
Iraq? Are we on the offensive?


should I keep going?



[edit on 25-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 25-10-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
And yet the plotters plotted ?

911
1993 WTC 1
TWA 800
COLE
KOHBAR
OK CTY
African Embassies


should I keep going?

No need to. Until 9/11, which is irrelevant because it happened under Bush's watch, the attacks were on a small scale, and not all of them the work of Al Queda, TWA 800 and OK city were not OBL's work. So which country should Clinton have invaded? Would the public, those who he is supposed to serve, approve? Not pre-9/11, no way could he get approval to pre-emptively invade any countries because they have criminal organizations operating in them. That would be.....let's see.....just about... EVERY country. The OK city plotters were AMERICAN. Was Clinton able to see into the future? Who was to know which criminal organization would hit us the hardest? This was all pretty new to us, even the military. Like I said it was not a major war, where the enemy is clear. And even taking all of that into consideration, again, as we both agree, he still had his sights on Bin Laden, he knew he was bad news, but didn't have enough on him yet, like you said, the polls, the people he worked for, wouldn't approve a pre-emptive invasion. When I said things were better under Clinton, I didn't neccesarily mean because of Clinton, they were just better times. The past is now irrelevant, looking at the president we have now, I feel something needs to change, as Reagan himself once asked "Are we better off now than we were four years ago?" No, President Reagan, we are not.





[edit on 25-10-2004 by 27jd]

You seem to miss the point, OK City and TWA800 are relevant. NOt because of OBL, but becuase terrorism was SCREAMING in the US face , yet we didnt take IT seriously, which therefore invited a bigger more spectacular attack. It is a foregone conclusion that if Gore was in office 911 would have still happened. It was the "Law Enforcement" attitude towards terrorism that failed us, not nessesarily all Clintons fault, but it is not hpw you fight this crap. In Clintons defense, if 911 would have happened under his watch, he would have went ape# I think. He hated OBL that much.


If Kerry could honestly look people in the face and say that he will be tough, then maybe he would have a shot at it.

He voted against the first Gulf War that HAD passed the global test. He has no stomach for this fight, sorry but it is the truth.

Originally posted by 27jd

Thanks, genius, you just proved MY point. Congress was in REPUBLICAN control during the Clinton administration. Do you even bother to check things before you spout them as fact? I guess not. I would post many laughy faces but that is getting old. So yes, blame the Rep. Congress for those budget cuts. And you also failed to address that Clinton was given a few options in regards to his military plans, he chose the one the pentagon preferred. But anyways about your imaginary Congress in demo hands:
... [Clipped]
The giant military spending bill is popular in both parties, in part because it finances a 4.8 percent pay raise for military personnel, the biggest increase in 18 years.

Let's face it, military cost money and it is a neccessity. Those folks go out for us, eat dirt, get shot at, loose limbs, ingest/inhale toxis etc while we sit here eating fries and fattening our asses. They deserve the equipment, bullets and support, but we can't have waste in Haliburtans and $350 hammers. Neither do we need a congress saying that a presidents spending request or military action is to coverup for a B~ Job.

Read this again but this time picture yourself sitting in a fox hole during a firefight, get the picture.

If for once both parties could sit down, fess up to the BS they own settle the differences, (all who confess would be exempt from prosecution) and start over, justice would for once be served. To many people have died to give us the freedoms we have today to be bickering over the crap.
Next, lets get the voting situation straightened out. That means any and all votes could be verified. So far I still have faith in the optical scan systems and the old clunker lever throwbacks to the 50's and 60's. I develop software and know how easy it is to foul a database, today's electronic systems are toys if we can't provide verification, shame on the electioneers that signed off on them. Would you trust your heart-lung machine during surgery to a simlilar piece of equipment, Not Me!


[edit on 25-10-2004 by AlabamaCajun]

Originally posted by edsinger
You seem to miss the point, OK City and TWA800 are relevant. NOt because of OBL, but becuase terrorism was SCREAMING in the US face , yet we didnt take IT seriously, which therefore invited a bigger more spectacular attack. It is a foregone conclusion that if Gore was in office 911 would have still happened. It was the "Law Enforcement" attitude towards terrorism that failed us, not nessesarily all Clintons fault, but it is not hpw you fight this crap. In Clintons defense, if 911 would have happened under his watch, he would have went ape# I think. He hated OBL that much.

The law enforcement attitude was all they had at that time, terrorism was too new, it was scattered, not even close to clearly defined, and not even the military itself took it anymore seriously than any other criminal activity. The president does not make all the decisions for the military, they work together, and they were trying to figure it out. They passed the problem to the new administration, who also pursued the law enforcement attitude until 9/11, that's when terrorism screamed us in the face. Until then it only talked behind our backs and took a couple cheap shots, when we turned around to see who did it, there were a few possibilities, we knew for the most part who probably did it, but nothing definite, so we had to begin to analyze this new threat and figure out the best course of action. The urgency was low because the incidents were sporradic and far apart, the country was far more concerned about blow jobs than terrorism. We are all guilty of ignorance here, not just Clinton or Bush, but all of us. I wasn't concerned, were you?

If Kerry could honestly look people in the face and say that he will be tough, then maybe he would have a shot at it.

He has, and I believe he will be, if not any reason other than the fact that the people will demand it. It's not like he's going to lose public support for action against terrorists anytime soon, anybody who is president right now would HAVE to be tough if they wanted to keep their job.

He voted against the first Gulf War that HAD passed the global test. He has no stomach for this fight, sorry but it is the truth.

Purely politics, not that I'm an expert but from what I have heard, politicians sometimes have to vote against something for reasons other than they are actually against it, like if they're against one small part of it, that they want changed or something. I know it sounds ridiculous but I honestly have heard that. Again, any post 9/11 president would HAVE to be tough on terror, after all they run on public opinion, as we both have agreed.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by 27jd]

Originally posted by 27jd

Purely politics, not that I'm an expert but from what I have heard, politicians sometimes have to vote against something for reasons other than they are actually against it, like if they're against one small part of it, that they want changed or something. I know it sounds ridiculous but I honestly have heard that. Again, any post 9/11 president would HAVE to be tough on terror, after all they run on public opinion, as we both have agreed.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by 27jd]

I in general agree with this, but I do take a bit different view on Bush treating it as a law enforcement issue. IMHO he dropped the ball, and didnt pursue OBL as Clinton was doing but was afriad to take the shot. Bush got hit in the face (Blindsided so to speak) and then he came out swinging.

If Kerry is so "in the loop" then why cant he understand the significance of Iraq in this war on terror? Oh wait he did until it hurt his base in the polls. Do you see my point? Kerry has waffled or whatever on this exact issue and Bush has been steady at the EXPENSE of his standing in the polls. There is a big difference IMHO.

Originally posted by edsinger
If Kerry is so "in the loop" then why cant he understand the significance of Iraq in this war on terror?

I'm not understanding it myself, how can I expect him to?

Oh wait he did until it hurt his base in the polls. Do you see my point? Kerry has waffled or whatever on this exact issue and Bush has been steady at the EXPENSE of his standing in the polls. There is a big difference IMHO.

No, I think he did until he learned, like the rest of us, pretty much ALL of the intelligence was flawed. Bush was steady because, I believe, he had his eye on Iraq even before 9/11. Bush was not steady on terror IMO, or he would have focused on Al Queda. They (neo-cons) have effectively made you believe Kerry is a waffler, when his stance has been the same from the beginning, which he explained on a few occasions. There's that brainwashing that I believe Rove's machine has done pretty well, take something out of context, repeat it enough, and many will believe it's true. I don't think it's your fault, and you don't have to agree with me, I'm sure you truly believe your right, just as I do about my own views. How can you be behind Bush though, when he says one day "we will win the war on terra", and then, just this weekend, he said it is "up in the air" if we will ever be safe from terra again. How is he not a waffler?