Crazy thing that just came to me.

Well violence got Bush virtually nowhere and if anything, in a worse position than before. What i meant by failed was that he failed in being a loser. Bush has succeeded admirably however.

I recall clinton did order the troops out of somalia, what was bush's hardline message to the same warlords? "He're we'll help you kill people with some money". Good 'ol bush never fails in his commitments does he?

"He're we'll help you kill people with some money".
Mod Edit..
WarMachine, is this a direct quote from a source? Your opinions are welcome but contributing them as direct quotes are not acceptable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fox said:
Okay....why would he pulled the troops out of Somalia after the Black Hawk Down and 18 american soldiers killed?

That was a mistake. I like Bill, but he made a bad call there.
 
My main problem with Clinton's foreign policy was that he wanted the problems go away, not to solve them. He is a very good and gifted politician. Bot not a good President and CIC
 
FutureDevilDog said:
Oh please! Ever heard of JFK, Truman and so on? I try to steer clear of partisian politics though. The fact that Bill Clinton was a democrat has nothing to do with how much of a shitty president he was
I was speaking to the fact that most pro-military people (ig men my father works with) happen to think that any Democrat ABSOLUTELY MUST be a horrible President and Commander-In-Chief.


WarMachine said:
Good 'ol Bush never fails in his commitments does he?
At least he's consistent...:wink:
 
Last edited:
While I'm not a Republican, I'm about as far from being a Democrat as you can get. That said, I can honestly say I don't hate Clinton (either one). The first was a hideous president even if his screwing around in the Oval Office on taxpayer time and subsequent perjury is completely ignored. I'm much more worried about things like Whitewater and military secrets going to the Chinese in exchange for contributions. NAFTA and severe Second Amendment violations are right up there, too.
 
Clinton didnt start a war.


Granted, maybe Gore would have done the same thing, but who knows...maybe Bin Laden wouldnt have attacked if Bush hadnt been elected..
 
Last edited:
They attacked because of President Bush Senior's antics.This Middle Eastern Battle had been going on prior to Clinton's Election.
 
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-issue112901.shtml[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Clinton Has No Clothes[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What 9/11 revealed about the ex-president.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By Byron York, NR White House Correspondent[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
From the December 17, 2001, issue of National Review
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
O.gif
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]n June 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. [/FONT]

February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks. On August 20, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. But the strikes were at best ineffectual. There was little convincing evidence that the pharmaceutical factory, which admin istration officials believed was involved in the production of material for chemical weapons, actually was part of a weapons-making operation, and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies. [/FONT]

As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden's organization.

These terrorist attacks have nothing to do with which American President was elected, it is about the idea of being in total control of everything that the rest of the World believes morally and religiously. Read the whole article, if you want to blame President Clinton for every attack on America but that will not be true. It wouldn't have mattered if President George Washington had been in office.

As to President Bush 41 stirring things up in the middle East,

http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2006/06/26/guests_takes_wide_view_of_iran_hostage_crisis/

"But only a fool, says Mark Bowden, considers the hostage crisis history. It was the future. It was now.
``You can draw a direct line between the hostage crisis and 9/11," Bowden says. ``It's a tentative line -- they're more ideologically linked than directly connected. But the hostage crisis was the first time Americans heard themselves called the Great Satan. It was the first time they learned how much Islamic fundamentalists, of whose existence they were barely aware, detested them.
``It was the first time they realized they were the enemy in a war they didn't even know had been declared."

Just how far back in history do you want to blame US Presidents for what terrorists are doing C/1Lt Henderson ?
 
Last edited:
Missiler they were all the first president Bush's fault!

The whole capturing of the Embassy during Carter adminstration, totally Nixsons and Fords fault.
 
Rabs said:
Missiler they were all the first president Bush's fault!

The whole capturing of the Embassy during Carter adminstration, totally Nixsons and Fords fault.

And don't forget these pesky fellows we so callously had our Navy and Marines attack for no reason.
America and the Barbary Pirates: An
International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe


"Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.
 
Just how far back in history do you want to blame US Presidents for what terrorists are doing C/1Lt Henderson ?

As far back as he has a Republican to blame for it apparently. I guess Father Abraham was a Republican.
 
moving0target said:
As far back as he has a Republican to blame for it apparently. I guess Father Abraham was a Republican.
Ive already had this discussion and got a warning from a moderator. I am not old enough to vote and wont be for another 2 years. Please dont associate me with a political party. I wasnt saying anything about the party. All I said was thay most military personnel tend to be very hardline Republican;twas you who made it about the Presidents themselves. I didnt say anything about the party as a whole, so dont make out like I did. Thanks.
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Ive already had this discussion and got a warning from a moderator. I am not old enough to vote and wont be for another 2 years. Please dont associate me with a political party. I wasnt saying anything about the party. All I said was thay most military personnel tend to be very hardline Republican;twas you who made it about the Presidents themselves. I didnt say anything about the party as a whole, so dont make out like I did. Thanks.

If you're saying that I was the Mod who gave you a warning, I was wrong, you're entitled to your opinion no matter what party or how old you are. All I did was post a reply to your posts. You're going by all the rules as far as I can tell. Fire away.
 
You weren't. The warning was the fact that I was tired of hearing this crap about ,"Well, he has to be partisian biased because he's just talking about the Republicans badly." So I let off a little steam...


Now, if we got a President who had good international relations with countries and knew how to deal with terrorists, then I'd be happy no matter what party he was from. Unfortunately, that's not happening. But the point of this discussion was about President Clinton not being chosen as a running mate...Lets head that way. Hilary Roddam Clinton did not want her ex-husband as a running mate because it would not look good for her. Image is everything in these campaigns, and even though I like him, plenty of voters wouldn't. Its like major liability said..."Lying about sex is worse than lying about WMDs." Clintons image, sadly, went to pot with his sex scandal.We dont even have to compare President Bush. Clinton killed himself when he "did not have sexual relations with that woman."I personally think he did. But that doesn't change the fact that, overall, he was a good president. Sure, he made some mistakes, but hasn't every POTUS?
 
All i'm saying is that Clinton was a good international leader and that's a role the leader of the free world needs. GW isn't a good international leader, though now he's trying desperately to become one. If the man just did these sort of things in the beginning we would be fine. No iraq, iran and NK wouldn't be ignored, what's so bad about that?

BTW, quote i did earlier wasn't a source but i wasn't aware that all quoted lines were taken as such. Suppose i used (') instead of ("), would that work or should i just state that it was fake. Can't be too sure, hell i should probably just PM the mod, whatev.
 
I tend to be more liberal (bet you are all surprised :-D). Liberals and Conservatives have different values and different ideas of how the country should be run. Personally, and this is strictly my own opinion, I find conservatives well intentioned, but misguided espically because I feel they are largely ignorant of the facts, espically when the facts happen to be contradict their ideology. Buts thats OK, nobody is perfect, I'd rather have a true conservative than this terrible excuse we got stuck with now.

Bush is a different animal, while he paints himself as a champion of the conservative cause, he is in fact, a Radical. If you asking any leading Conservative thinkers such as Pat Buchanan, and William Kristol, they'll tell you Bush is no conservative. His out of control spending, his adventures in Overseas entaglements, his trampling of states rights, and his supression of civil liberties is just a few examples off a long laundry list of ways Bush has detoured off conservative ideology.

My 2 cents...
 
Last edited:
Conservatives tend to stay at home and not go into deficit spending. Wasn't that what Bush was suppose to offer? Clinton did all those things and Bush said he wouldn't. Why did he lose his mind after 9/11, it's like he became so cocky that he saw no problems with what he was doing, now Blair is paying for following GW even though he knew better.

I think in part the american people are to blame since i really believe that a lot of people who grew up here have little knowledge of world events and are even naive. GW couldn't have gone to war without home supports which people gave him and now he's lost that support once everything had become obvious. Hopefully he can end this presidency by doing some good in the mid east and other global matters, hell he could even try to start a program to adjust for global warming. You never know, guy has 2 yeas left.
 
WarMachine said:
BTW, quote i did earlier wasn't a source but i wasn't aware that all quoted lines were taken as such. Suppose i used (') instead of ("), would that work or should i just state that it was fake. Can't be too sure, hell i should probably just PM the mod, whatev.

Mod edit:
Most of us misuse quotation marks and it's usually okay unless it can be misconstrued as a fact from a source. IMO before a statement or parentheses are much less misleading.

quot·ed, quot·ing, quotes
  1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
  2. To cite or refer to for illustration or proof.
  3. To repeat a brief passage or excerpt from.
 
Back
Top