Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2006-09-25 10:51:17

Look at the total number of people killed under Bush's war policies (hundreds of thousands) compared to Clinton. To say Clinton was responsible for standing by while Rwanda happened is no different than Bush now standing by while Darfur happens; they are more the result of inaction, not action. Objectively speaking, in terms of the number deaths caused by intentional actions, Bush's war policies are worse than anything we have seen in thirty years, and Clinton is perhaps our greatest modern president, rivaled only by Kennedy.

Although everyone should have taken terrorism more seriously before 2001, it was no more a problem for one party than another; both share the blame. G.W. Bush however, does deserve A LOT of blame, which is why the Rove political machine has done everything since 9/11 to try to deflect the blame to Clinton, including the recent conservative-made movie aired on ABC full of blatant lies about 9/11 in order to implicate the Clinton administration.

Bottom line: Clinton declared war against Bin Laden in the late 90's and committed resources to fighting terrorism, it's a matter of official record, so I don't know why anyone falls for the propoganda that says that Clinton was unwilling to pursue him. Bush on the other hand, dedicated far less time and resources to Bin Laden or terrorism in general, and that is also a matter of official record. When Richard Clarke (counterterrorism chief under George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and GW Bush) tried to bring things to their attention, they weren't interested, even when he specifically mentioned Al Qaeda plans to fly planes into buildings. This included a memo over a month before 9/11 that said "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States", in response to which the Bush administration did NOTHING.

Now imagine what would happen to Clinton if he had done that. Can you imagine if Clinton had come into office, spent far less time on terrorism than the previous administration, spent 42% of his time pre-9/11 on vacation, and ignored a memo over a month before 9/11 telling us that Bin Laden planned to attack us with airplanes? He would have his HEAD ON A PIKE, the guy would be getting SO MUCH SHIT right now, and you know what? He would deserve it, and I would be right there giving him shit along with everyone else, because this isn't an issue of politics, it's an issue of competence. We all have to put that ahead of left vs. right bullshit when it comes to our security.

[default homepage]

[print][

11:40:10pm May 05,2024
load time 0.01148 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]