Bill Clinton - Terrorisms greatest foe!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant


WHAT! WHAT!, Nobody told me Sava was watching the O'Reilly Factor, oh Sh!t, looking at the sky.

I'm always flipping around. I need to pay attention to conservative rags in order to know what NOT to believe.

[DanS]

This is old news.

It is common knowledge and reported widely that Sudan offered to turn over bin Laden to the Saudis. The Saudis gave a tepid refusal, because of their own internal reasons. Clinton/CIA never followed up on it by pushing the Saudis or by finding another acceptable avenue for both the US and Sudan.

I note that transfers (extrajudicial extraditions) weren't used very much at the time, so perhaps it wasn't such a simple thing to wire up. Now they're used quite a bit.

[Jack_www]

I am not surpised one bit. Bill Clinton was not good when it came to intelligence and also using the millitary,(after he cut it), to go out on more peacekeeping missions to several spots all over the world and lower moral in the millitary due to this.

If Bill Clinton had taken the terrorist threat serousily, maybe 9-11 would not have happened. But I remember the early 90's and no one really did take terrorist seriously and that they would dare to attack the US mainland. So I am not just blaming Clinton. I dont know what it is, but politicans always seem to ignore pending crisis, and what for it too blow up and cause a major diaster before they act. With most problems people seem to always wait for the diaster to come, instead of taking action now to prevent a looming crisis.

[Sava]

Jack brings up an interesting fallacy. Compare the military between 1992-2000... Clinton certainly contributed to the advances we've made since then. The standard conservative rant "Clinton hurt the military" is tiresome and false.

This Monday Morning QB-BS about Clinton is stupid... hindsight is 20/20... I remember the Republican opposition to Clintons attempts to strike Al Qaeda and Iraq... the party line was, "He's doing it to distract us from Monica". And now the same dopes are saying he didn't do enough.

Get a clue...

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Sava
Jack brings up an interesting fallacy. Compare the military between 1992-2000... Clinton certainly contributed to the advances we've made since then. The standard conservative rant "Clinton hurt the military" is tiresome and false.

This Monday Morning QB-BS about Clinton is stupid... hindsight is 20/20... I remember the Republican opposition to Clintons attempts to strike Al Qaeda and Iraq... the party line was, "He's doing it to distract us from Monica". And now the same dopes are saying he didn't do enough.

Get a clue...

Yes I know that Clinton is not the only one to blame. Everyone on both sides of asile ignore the terrorist threat and did not give much thought. I mean we had warning for years before 9-11 how lax airport security was, but no one did a damn thing about it untill after 9-11.

Bill Clinton did put cuts into the millitary, allthough the US millitary is still strongest millitary force in the world. I am just saying that he did over taxed the abillities of the US millitary, especiall after the cuts. And what I have read about him and the millitary dont impress me very much.

Also I am not a "Republican" and I wish that US had did something about terrorist and Iraq years before, then we would not be in the screwed up mess we are in now.

[Sava]

Bill Clinton did put cuts into the millitary, allthough the US millitary is still strongest millitary force in the world. I am just saying that he did over taxed the abillities of the US millitary, especiall after the cuts. And what I have read about him and the millitary dont impress me very much.

Sure he made cuts... but did those cuts inevitably hurt us? I doubt it. In fact, by balancing the budget and getting rid of the deficits, I think the benefits to the economy outweighed any possible, and undocumented, negative effects of the military cuts.

There are a lot of things that Clinton deserves bashing on, but this isn't oen of them.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Sava
Sure he made cuts... but did those cuts inevitably hurt us? I doubt it. In fact, by balancing the budget and getting rid of the deficits, I think the benefits to the economy outweighed any possible, and undocumented, negative effects of the military cuts.

There are a lot of things that Clinton deserves bashing on, but this isn't oen of them.

I am saying that I think the millitary was asked to do too much after the cuts, not the cuts themselves.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I am saying that I think the millitary was asked to do too much after the cuts, not the cuts themselves.

The one thing that I can bash Clinton for that is military-related is the further privatization of the military that he propagated.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Sava
The one thing that I can bash Clinton for that is military-related is the further privatization of the military that he propagated.

One thing I dont like about Clinton is the following:
1.) From what I have read, he did not put much attention on millitary and intelligence matters, and rather do other things.
2.)Also he should have learn some self controll, all those affairs did is distract him. Even if the impeacement thing did not happened, what if someone tried to blackmail him?
Also I dont have a problem with any domestic policy he made expect for the universal health care, I am scared of the though of the government running yet anther program and screwing it up. Also with the fact that many countries with free health care have long wait time to get anything done.

But back to millitary and intelligence stuff, since that is what this thread is about. Again everyone, even republicans did not see terrorism as a threat and if Clinton acted with millitary force against terrorist, he most likely get that he trying to distract us stuff.

[Ned]

He didn't meet with the CIA director for the first two years in office.

Is this normal?

[Sava]

Good point jack_www, I don't recall Republicans calling for action against OBL and his crew.

[chequita guevara]

Any book that repeats the conservative lie about how Clinton ignored the offer by Sudan to turn bin Laden over to us can't be trusted.

The truth is, Sudan never offered to do such a thing. What they offered to do was turn bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia provided the US stop its sanctions against Suden for supporting terrorism and engaging in genocide and slavery in Southern Sudan. Personally, had Clinton actually turned down that offer, we should all be ashamed to sacrifice millions to purchase a little saftey for ourselves. It was moot, however, because Saudi Arabia refused to take bin Laden!

There were two other problems. In order to satisfy Congressional Republicans, Clinton appointed Louis Freah to head the FBI. Freeh hated Clinton with a passion and was not a terribly cooperative FBI Director. He should have been fired, but Clinton was trying to make nicy nice with the Republicans. Fereh was more interested in drugs than terrorism, despite the growing evidence that there was a new and growing danger to the US.

Second problem was that the Republicans were so insanely antagonistic towards Clinton that they had the FBI investigating almost every aspect of his life. 250 agents were on the various Clinton cases, sepdning millions of dollars to come up with . . . nothing. Maybe instead of invetigating the president they could have been returning the phone calls from flight schools.

[chequita guevara]

Maybe you guys coul post the list of people Clinton had killed again.



Clinton's people told Condi Rie and others in Bush's transition team that al-Qaeda was going to be their number one threat. They were not only ignored, they were dismissed.

The truth is, however, there is plenty of blame to go around. Clinton should have had a spine and stood up to his renagade FBI director. Reno should have helped Jack O'Neil (the FBI's cheif terror expert) far more than she did.

Furthermore, we the American people, didn't believe we could be hit. We believed outselves nivulnerable, that no one would ever dare to strike at us directly. And so we all laughed about putting CLINTON BOMB TERRORISM ASSINATION . . . in uor emails to try and overwhelm Carnivore and other programs designed to cull possible terrorist communication from the internet. I'm just as guilty. I was wrong. We were wrong. They were wrong. Both parties were wrong. But there were some Cassandra's, like former Senator Gary Hart and others who were shouting at the top of their lungs the danger. We didn't listen.

[Sava]

Maybe instead of invetigating the president they could have been returning the phone calls from flight schools.

BUT HE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS!!!! IMPEACH HIM!!111!11221

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ned
He didn't meet with the CIA director for the first two years in office.

Is this normal?

That is anther thing I dont like about Clinton.