Yeah, and let’s not even talk about the amount of hatred generated by Bush outside the US. It wasn’t even safe to travel to a lot of countries.
[QUOTE=BoulderDawg;987000]Truth is if Clinton was so bad then why didn’t Bush make that a campaign issue? [/QUOTE]
Unlike Obama, Bush fixed things instead of just repeatedly playing the ‘Its all Clinton’s fault’ card.
Clinton did enact the ‘Wall of Silence’, and Bush repealed it. It’s common knowledge 9/11 would have likely failed if not for Clinton enacting that ridiculous, unsafe policy.
[QUOTE=BoulderDawg;987010]Yeah, and let’s not even talk about the amount of hatred generated by Bush outside the US. It wasn’t even safe to travel to a lot of countries.[/QUOTE]
Can you show which countries it was unsafe for Americans to travel to due to Bush?
[QUOTE=dimethylsea;987001]Kindly tell me how Clinton had a higher body count of domestic non-combatants than Bush did with 9-11.[/QUOTE]
I never brought up a body count, you did. Face it, Clinton should have done something to stop terrorism. It’s not like he didn’t have plenty of incidents on his watch. The only thing he did in the War on Terror was enact policies that HELPED the terrorists. Obama is on the same path…
[QUOTE=1bad65;987015]I never brought up a body count, you did. Face it, Clinton should have done something to stop terrorism. It’s not like he didn’t have plenty of incidents on his watch. The only thing he did in the War on Terror was enact policies that HELPED the terrorists. Obama is on the same path…[/QUOTE]
Well, as this point was ignored, why didn’t Bush make security a campaign issue? Also, why didn’t he get in office and start making sweeping changes to “Keep us safe”?
As far as I know nothing was changed until 9/11. If Clinton was so bad why is this so?
I think that during the SOTU speech tonight that instead of yelling vulgarities at him while he speaks they should just go ahead and spit on him as he’s walking up. That’s what they want to do.
[QUOTE=1bad65;987012]Unlike Obama, Bush fixed things instead of just repeatedly playing the ‘Its all Clinton’s fault’ card.
[/quote]
“Fixed” in terms of talked about it alot, restricted American freedoms and started conflicts in foreign countries which accounted for 5/8ths of the fatalities we incurred in “terror” attacks between 2000 and 2008?
So basically the President should play up the Jihaddist threat and start wars? That makes him a good President on the terror issue?
Not the actual fatalities or anything measurable?
Clinton did enact the ‘Wall of Silence’, and Bush repealed it. It’s common knowledge 9/11 would have likely failed if not for Clinton enacting that ridiculous, unsafe policy.
So because Clinton didn’t talk about terrorism enough 9-11 happened? Common knowledge? You really must try and justify this hilarious statement.
Clinton treated terrorist incidents as minor problems because… they were minor problems on his watch.
Bush is the one who took a major attack and used it as a springboard to what may very well be twice as many US casualties, not to mention 40K+ other fatalities who were mostly bystanders in Iraq.
I’ve focused on US body count cause it’s measurable. It’s a verifiable quantity.
Unlike media perception of how “strong” a candidate is on a particular issue, it’s hard to double or treble an existing body count at a whim.
But by the body count Bush is 100 times worse than Clinton.
Clinton had approaching 100 U.S. fatalities from terrorism military and civilian. Probably 5 times that in non-US deaths (and most of those were bystanders killed by terrorists overseas).
Bush had approaching 10000 US fatalities from terrorism military and cilivian. And again probably 5 times that in non-US deaths (and a great many of those seem to be directly caused by US military force, bombings, drone attacks etc.).
So who is WEAK on terror?
My prediction? Obama will exit office with less than 50-100 U.S. fatalities inside the U.S., and under 1000 US deaths (mostly AD military) overseas. If he extracts us from Iraq then the only bystanders we will be killing will be in Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=dimethylsea;987030]So because Clinton didn’t talk about terrorism enough 9-11 happened? Common knowledge? You really must try and justify this hilarious statement.[/QUOTE]
Do you not know what the ‘Wall of Silence’ was? Look it up please, as it appears you are not sure what it is. It does not mean Clinton was silent about terrorism.
[QUOTE=dimethylsea;987030]Clinton treated terrorist incidents as minor problems because… they were minor problems on his watch. [/QUOTE]
WHOA! WHOA! Are you serious?!
We had a US warship bombed, a US military housing complex bombed, and the World Trade Center bombed. Are you saying those were not serious events???
[QUOTE=dimethylsea;987030]I’ve focused on US body count cause it’s measurable. It’s a verifiable quantity. [/QUOTE]
And the sheer number of incidents is also a verifiable quantity.
[QUOTE=dimethylsea;987030]But by the body count Bush is 100 times worse than Clinton.[/QUOTE]
But again, the instances are less. That is an improvement.
Before the USS Cole bombing, it had been decades since a US warship had been hit by an enemy explosive. And Clinton had plenty of warning signs. Hell, they tried bombing the USS The Sullivans in Jan 2000. They only failed because the bombers boat was overloaded with explosives and sank first. Yet Clinton did nothing to thwart further attempts. And the crewmen of the Cole paid the price for his inaction.
[QUOTE=dimethylsea;987030]My prediction? Obama will exit office with less than 50-100 U.S. fatalities inside the U.S., and under 1000 US deaths (mostly AD military) overseas.[/QUOTE]
If he does, he sure as hell should thank Bush for it. Bush instituted alot of new policies to thwart terror, and they have made a huge improvement. I notice the one thing Obama hasn’t blamed Bush for is national security. That speaks volumes of Bush’s success in the war on Terror.
[QUOTE=1bad65;987034]Do you not know what the ‘Wall of Silence’ was? Look it up please, as it appears you are not sure what it is. It does not mean Clinton was silent about terrorism.
[/quote]
If you want to be cryptic go ahead. You are doing a great job. You can toss around neo-con buzzwords all you want but if they aren’t used by the mainstream conversation you can’t expect others to know precisely what your terminology means.
WHOA! WHOA! Are you serious?!
We had a US warship bombed, a US military housing complex bombed, and the World Trade Center bombed. Are you saying those were not serious events???
Now who is putting words in someone’s mouth. I didn’t say “serious” I said “minor”. They were minor, compared to bombing parts of Yugoslavia or healthcare reform. There is more to being President than freaking out and calling in the full wrath of the US Armed Forces when your nation get’s a scratch or a bloody nose. Yes we lost lives. But it wasn’t a MAJOR incident (like saying 1000+ casualties or starting a decent-sized war) in the sense that 9-11 or Iraq was MAJOR.
And the sheer number of incidents is also a verifiable quantity.
And how “fine-grained” is the information at the incident level versus fatalities?
But let’s go with YOUR “incident” based scheme.
How many more INCIDENTS have we had in Iraq under Bush’s watch? Most of those 5000 or so military casualties were picked off 1-20 at a time by insurgent actions. So Bush has WAY more incidents.
Count it my way, count it your way.. Bush was much much worse than Clinton. in VERIFIABLE quantities.
Before the USS Cole bombing, it had been decades since a US warship had been hit by an enemy explosive. And Clinton had plenty of warning signs. Hell, they tried bombing the USS The Sullivans in Jan 2000. They only failed because the bombers boat was overloaded with explosives and sank first. Yet Clinton did nothing to thwart further attempts. And the crewmen of the Cole paid the price for his inaction.
Now you are blaming Clinton for the inaction of the DoD to respond effectively with changes in INTERNAL DOD policy?
Oh please!
If he does, he sure as hell should thank Bush for it. Bush instituted alot of new policies to thwart terror, and they have made a huge improvement. I notice the one thing Obama hasn’t blamed Bush for is national security. That speaks volumes of Bush’s success in the war on Terror.
He has blamed the EXCESSES of Bush on Bush for sure. Plus he’s being civil to his predecessor. Which is mature, mannerly and is something the GOP could definitely learn about.
Count the # of bangs. Count the number of bodies.
In Iraq along the Associated Press estimates that more than 110,600 Iraqis had been killed since the start of the war to April 2009.
I can’t find the exact number of incidents involving US fatalities in Iraq, probably because it’s an operational figure that’s kept close (I can understand that reasoning). But it has to be something on the order of 500+ with a US fatality.. given that the news seldom talks about the insurgents killing more than 3-4 of our guys at a time, I don’t remember ever hearing about 10 US deaths in a single IED attack.
The Wall of Silence was the law that made it illegal for the CIA to talk to the FBI. It’s not a “Neocon Buzzword”. It’s been used in the mainstream press since it was enacted during Clinton’s Presidency.
FYI, the CIA did know some of the 9/11 hijackers had entered the country and that they were on a ‘watch list’. They were, however, prevented by Clinton’s law from informing the FBI. In short, 9/11 could likely have been prevented had the Wall of Silence not been in the way.
[QUOTE=dimethylsea;987042] Now who is putting words in someone’s mouth. I didn’t say “serious” I said “minor”. They were minor, compared to bombing parts of Yugoslavia or healthcare reform.[/QUOTE]
You said the events were minor, you did. I countered by naming events and asking if you felt those events “were not serious events”. I never put words in your mouth. Show me where I said you said they were not serious. If you cannot, stop trying to argue semantics and level ridiculous charges, and debate like a rational person. Don’t use tactics BD uses. We are all adults here, right?
I liked his speech.
Obama knows how to talk, that is a given.
Do I think he will do what he said?
Probably not.
Did he views and ideas of job creation convince me?
Nope.
Giving money back to the banks with HOPE that it will end in the hands of small business is just naive at best.
[QUOTE=1bad65;987012]Clinton did enact the ‘Wall of Silence’, and Bush repealed it. It’s common knowledge 9/11 would have likely failed if not for Clinton enacting that ridiculous, unsafe policy.[/QUOTE]
Sigh…
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=903415&postcount=823
This is not true, the “Gorelick Wall” only applied to sharing information between the FBI and the Criminal Division of the Justice Department.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1995procs.html
“Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations”
There is nothing about the CIA or military intelligence in there.
I found this interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr13.html
ZELIKOW: …New procedures issued by Attorney General Reno in 1995 required the FBI to notify prosecutors when facts and circumstances are developed in a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigation that reasonably indicate a significant federal crime has been, is being or may be committed.
ZELIKOW: The procedures, however, prohibited the prosecutors from, quote, “directing or controlling,” close quote, the intelligence investigation.
Over time, the wall requirement came to be interpreted by the Justice Department, and particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as imposing an increasingly stringent barrier to communications between FBI intelligence agents and criminal prosecutors.
…
“FREEH: …In fact, President Clinton, to his great credit, introduced in 1996 the Antiterrorism Bill, H.R. 2703. Unfortunately, when it was in the House there was an amendment that was entered which was passed by a large majority that stripped the bill of most of its important counterterrorism measures; in fact, the ones that Deputy Attorney General Gorelick and I recommended. In fact, I think two of you actually voted on the amendment.”
…
"FREEH: Well, over the period of years after the World Trade Tower indictments in 1993, but then maybe more particularly following the Manila Air indictment in 1995, and of course the 1998 indictments with respect to bin Laden and his associates, we continuously recommended, and actually put into play, operations to arrest and render fugitives back to the United States in those cases.
I don’t recall an instance with respect to Yasin.
With respect to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, in early 1996, we actually staged agents over in the Persian Gulf and had an operation well under way to arrest him.
FREEH: He was transiting a country that we thought we could get access to him. Unfortunately, that didn’t work. We believe he was actually tipped off about the operation. "
Actually Sanjuro, he is flailing. And the country better be VERY nervous about this fool.
First he told us the bailouts were necessary to fix the economy and once it was fixed they would pay the money back. Now that some of the money is indeed being paid back, he says we have to spend it to fix the economy. 
I found it to be an excellent speech, though Joe Biden was seriously freaking me out with his facial expressions.
[QUOTE=1bad65;987139]Actually Sanjuro, he is flailing. And the country better be VERY nervous about this fool.
First he told us the bailouts were necessary to fix the economy and once it was fixed they would pay the money back. Now that some of the money is indeed being paid back, he says we have to spend it to fix the economy. [/QUOTE]
Well, I don’t have MANY issues with the government helping to create jobs with money that is SUPPOSED to do that.
I just don’t think the way he wants to do it will do it.
Banks are notorious for not giving out money to those that need it.
Grants to companies that actually HIRE people would be the way to go.
[QUOTE=Drake;987143]I found it to be an excellent speech, though Joe Biden was seriously freaking me out with his facial expressions.[/QUOTE]
LOL !
All I kept hearing him say was , “stand up for Chuck !!”.
[QUOTE=Drake;987143]I found it to be an excellent speech, though Joe Biden was seriously freaking me out with his facial expressions.[/QUOTE]
It scared the crap out of me. Where is all this money going to come from?
But Drake will get to serve with openly gay guys soon! :rolleyes:
So you are referring to the Gorelick memo?
Same guy who after his Dept of Justice stint served on the 9-11 commission?
I just want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly.
[QUOTE=1bad65;987150]It scared the crap out of me. [/QUOTE]
I have no doubt about that. Almost anything and everything seems to scare the teabaggers.
Liberals have concerns but not fears. We understand the nature of the neo teabaggers and know how they react to things. Also we are not looking for terrorists behind every tree.