Clinton rips... (Page 2)

So nevermind the YEARS and YEARS that the previous administration had... damn that Bush character for not doing it in a few months.  Nevermind what I did, it's the other guy's fault.

Now would putting the military on heghtened levels of alert off and on during the months leading up to the attack count as 'nothing'?  How much was he supposed to do against an attack of unprecedented levels with inconsistent intel?

What were you sitting in the war room now?  He paid close attention and personally saved the day?  Just like he did in Somalia where he barely even new what was going on in the country when a major engagement broke out between Delta/Rangers and Somali militia?

Don't have the poll #'s off the top of my head, but I bet it wasn't 120%.  And if we're arguing with "who cares", then I'll throw one your way.  Who cares what his approval ratings were?  So he can manipulate the mob, I'll never say he can't do that.  Lots of disturbed, worthless freaks in positions of power were popular, that doesn't make any difference as to his pathetic handling of the various attacks on Americans and the hunt for OBL.

I think when we start debating with "who cares" and made up stats it's a good time to say that we're probably not going to change each others minds and both of us should get to work on a Tuesday humor thread to make up for our dragging down the overall hospitability of COJ.

bts

Wow... I agree about the last time Bill C. wagged his finger at the camera. Sure fire telll, for all you poker players out there. Tells don't lie.

Secondly, if he really was going to get UBL, and had a fantastic grasp of strategery and the military and intelligence , I submit this quote of our infamous X Pres:

I stumbled across an utterly beautiful paragraph while reading through the 9/11 Report last night. It's the first paragraph of page 189, describing a scene between Clinton and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Emphasasis mine. Truncated.

At some point during this period, President Clinton expressed his frustration with the lack of military options to take out Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda leadership, remarking to General Hugh Shelton, “You know, if would scare the **** out of al-Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into the middle of their camp.” … President Clinton recalled this remark as “one of the many things I said.” … Secretary of Defense William Cohen thought that the President might have been making a hypothetical statement. Regardless, he said, the question remained how to get the “ninjas” into and out of the theater of operations.

 

 

 

But he never said anything about ninjas. Bill C was just plain out of touch militarily and strategery-ically. At last W knows that a laser guided bomb is much better than ninjas......

Conservatives have to bash Clinton because he was a very successful president (now it’s just reflex) - much more successful than the complete buffoon and administration of self important buffoons that are now fcuking serving us. I think they are all buffoons and am no fan of bill Clinton personally, but only the completely blind, disingenuous or stupid ignorant could possibly compare the two administrations. Bush has been an absolute failure both domestically and abroad, for all but his pet industries.

Opus - could you define "love one another"

Thanks!

Nice deflection.  OK, so what Bush did has a bearing on what FOX NEWS claims it does.  Now to the original question.  What do Bush's failures have to do with anything CLINTON did or did not do?

and I'll edit - forget about blame, or partisanship or all that other cra%%.  If you can't admit that BOTH administrations failed us, then I think you're not being objective.  We can tallk about which administration gets more percentage of blame in another post.  That isn't my question

Quickly scanning over political posts here, I do find it interesting that most of the invective is either started by and/or thrown out by those that are on the liberal side of the aisle.  I thought the conservatives were the meanies?

[edit - i didn't say "only", FTR]

As a moderate, I have to say that it's getting ugly on both ends of the spectrum.

I think what happens is, we live in a pretty polarized society, and people are just not used to hearing what "the other side" has to say.  Moving from a "blue" state to a "red" state was a wake-up call on that one for me.  I'm not really any more "conservative" than I was -- still hold the same basic views -- but my level of discourse has been upped a notch because I have to speak them intelligently in front of people who I love and respect but sometimes disagree with.

When people on both sides draw on hyperbole and inflated rhetoric, i take it either as a sign that they are in the "echo chamber" surrounded mostly by people of similar views, or they just like to argue!  Either way, further discussion is not beneficial to anyone at that point.  That's why I post so little on the "political" threads here, other than an occasional link (twice, I think, counting yesterday).

And I hope that doesn't sound patronizing to anyone here.  IRL we have tone of voice, body language, relational context; here, all of that is lost and things may sound harsher than intended.  You are all my fellow triathletes trying to live healthy lives; we disagree on some stuff that concerns me, but you still rock.

Peace!

The party that's not in power is always going to complain the loudest.

But maybe it wouldn't be so bad if Bush were the "uniter, not divider" he promised to be when he first ran.

I'm a little late here, but everyone thinks that Clinton got the best of that interview?  C'mon, all he did was deflect the question and ask more of his own.  He also lost that Clinton-esque cool while he was shuckin' and jivin'. 

Because I'm young and naieve, can someone tell me why Clinton was one of the best presidents we've had?  Great orator, yes, but best presidents?  And if you think it was becuase your 401K was doing well than you've been sipping the Koolaid too.

(I posted this on another thread today, but I think it's worth posting again)

I didn't see the interview, so I can't comment myself.

However, Dick Polman, the political analyst for the Philadelphia Inquirer, had an interesting take on it in a column today . Polman is a very good journalist, basically leans left but is more objective than most.

Here's part of his column:

For partisan Democrats, this is satisfying stuff, the equivalent of an end-zone dance by their favorite football star.

Here's the political problem, though: Whenever President Bush and his top surrogates react with hostility to questions, and seek to disparage the press questioners by impugning their motives, Democrats generally cite that as further proof of the GOP's mendacity. Yet here was Clinton doing much the same thing, trying to paint himself as a victim, and using that as a shield.

In other words, I don't see how Clinton's outburst could possibly help his wife's prospects as a presidential candidate. By losing his cool, he basically sent the message that he remains a strongly polarizing figure. Which is precisely why many Democrats remain worried about handing the '08 nomination to Hillary Clinton.