Yes, he also destroyed the US economy, violated the US Constitution and several Human Rights, invaded a country for oil, rigged an election, and he didn't have sex with a fatty.usmarine2 wrote:
Rant about Bill Clinton
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-06-22 07:28:26)
I thought Bill got sucked...KILLSWITCH wrote:
Monica Lewinsky also sucked.
Badum Ching!
He destroyed the military both equipment wise and moral wise. He violated human rights by taking election money from china and in turn giving them nuke tech. He sponsored a non UN sanctioned no fly zone over country and routinely attacked them and dropped bombs. He sent cruise missiles all over creation trying to make it look like he was doing something. His personal matters gave bin laden the go ahead to move into the final stages of his attack plans because bubba did not want to be accused of "wag the dog." So, you guys trivialize his "blowjob" and make jokes, but that probably single handed gave the green light to bin laden for 9/11.sergeriver wrote:
Yes, he also destroyed the US economy, violated the US Constitution and several Human Rights, invaded a country for oil, rigged an election, and he didn't have sex with a fatty.usmarine2 wrote:
Rant about Bill Clinton
usmarine2 wrote:
He destroyed the military both equipment wise and moral wise. I can't comment on that He violated human rights by taking election money from china and in turn giving them nuke tech.That's not a Huma Rights violation He sponsored a non UN sanctioned no fly zone over country and routinely attacked them and dropped bombs.Still not an invasion He sent cruise missiles all over creation trying to make it look like he was doing something.He likes fireworks His personal matters gave bin laden the go ahead to move into the final stages of his attack plans because bubba did not want to be accused of "wag the dog." Don't train a dog you can't control So, you guys trivialize his "blowjob" and make jokes, but that probably single handed gave the green light to bin laden for 9/11.BSsergeriver wrote:
Yes, he also destroyed the US economy, violated the US Constitution and several Human Rights, invaded a country for oil, rigged an election, and he didn't have sex with a fatty.usmarine2 wrote:
Rant about Bill Clinton
Funny how the celebs who are protesting the olympics in China were the same ones who support clinton.Who cares about the celebrities
Wow. Unavailable for a whole hour. I bet that's never happened to any other president.usmarine2 wrote:
"Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn’t get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient."
Whereas Bush's military force approach has worked so well.usmarine2 wrote:
"This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton administration’s ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for “show” than for honestly eliminating a threat."
Uh...........which of those happened, exactly?usmarine2 wrote:
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
You'll note that Saddam got rid of his weapons long before he was invaded. That is: assuming Clinton was right about the weapons existing, non-military options worked (or, perhaps more accurately, those that didn't use direct miltary force).usmarine2 wrote:
"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." - Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998
Maybe he was wrong, or lieing.usmarine2 wrote:
[h]"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
And I bet he was the first person to accept donations from questionable sources.usmarine2 wrote:
"We know that Chinese officials chose to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1996 re-election of the Clinton administration."
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/ … ton.china/
Care to provide any sources on all this?usmarine2 wrote:
He destroyed the military both equipment wise and moral wise. He violated human rights by taking election money from china and in turn giving them nuke tech. He sponsored a non UN sanctioned no fly zone over country and routinely attacked them and dropped bombs. He sent cruise missiles all over creation trying to make it look like he was doing something. His personal matters gave bin laden the go ahead to move into the final stages of his attack plans because bubba did not want to be accused of "wag the dog." So, you guys trivialize his "blowjob" and make jokes, but that probably single handed gave the green light to bin laden for 9/11.sergeriver wrote:
Yes, he also destroyed the US economy, violated the US Constitution and several Human Rights, invaded a country for oil, rigged an election, and he didn't have sex with a fatty.usmarine2 wrote:
Rant about Bill Clinton
Funny how the celebs who are protesting the olympics in China were the same ones who support clinton.
I did. Go get the book I quoted also and look up their sources if you like.Turquoise wrote:
Care to provide any sources on all this?
Last edited by usmarine2 (2008-06-22 07:55:44)
You'll have to excuse me. Knowing your track record on facts, I have to be skeptical of most of what you post here.usmarine2 wrote:
I did. Go get the book I quoted also and look up there sources if you like.Turquoise wrote:
Care to provide any sources on all this?
Sources? You need sources to tell you he launched cruise missiles? Did your memory escape you or did you just get a TV?
My track record for facts? Name one lie? please?Turquoise wrote:
You'll have to excuse me. Knowing your track record on facts, I have to be skeptical of most of what you post here.usmarine2 wrote:
I did. Go get the book I quoted also and look up there sources if you like.Turquoise wrote:
Care to provide any sources on all this?
Sources? You need sources to tell you he launched cruise missiles? Did your memory escape you or did you just get a TV?
I was 10 years old when clinton won office and even I remember all the tomahawks he launched everytime his administration was under the microscope.Turquoise wrote:
You'll have to excuse me. Knowing your track record on facts, I have to be skeptical of most of what you post here.usmarine2 wrote:
I did. Go get the book I quoted also and look up there sources if you like.Turquoise wrote:
Care to provide any sources on all this?
Sources? You need sources to tell you he launched cruise missiles? Did your memory escape you or did you just get a TV?
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." - During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" July 22, 2003ZombieVampire! wrote:
You'll note that Saddam got rid of his weapons long before he was invaded. That is: assuming Clinton was right about the weapons existing, non-military options worked (or, perhaps more accurately, those that didn't use direct miltary force).
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-06-22 08:04:11)
but you love talking about wiping people off the planetTurquoise wrote:
I just choose not to side with hawks like yourself.
That was just a phase.God Save the Queen wrote:
but you love talking about wiping people off the planetTurquoise wrote:
I just choose not to side with hawks like yourself.
He left office long before 2003, genius.usmarine2 wrote:
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." - During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" July 22, 2003ZombieVampire! wrote:
You'll note that Saddam got rid of his weapons long before he was invaded. That is: assuming Clinton was right about the weapons existing, non-military options worked (or, perhaps more accurately, those that didn't use direct miltary force).
It seems you and all clinton fanbois miss this quote and its date for some reason.
Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-06-22 08:21:24)
No wai? holy fuck!ZombieVampire! wrote:
He left office long before 2003, genius.
?God Save the Queen wrote:
but he thought, a long with saddam hussein himself, that iraq had a WMD program in 2003.
Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-06-22 08:23:57)
The Republicans rightly called bullshit when Clinton lobbied for invading Iraq in the late 90s. Some of the Democrats did the same in the lead up to the Iraq War when Bush was the warmonger.God Save the Queen wrote:
but he thought, a long with saddam hussein himself, that iraq had a WMD program in 2003.
they didnt know shit, bubs, they suspected he didnt. but, when you have an administration that wants to goto war, you dont need the proof. the iraqi government's actions in the lead up to the inspections were enough.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that all those involved in inspections knew he didn't. .
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-06-22 08:31:34)
Well they seemed pretty certain, and they were right. I suppose we could get into an argument on the definition of truth, but those just get annoying real quick.God Save the Queen wrote:
they didnt know shit, bubs, they suspected he didnt.
As I see it, this discussion is about whether they made up the evidence.God Save the Queen wrote:
but, when you have an administration that wants to goto war, you dont need the proof.
Yes, how dare they not cave in to the demands of a bigger country. That's almost as bad as not giving your money to someone bigger than you on the street.God Save the Queen wrote:
the iraqi government's actions in the lead up to the inspections were enough.