BF2S Forums Why Bill Clinton Sucked

Vax wrote:

I think it was complicated, there was a ton of subterfuge and BS surrounding the whole weapons thing.

roger that.  all put in place by the iraqi government




further, I couldnt believe what I read when bubs said "Saddam wasnt the iraqi government".  Bubs, You cant honestly believe that.

God Save the Queen wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm sorry GS, I was too busy observing how much profit the contractors were making with my tax money.

oh, so you believe its a new phenomonen...

I believe you're being a condescending cunt right now.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-06-22 12:50:30)

Forget it.  You call other people trolls, but you behave like one more than most here.

I'm done.

"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."

As we know now, they were destroyed, just unaccounted for.

At least Clinton was trying to deal with Bin Laden, not very effectively and in a fairly constrained way perhaps.
Maybe if the Republicans had been more sensible about Lewinsky he would have had the time.

Just out of interest, do you think Bush has done any better?

So far Duhbya.

Ignored the memo: 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US' he did nada, nothing.

Allowed Bin Laden to escape to Pakistan. Hiring mercenaries to do the work when you have the most powerful military in the world? Please...

Distracted everyone from AQ with the whole Iraq business.
2,000 Americans killed in 9/11, 4,000 killed in Iraq - wow what a success.
Iran had plenty more WMD, what was Iraq about exactly?

Totally screwed up in Iraq, doing everything imaginable to ensure a long running well armed insurgency.
- Failing to secure the Iraqi Army's weapons
- Debaathification of public service - result collapse of law and order and all utilities
- Disbanding the Army
- Not having enough troops on the ground
- Failing to engage with Iran to ensure the support of the Shia who were overjoyed to see the back of Saddam.

usmarine2 wrote:

Once again, this is not about comparison.  Get that thru your skulls.

Also, Saddam thought he had nukes, his people lied to him.  That is the same info that the CIA was going off of.  So it seems the CIA and Saddam were fed the same lies.

Still doesn't distract from the fact it was STILL the CIA responsibility to make ensure the intel they had was 100% correct.  Going to war based on what was ultimately a pack of lies made the CIA look like the bunch of halfwits they really are.

Saddam thought he has WMD's? Tough shit.  You still have to do thing called proving and substantiating.

usmarine2 wrote:

Once again, this is not about comparison.  Get that thru your skulls.

Also, Saddam thought he had nukes, his people lied to him.  That is the same info that the CIA was going off of.  So it seems the CIA and Saddam were fed the same lies.

Or maybe, just maybe, Saddam, Rumsfeld and the CIA knew Iraq had those WMD's coz someone gave them to Saddam.

usmarine2 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2 wrote:

Once again, this is not about comparison.  Get that thru your skulls.

Also, Saddam thought he had nukes, his people lied to him.  That is the same info that the CIA was going off of.  So it seems the CIA and Saddam were fed the same lies.

Or maybe, just maybe, Saddam, Rumsfeld and the CIA knew Iraq had those WMD's coz someone gave them to Saddam.

well that too.  however, by this time, those were pretty much obsolete or even (dead) weapons.

And tbh I don't think anyone including Saddam thought that Iraq had nukes.

usmarine2 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

And tbh I don't think anyone including Saddam thought that Iraq had nukes.

He thought he had what they told him he had.

If he thought he had nukes, why didn't Saddam go "hey, look I have nukes" and use them as a leverage?

we now have established that serge does not respect a source unless its one that agrees with his outlook

God Save the Queen wrote:

we now have established that serge does not respect a source unless its one that agrees with his outlook

You again?  How cute.

Schittloaf wrote:

How about instead of posting a video that's not even relevant to the topic you actually form an opinion? Or is that too much to ask of you?

Eye-GiZzLe wrote:

so you enjoy our country's current state (probably the 2nd worst ever) compared to when clinton was in office (probably the best ever)?

k

Once again, I am not comparing.

geez.

oChaos.Haze wrote:

So all this, means Clinton sucked.  Even after reading every part of this, I still think his positives far outweighed any negatives that are SO easy to find in hindsight.  Thomas Jefferson kept slaves.  In hindsight, that is so abysmal and wrong, yet people use it as fun trivia, rather than hate fuel. 

I say remember Clinton for the fun loving, head getting, cocky smartass that he was.  He put swagger back in American politics, and face it, most foreign leaders adored him.  True he did plenty of things that were either wrong, or thought out poorly.  But so does every president.  He stumbled militarily, but I think many scholars would.  It's a foreign situation to them.  He kept the insides of America well oiled for the most part.  Even if he was helping to start it's economic downfall, he most certainly did more for us than the latter...

was just about to say that...

usmarine, do you honestly believe Clinton fucked up the country more than Bush?