oh.....sorry sir. I will go make an israel thread or something.m3thod wrote:
i win.
go take your meds.............!!!!.................!!!!............!!!! PERIOD!!! LIBURLS!!!.......!!fadedsteve wrote:
Nice retort douchem3thod wrote:
oh shut up.fadedsteve wrote:
Bottom line. . . . .
Bill Clinton = failure on an epic scale
A complete failure socially, domestically, and militarilly. A total and complete empty suit! History will show that Bill Clinton rode and took credit for an economy he didnt create, and put America more at risk, culminating in the attacks on 9/11. . . . PERIOD!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
That's another argument. Could he have done anything else to prevent 9/11? Maybe. But it had nothing to do with his BJ or lying to a grand jury.fadedsteve wrote:
Are you high?? Balls?? It takes balls waving your finger in the faces of Americans saying "how dare you acuse me of perjury and adulterism". Turns out the son of a bitch lied AND committed adultery! FUCK BILL CLINTON!sergeriver wrote:
Man, cmon you can do better. It's irrelevant if he lied to a grand jury. The relevant thing should be the guy admitted he lied. He did it looking to the World's eyes and that takes balls. I don't imagine Bush giving a speech addressing the country and admitting he started a war over a lie.FEOS wrote:
It's not about who he fucked or where he fucked them or even that he fucked anyone at all.
It's about committing the crime of perjury, regardless of the topic.
Those lives that perished on 9/11 could have been prevented had he DONE HIS FUCKING JOB TO PROTECT THIS NATION!
Do you want help?usmarine2 wrote:
oh.....sorry sir. I will go make an israel thread or something.m3thod wrote:
i win.
Exactly!usmarine2 wrote:
9 months? lol
the attack was already in motion.
How about the fact the CIA confirms that they had operatives ON THE GROUND in Afghanistan ready to take out Bin Ladin and his associates. Bill Clinton called off the drone attack cause he "didnt want to start an international incident". The way that man conducted business in the White House WAS SHAMEFUL!
Way past you already big manusmarine2 wrote:
oh.....sorry sir. I will go make an israel thread or something.m3thod wrote:
i win.
<--- Hamas flag
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
lol...m3thod wrote:
Way past you already big manusmarine2 wrote:
oh.....sorry sir. I will go make an israel thread or something.m3thod wrote:
i win.
<--- Hamas flag
silly mooslim
So? Richard Clarke lies or Bush didn't do anything to prevent 9/11.usmarine2 wrote:
9 months? lol
the attack was already in motion.
Congrats on the terrorist flag in your sig. . . . your awesome dude. . . .m3thod wrote:
Way past you already big manusmarine2 wrote:
oh.....sorry sir. I will go make an israel thread or something.m3thod wrote:
i win.
<--- Hamas flag
You're.fadedsteve wrote:
Congrats on the terrorist flag in your sig. . . . your awesome dude. . . .m3thod wrote:
Way past you already big manusmarine2 wrote:
oh.....sorry sir. I will go make an israel thread or something.
<--- Hamas flag
And it's really the Saudi flag.
edit
Terrorists? Who says? Freedom fighters in my book.
Last edited by m3thod (2008-06-26 18:15:32)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Interesting.sergeriver wrote:
So? Richard Clarke lies or Bush didn't do anything to prevent 9/11.usmarine2 wrote:
9 months? lol
the attack was already in motion.
Now if you really think about it, clinton fucked around and basically gave laden a free pass for the most part. The peeps in the CIA and NSA were prolly so sick of having the chance to get him yet have it turned down, that they gave up hope.
And clinton made more quotes about saddam then bin laden in his later years.
Freedom fighters??m3thod wrote:
You're.fadedsteve wrote:
Congrats on the terrorist flag in your sig. . . . your awesome dude. . . .m3thod wrote:
Way past you already big man
<--- Hamas flag
And it's really the Saudi flag.
edit
Terrorists? Who says? Freedom fighters in my book.
And their it is. . . . . wow is all I can say! You have what doctors call a "rectal cranial inversion".
Big words for a lowly bartender. Have you been reading?!fadedsteve wrote:
Freedom fighters??m3thod wrote:
You're.fadedsteve wrote:
Congrats on the terrorist flag in your sig. . . . your awesome dude. . . .
And it's really the Saudi flag.
edit
Terrorists? Who says? Freedom fighters in my book.
And their it is. . . . . wow is all I can say! You have what doctors call a "rectal cranial inversion".
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You didn't answer the question. Did Richard Clarke lie or he told Bush something was going to happen and the guy just ignored him? Is it a lie that on Sept. 12 2001 Bush asked Clarke to find (fake) a connection between 9/11 and Saddam? Is it a lie that Clarke sent him a document saying there was no connection and Bush replied "Rewrite pls"?usmarine2 wrote:
Interesting.sergeriver wrote:
So? Richard Clarke lies or Bush didn't do anything to prevent 9/11.usmarine2 wrote:
9 months? lol
the attack was already in motion.
Now if you really think about it, clinton fucked around and basically gave laden a free pass for the most part. The peeps in the CIA and NSA were prolly so sick of having the chance to get him yet have it turned down, that they gave up hope.
And clinton made more quotes about saddam then bin laden in his later years.
What takes balls? Looking into the world's eyes and lying or looking into the world's eyes and admitting you lied after the lie has been exposed? He did both.sergeriver wrote:
Man, cmon you can do better. It's irrelevant if he lied to a grand jury. The relevant thing should be the guy admitted he lied. He did it looking to the World's eyes and that takes balls. I don't imagine Bush giving a speech addressing the country and admitting he started a war over a lie.FEOS wrote:
It's not about who he fucked or where he fucked them or even that he fucked anyone at all.sergeriver wrote:
So what? He fucked a fat girl, big fucking deal. Who cares where he fucked her anyway?
It's about committing the crime of perjury, regardless of the topic.
And just how in the hell is it irrelevant that he lied to a grand jury? That is a crime. Period. It's entirely relevant.
I couldn't care less personally that he got a bj from a fat chick in the Oval. I couldn't care less that he cheated on his wife. What I do care about is that he took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then he got a question he didn't want to answer and told a lie, a half truth and anything but the truth in response. Regardless of the topic, he knowingly committed a crime.
Would you give a guy a pass for robbing someone because he had no money and was hungry? Or would you prosecute him for armed robbery? Regardless of the context, he knowingly committed a crime.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And GWB went from "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." to "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."usmarine2 wrote:
Interesting.sergeriver wrote:
So? Richard Clarke lies or Bush didn't do anything to prevent 9/11.usmarine2 wrote:
9 months? lol
the attack was already in motion.
Now if you really think about it, clinton fucked around and basically gave laden a free pass for the most part. The peeps in the CIA and NSA were prolly so sick of having the chance to get him yet have it turned down, that they gave up hope.
And clinton made more quotes about saddam then bin laden in his later years.
Point being that, like illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, myspace killings, etc., these mentions of Saddam and Bin Laden are simply talking points, diversion techniques to turn attention away from real pressing issues like how people in power (whether it is Bill Clinton or GWB, Dems or Repubs) are stripping our freedom and placing the average American citizen in more danger financially and socially while the elite line their pockets with C-notes and laugh.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-06-26 18:24:15)
lowly bartender??? lolm3thod wrote:
Big words for a lowly bartender. Have you been reading?!fadedsteve wrote:
Freedom fighters??m3thod wrote:
You're.
And it's really the Saudi flag.
edit
Terrorists? Who says? Freedom fighters in my book.
And their it is. . . . . wow is all I can say! You have what doctors call a "rectal cranial inversion".
And I read all the time pal! And I actually sell real estate now in tandem with my parents so. . . . . And as a bartender I made close to 70,000 a year!! So if you bartend at the right place you can make as much(or more) as someone with a "real job". Now I make six figures selling real estate in the Bay Area. But thanks for attempting to insult me you twit!
Wrong-o. The intel was supplied by the NSA, CIA, and others. Then it was collated and analyzed at CIA (primarily). The OSP didn't "supply" intel...it developed policy based on the intel it received. Piss poor policy, no doubt, but it didn't produce the intel.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Sure, bad intel. Bad intelligence supplied by the Office of Special Plans, created by Rummy and Wolfowitz to specifically supply the Bush Administration with bad intel on Iraq.FEOS wrote:
That's OK. I've stopped expecting people here to read and be objective on the topic.m3thod wrote:
Yeah sure "bad intel"
lol
"Sorry, sir, analysts are rejecting intelligence that supports your claims to invade Iraq as unfounded."
"Well, then lets create our own intelligence gathering community to sidestep the intelligence analysts so we can get approval from Congress."
"Awesome. When we receive blowback, we'll just blame the 'bad intel'!"
But I've been down the "trying to explain how the intel system works to someone with no background in it" road before here. My head hurts from the brick wall impacts.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yeah posting your 'salary' expectations on an anonymous Internet forum proves you're the next Warren Buffettfadedsteve wrote:
lowly bartender??? lolm3thod wrote:
Big words for a lowly bartender. Have you been reading?!fadedsteve wrote:
Freedom fighters??
And their it is. . . . . wow is all I can say! You have what doctors call a "rectal cranial inversion".
And I read all the time pal! And I actually sell real estate now in tandem with my parents so. . . . . And as a bartender I made close to 70,000 a year!! So if you bartend at the right place you can make as much(or more) as someone with a "real job". Now I make six figures selling real estate in the Bay Area. But thanks for attempting to insult me you twit!
And you earned around £35k tending bars while i was making more than that as a new graduate with ZERO experince.
I recommend the twits by Roald Dahl by the way.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I still think you are focussing on legal formalities, and you are missing the point. He lied about a stupid issue. Some people lied about much worse things, like wars.FEOS wrote:
What takes balls? Looking into the world's eyes and lying or looking into the world's eyes and admitting you lied after the lie has been exposed? He did both.sergeriver wrote:
Man, cmon you can do better. It's irrelevant if he lied to a grand jury. The relevant thing should be the guy admitted he lied. He did it looking to the World's eyes and that takes balls. I don't imagine Bush giving a speech addressing the country and admitting he started a war over a lie.FEOS wrote:
It's not about who he fucked or where he fucked them or even that he fucked anyone at all.
It's about committing the crime of perjury, regardless of the topic.
And just how in the hell is it irrelevant that he lied to a grand jury? That is a crime. Period. It's entirely relevant.
I couldn't care less personally that he got a bj from a fat chick in the Oval. I couldn't care less that he cheated on his wife. What I do care about is that he took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then he got a question he didn't want to answer and told a lie, a half truth and anything but the truth in response. Regardless of the topic, he knowingly committed a crime.
Would you give a guy a pass for robbing someone because he had no money and was hungry? Or would you prosecute him for armed robbery? Regardless of the context, he knowingly committed a crime.
I'm not saying i'm the next warren buffet. . . .m3thod wrote:
Yeah posting your 'salary' expectations on an anonymous Internet forum proves you're the next Warren Buffettfadedsteve wrote:
lowly bartender??? lolm3thod wrote:
Big words for a lowly bartender. Have you been reading?!
And I read all the time pal! And I actually sell real estate now in tandem with my parents so. . . . . And as a bartender I made close to 70,000 a year!! So if you bartend at the right place you can make as much(or more) as someone with a "real job". Now I make six figures selling real estate in the Bay Area. But thanks for attempting to insult me you twit!
And you earned around £35k tending bars while i was making more than that as a new graduate with ZERO experince.
I recommend the twits by Roald Dahl by the way.
You called me a "lowly" bartender for whatever reason. . . .
And you live in rainy shitty England, and I live in California so. . . . . . I could give two shits that you have no experience and made more than me. Bottom line is you pay more than half of your salary back to the British government so who really wins??
and I dont btend anymore so. . . . . I sell million dollar homes with my folks
Last edited by fadedsteve (2008-06-26 18:31:28)
"Legal formalities"? Seriously? Since when is knowingly breaking the law--regardless of the context--a "legal formality"?sergeriver wrote:
I still think you are focussing on legal formalities, and you are missing the point. He lied about a stupid issue. Some people lied about much worse things, like wars.
I'm not missing the point at all--you are. Just because you think something shouldn't be illegal doesn't make it legal. Just because you don't like the question put to you while under oath doesn't mean you can lie about it.
I don't personally have anything against Clinton. He did a decent job as President...good in some, bad in others, but overall positive.
But I can't stomach people giving him a pass for knowingly breaking the law simply because they didn't agree with what led up to him getting the question. My wife is a die-hard liberal and was a total Clinton "fangirl" up until that point. Not because he cheated on his wife and then lied about it...but that he made the conscious choice to break an unambiguous federal law. She didn't agree with the investigation of his private life and she didn't agree with the media circus surrounding it. But once he took the oath and sat in the chair and lied...he lost all credibility with her.
Personally, that's as telling to me as anything else...it isn't just a conservative agenda thing.
And nobody lied about a war.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I've been down a few roads before too. This exact one in fact. Perhaps we passed by each other without knowing?FEOS wrote:
Wrong-o. The intel was supplied by the NSA, CIA, and others. Then it was collated and analyzed at CIA (primarily). The OSP didn't "supply" intel...it developed policy based on the intel it received. Piss poor policy, no doubt, but it didn't produce the intel.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Sure, bad intel. Bad intelligence supplied by the Office of Special Plans, created by Rummy and Wolfowitz to specifically supply the Bush Administration with bad intel on Iraq.FEOS wrote:
That's OK. I've stopped expecting people here to read and be objective on the topic.
"Sorry, sir, analysts are rejecting intelligence that supports your claims to invade Iraq as unfounded."
"Well, then lets create our own intelligence gathering community to sidestep the intelligence analysts so we can get approval from Congress."
"Awesome. When we receive blowback, we'll just blame the 'bad intel'!"
But I've been down the "trying to explain how the intel system works to someone with no background in it" road before here. My head hurts from the brick wall impacts.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p1842060KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Intelligence and evidence was crafted to support Bush (PNAC) policy. That evidence (created by the OSP) was not scrutinized, fact-checked, and cross-referenced by the intelligence community. That is a fact.
DOD Office of Inspector General Review of Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for PolicyResults
The Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense for Policy developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al-Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the Intelligence Community, to senior decision makers. While such actions were not illegal or unauthorized, the actions were, in our opinion, inappropriate given that the intelligence assessments were intelligence products and did not clearly show the variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community. This condition occured because of an expanded role and mission of The Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense for Policy from policy formation to alternative intelligence analysis and dissemination. As a result, The Office of the Under Secretaryof Defense for Policy did not provide "the most accurate analysis of intelligence" to senior decision makers.
How the fuck do any of us know if it truly was a lie? Remember the truth triangle?sergeriver wrote:
You didn't answer the question. Did Richard Clarke lie or he told Bush something was going to happen and the guy just ignored him? Is it a lie that on Sept. 12 2001 Bush asked Clarke to find (fake) a connection between 9/11 and Saddam? Is it a lie that Clarke sent him a document saying there was no connection and Bush replied "Rewrite pls"?usmarine2 wrote:
Interesting.sergeriver wrote:
So? Richard Clarke lies or Bush didn't do anything to prevent 9/11.
Now if you really think about it, clinton fucked around and basically gave laden a free pass for the most part. The peeps in the CIA and NSA were prolly so sick of having the chance to get him yet have it turned down, that they gave up hope.
And clinton made more quotes about saddam then bin laden in his later years.
Anyway, clinton was just as obsessed with saddam and iraq as bush was in early 2000.
Yeah, but you live in the rainy shitty part of California...fadedsteve wrote:
And you live in rainy shitty England, and I live in California so. . . . . .