Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Craig Read

Blame Clinton For 9-11

Recommended Posts

You maintain that 9-11 was okay and the slaughter of thousands not a big deal.

You maintain that perjury, lying, impeachment and corrupting the highest office in the US is not of concern.

Mind pulling anything else out of your ass? Find where I said it was "okay," don't put words in my mouth pal or your just as bad as the people you hate so much.

Corruption... right. Like when Bush told the American people that we were not going into an economic resession, flat out LYING to the people who got him in office? Oh thats right, a majority of the American people didn't want him in office, silly me. Or 'knowing' Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which... wow, we can't find anywhere.

I figured you wouldn't be able to respond to anything I said, that's very convincing, hypocrit. Stay out of my country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey genius, the recession - the very small one that occured - was over in Nov 2001.

Thanks for joining us in 2003 however.

The recession started in 2000 due to the bubble bursting under Clinton's poor stewardship.

If you recall Bush did not take office until after the Markets had started to collapse.

Hey but what are facts and evidence in your little world anyways.

Stick to what Lie-berals do best - slander and rewrite history !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey louis,

The UN makes resolutions against everyone and makes everyone's lives harder. If Israel listened to the UN, the UN would sit there and watch Palestine supported by Iraq and Saudi Arabia march across Israel and kill all the Israelis. They can't afford to pay attention to the UN. No one can. I'm still in favor of disbanding the UN. It's not like they do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Hugo,

Please check out this and related links regarding the UN and China.

http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2000/11/22_5.

Further, the US itself rewarded China for crushing democracy at Tienamen square. (they lifted some sanctions imposed and cancelled visa extensions for chinese students in the US)

The Chinese gov't thinks that 'western concepts of human rights have no place in china' and thus refuse to recognize any form of human rights standards or allow any inspections.

That in itself is great news for the US, among others, as the profits realized from goods produced there are huge.

That is no excuse for the UN not imposing sanctions and resolutions against them, but until the UN is reformed, who can take on China and enforce the resolutions?

The US certainly won't, for it is the factory slaves that enable Tiger Woods to be paid millions in endorsement monies by Nike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The recession started in 2000 due to the bubble bursting under Clinton's poor stewardship.

If you recall Bush did not take office until after the Markets had started to collapse.

So 8 years of the best prosperity the US has ever seen is due to bad stewardship?

Your blaming of Clinton for Bush's bad economy shows how little you understand economics. Every economic boom will and MUST be followed by a economic bust. You don't even need to take a class to understand that. The fact that the US had 8 years of prosperity is phenomanal. You cannot expect that to extend forever. If you do, you're completely dillusional.

The UN makes resolutions against everyone and makes everyone's lives harder

Right...because they aren't one of the best humanitraian organizations in the world! lol. typical ignorant American.

Corruption... right. Like when Bush told the American people that we were not going into an economic resession, flat out LYING to the people who got him in office?

He wasn't lying. The US is not and did not go into a recession. A recession is characterized by 8 consecutive quaters of down profits. The US had 7. We are not in a recession, just the doledrums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please check out this and related links regarding the UN and China.

It's a bad link.

Regardless, the point I was trying to get across is that the UN is essentially worthless if you're trying to arrive at some idea of who is worthy of world attention or condemnation and who isn't.

It beats me how Iraq can get 14 resolutions against it and China none, anyway. Iraq attacked Kuwait and Iran, China attacked Tibet and Korea. Iraq tortured and murdered its citizens, ditto for China. What is so much more wonderful about China that allows it to escape world condemnation?

Oh, that's right, moral relativism (China doesn't think of human rights the way we do, so therefore let them literally get away with murder) and veto powers awarded to ethically egregious members of a non-democratic institution.

Imagine what could be done if the money that's flushed down New York's biggest proverbial toilet every year was put to good use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are absolutely right, the UN must be reformed and the veto system abolished.

The UN is a joke. The UN is the biggest piece of shit union of nations since the league of nations. The UN uses OUR money, OUR resources, OUR intellegence, and OUR manpower more than any other nation in the UN. I am disgusted by it. If we didn't join the UN it would fall apart. It would be history repeatin' itself once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree.

Any agency that lies about global warming so it can transfer dollars from the north to the south and to Russia, under the pre-text of saving the world is not to be trusted.

The only thing dumber than such ploys are people who actually believe in their veracity......

But the US economy thanks to Tax cuts, low rates and liquidity as well as higher productivity [equals future jobs and profits], is now roaring.

6 % growth right now, for 2003 it will be close to 4 %.

You need 3.5 % growth to generate good jobs.

Canada is muddling along at 1.5 % - 2.0 %.

Jobs are being lost here, but are usually not reported with the same furor that job gains are.

In fact we have lost about 150.000 manufacturing jobs this year.

As for Clinton - an utter disgrace of a leader.

Smarmy, reprehensible, a perjurer, lazy on terror and a liar.

Nice combo. No wonder the Lie-berals love him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why the media didn't exploit this (prolly cause 99.999% of them are libs) But its kind of funny when the DemocRATS leader is an Adulterer (twice over)

hahaha. This cracks me up. If i was a democRAT i wouldn't want someone who cheated on his wife twice supporting me. I would definitely stay away from that bloated wind-bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Friday the 13th is my birthday. I usually spend as much of the day as possible boiling liberals in salt water.

Nothing better to cheer up the b-day then to hear fat liberals squeal.

Would love to have Billy and Hitlery over for a little boiling action. Not sure fat boy Billy would fit but I am sure we could squeeze him in.

He would be so busy talking nonsense, apologising for his lack of attention on terrorism, explaining that adultery is noble, that lying is really not lying but only extending the truth, and that economic bubbles are the fault of Alan Greenspan and co., that he would not even notice the boiling salt water.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one that really fries me the most is Slick Willie venting tears of frustration that it's too bad that 9.11 didn't happen on his watch so 'he' could have shown how 'he' would have responded! It is still all about 'him'!

During his Watch, there were three terrorists actions against America, any one of which presented him with an opportunity to show his response - and he did! He responded to Somalia, the first WTC and the Embassy bombings in typical Clinton fashion - he fired a few million dollar missles (which missed their point) and talked, and talked and talked and talked. He felt their pain, not the pain of dead Americans or the pain of the Nation which had elected him and presumed national survival would be his primary concern. No, he blew it (pun intended)!

Where Clinton bears the responsibility is in the low opinion held for America by the Terrorists and their Arab cohorts. He responded as an Euro-wenie, all talk and no action and no one other than he is responsible for that. He engaged in a course of conduct which said, in no uncertain terms, that there was NO price to be paid for attacks upon America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is right. NO real action was taken by Clinton.

Somalia was a case in point. He put 1000 US Troops under UN Command !! What a moronic idea.

Then he brings home the tanks, heavy armour and carriers that are needed to win wars !!

Genius !!

He thought that Black Hawk Helicopters with no troops, no heavy armour and no intelligence from the ground would defeat Aideed the local warlord !

Brilliance !!

Yes Clinton is certainly a genius. A man without parallel or so the sad sappy liberals tell us.

Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Craig. You have to cut him a bit of slack though. He had advisors that were up to date on military matters, did they tell him this or did they advise a more realistic srategy and he didn't listen? A governor from Arkansas is not a military genius and should not be expected to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KK, after Clinton took office, it was an episode of "The Flower Kids meet the Military" - the anti-military feeling among his closest aides was no secret and straight talking military men were retired, in significant numbers.

What quickly evolved was a relationship between the "Politicals" (mainly Army pukes) at the Pentagon and the Klinton Kiddie Kamp. National Security was "Verboden", the new buzz word was "Nation Building". The Warriors do not battle Command Authority, not in the American military and their choice was to keep a low profile while attempting to maintain some sort of Defense Department or get rifed. This is when Shinseki, Clark (The Perfumed Prince) and their ilk came to the forefront. The timebomb is that every year several hundred Majors, fifty or so Col's and a dozen or so lower level Generals were selected by the "Politicals" as fellow travelers and promoted - Shinseki protected them. Now that a Fighter is back in charge we can hope they will be quietly rifed or dead-ended or a core infection will remain.

Clinton choose to make the military command political - like calls to like. He selected his advisors, blocked promotion or retired those he didn't like and did substantial damage to our military. He decided who to put in charge and whom to listen to, his call, his responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had Clinton gone after terrorists like Bush did in 93, 9-11-01 might have been just another Tuesday...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rror_mastermind

That's why I like Bush. He sees something that has to be done and does it. He doesn't sit and debate it, he doens't contemplate about it, he finds what needs to be done and does it. America is better off for having him as our President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Tuesday... or a nuclear wednesday, unless you have some kind of magical ability to predict what the future would be if you changed the past, shut your mouth, because you nor anyone else knows.

He doesn't sit and debate it, he doens't contemplate about it

I couldn't agree more, he doesn't think about it whatsoever, he doens't consider the alternatives, thank you for describing him for what he is.

Read, if you think Clinton was bad for the economy you obviously know absolutly nothing, we never had it so good as when Clinton was in office. And yes, when Bush took office and the economy started to drop, he lied to the American people and said we were not heading towards a recession(7 out of 8 is pretty damn close if you ask me). So investors ignorantly believed them and held on, losing just about everything, yeah... thanks alot for the warning. Every economist in the country knew what was going on, maybe like Nuclear was saying he wasn't 'contemplating' what was going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton benefitted from the Reagan - Bush era of tax cuts and deregulation - which he ensured ended in a bubble.

Good management job there. That a boy Bill.

The only achievement of Billy Boy was NAFTA which he was arm twisted into by the Rep Congress.

If the Dumbocruds had controlled Congress trust me NAFTA would not have happened.

Like Foreign policy there was no action on important items, no haste to accomplish, no desire to improve.

Unless of course Hitlery's [Heil Hilarious] socialised medicine was at issue, [a unelected woman defining policy !!!!] or defending himself against perjury, impeachment, illegal land deals, White House debacles etc....

Billy was too busy having a frat party to run the country.

Let the adults run the place please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't mind Craig, if he belives something is wrong, no amount of counter evidence will change his mind. Should "god" come down and tell him he's wrong, he won't change his mind.

Clinton benefitted from the Reagan - Bush era of tax cuts and deregulation - which he ensured ended in a bubble.

Yes and no. Yes he did benefit from Bush Sr program cuts, he did manage the economy well. 8 of the best years the American economy ever had.

Craig is like Ashcroft, one so caught up in this beliefs, that nothing else matters/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes reality for yourself is hard to see. Your simplistic view of the world - America bad, Canada good - is about as compelling a world vision as was Clinton's defence that oral sex is not sex.

You don't research you don't read you don't understand.

You another CNN viewer I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, are you saying you aren't biased? Unless you lived in president Clinton's pocket as well as Bush's, you really have no right to judge how well a job they did. You get your information from the media, just like everyone else. The difference is that you aren't open minded whatsoever and you state your arguement like you were THERE.

By the way, oral sex isn't sex. If I still my **** in your ear is that sex too? They taught this stuff in elementry school buddy, did you miss that day?

When you say Clinton is to blame for 911 I think "well lets see, 2+2=5... no it doesn't" There is no logic in your argument, if you have some psychic ability to know what would have happened, then great, you might know. But otherwise you are just rambling about the way things COULD have been.

Since you seem to have a hard time understanding this concept Ill give you an example. My best friend was paralyzed when he rolled his truck after falling asleep at the wheel 2 years ago. To this day, he asks a lot of what-if questions, what if he didnt go to work, what if he didn't overcorrect, what if he had his seatbelt on, etc. To no surpise the outcome to every one of these questions leads to things being BETTER than they are now. So I asked him, what if you had been killed, what if your entire body had been paralyzed, what if you suffered brain damage. It's complete ignorance for you to assume what the outcome would have been Craig, if you can't see that then Nova is completely right. There are an infinite amount of factors, I doubt you have accounted for them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your logic is impeccably illogical.

As usual you cite no sources, no evidence, no rationale.

You are a waste of time.

Numerous posts outline in detail the mistakes Clinton made. This book which i quoted you will never read since it does not contain comic strips.

You don't refute one single thing i have said on this thread so i will repost it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His conclusion: Clinton wanted an image as a peacemaker and needed the far left wing of the Dumbocrud party for support on a range of political issues. Ergo, politics trumped security.

The field forces of the FBI and CIA were fully engaged in the war on terror, but the further you climbed the bureaucratic and political ladder the more muddied and lethargic was the response to a series of direct assualts by Bin Laden against US interests, people and assets, including the Aden Hotel bombing, the '93 WTO bombing, 2 Embassy bombings in East Africa, bombing of the USS Cole, and a number of other attacks. The author states that Clinton did not do enough and viewed these attacks as criminal investigations not acts of war.

Hundreds of Americans and thousands of other nationalities died.

August 7th 1998 when the embassy bombs ripped through 2 East African cities was the moment for Clinton to finally, belatedly, lethargically accept that a war was in process and to rally the nation.

He did nothing.

This is Clinton's legacy - the emboldening of terrorist activity and the devastation of 9-11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, the attacks on African embassies etc., each time Clinton promised to bring the perpetrators to justice and then did nothing about it. He spent more tax dollars pursuing Bill Gates than Osama bin Laden - making Windows 98 is a crime, but killing US sailors and citizens is not, apparently.

These promises are not the same as believing that the search for WMD will take 6 months and then being proven wrong. This is an actual lie: repeatedly promising action that you have no intention of taking.

Not to mention selling cruise missile engines, decryption supercomputers, nuclear weapons technology and missile/rocket information to the Chinese. Great idea! We all know that the Chinese are real, real trustworthy and aren't passing all of this on to the North Koreans and the Pakistanis. Sure.

Maybe Clinton wasn't actually responsible for 9/11 in that he didn't plan it and carry it out, but if he'd done what he should have done and what he promised he would do it probably wouldn't have happened. I don't know how he sleeps at night - but then a man who can veto all Congress' bills to curtail partial-birth late term abortions obviously doesn't understand morality the way most of us do. I mean, if you think stabbing viable babies in the back of the head with scissors and suctioning their brains out is just dandy, what's it matter if a few thousand US citizens die?

Like you say, Craig, if you do a little research you find out that Clinton was not a peacemaker, just a war-postponer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...