What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
96 Comments
- nimski, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46"They seem to be anxious to tie it to al Qaeda. … If that's true, how come we got seven times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan?" he said. "Why have we imperiled President [Hamid] Karzai's rule and allowed the Taliban to come back into the southern part of Afghanistan? Why was Iraq deemed to be seven times more important than finding the al Qaeda leaders for the last five years?"
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40"The Republicans should be very careful in trying to play politics with this London airport thing, because they're going to have a hard time with the facts."
That has never stopped them before. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37fine words from the best president america has had in recent history. the 90s were the time to live.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33Yeah...I miss having a President who could talk like Clinton could. But I'd be satisfied if Bush could just get through a press conference without his answers being poorly-phrased talking points linked together by substandard grammar. I always feel nervous for him--as if I were a dad watching his son in a 3rd grade play and hoping he wouldn't screw up and embarass himself.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Yeah, facts have a well-known liberal bias.
- SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Because we BUILT the Taliban along with the Pakistani government in the hope that they would unite Afganistans tribes into one coherent government, who would then allow us to build that pipeline from Uzebekistan thru Afganistan and into Pakistan. Turns out the Taliban had other plans, but were stringing us along because we (us and the pakistan gov't) helped them wipe out their enemies and were arming the living hell out of them. They were merely buying time to become more and more powerful.
Funny thing is it turned out that there just wasn't as much oil in the Caspian as had been predicted. It was predicted that there were upwards of 200 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped. Turned out to be more along the lines of 10 billion. Ouch.
So why then, after we KNEW there wasn't that kind of oil there, didn't we just wipe them back out? Because they were going to serve a much greater purpose. They would be the scapegoats to allow us to invade iraq, who just so happens to hold a great portion of the world's remaining oil, and its already tapped with infrastructure to boot! BOOYA! GOLD MINE! THANK YOU OSAMA YOU DIRTY BLACK SHEEP YOU. :-) Unfortunately so many countries had invested in Iraq that there were massive debts to pay off if we didn't want to fight 20 countries over the rights to oil, which is why the price of oil is ridiculous these days.
Oh wait.. its all just a conspiracy THEORY. Pffft. - brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22@pkghost
In the United States once you have been president you retain that title for life. - Rockarollr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27I agree. Although he was a flawed president, he is 100 times the president that George W. Bush could ever hope to be.
http://www.dubyaspeak.com - heresy_fnord, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23G.W. Bush is the single largest failure of a president this country has ever had.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Anyone else other thlan me miss real presidential qualities, like Bill Clinton has. I'd forgive him for a 1000 blowjobs and more, to have a real president
Bill Clinton for president! - cliffy2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@pkghost: it's very common to refer to politicians by their former title. (i.e. bob dole is still respectfully referred to as "sen. dole") and, besides, in this case, it also deserves to make the distinction between pres. clinton and sen. clinton. contrary to public opinion, hillary was _not_ also the president. ;-)
- anguijm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@datastorageguy
I agree those are questions that could be posed and that Clinton is probably the wrong guy to criticize the current administration, but the questions he raises are also valid. You also have to look at what the two administrations (Clinton and Bush) knew or perceived as threats at their respective times in power.
This kind of debate tends to spiral into each side never agreeing with the other. Even if the facts are known neither side believes the ones that undermine their sense of moral superiority.
Bottom line is nobody is perfect. Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Elvis, Barry Bonds, me or you, we all have things we would like to have done differently looking back but we all move on because we can't change those things. We can, however, effect change in our current course in life which may or may not lead to improvement in the future. We won't know until we get there, and by then it is usually too late. - ToeCheese, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You need to read Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" about what these past 3 Presidents have done as far as securing our nation. Remember it was under Clinton that Osama was first identified and placed on the FBI's Most Wanted - Ranking #1.
Before you spew Republican talking points about Clarke being disgrutled for not getting a better position you should consider that this man served the US government under Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. Also that the terrorists who attempted to blow up the towers the first time are all in jail. Except for the financier who was identified as Osama and that's when the hunt began. - cuposmuck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14yea under clints rule i would have loved to live in america.. hell i even held a white card for the country and have lots of work contacts that i can get a job through in a second.. but now that it has become to a v of venndetta like nation, i certianly wouldnt live there and i would refuse to return there for work purposes...
- Striker840, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16He treated it as a law enforcement problem instead of a military issue. Yes, some of those responsible are now sitting in prison and for that I am glad, BUT, what we should have done is go after the source then, instead of dealing with it now after it has had over a decade to grow.
I read somewhere, I forget where exactly that as the FBI was bringing one of the main conspirators in the first WTC attack, he made the comment as they were flying over that if he had enough explosives they would not be standing, and the next time they WILL fall. That right there should have raised the red flag that it was no longer a law enforcement issue but instead national security level and acted accordingly. Of course this is all 20/20 hindsight so its easy to say what we SHOULD have done etc...
Clinton had the good fortune to hold office during an economic boom and the country was more focused on that. Our country was under attack during his terms, the WTC, Kohbar Towers, Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole but we were more worried/concerned about the blowjobs, whitewater, and the dot com boom.
We are paying for that narrow view today, and will pay for years to come. - synmoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Man, I miss this guy in the oval office.
- stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Metman,
Whenever Clinton did something to combat terrorism, the GOP played obstructionist and accused him of diverting attention from Lewinsky. Now, GWB is responsible for many many more Iraqi civilian deaths that Saddam, and terror is going to exist for years to come as people deal with lost relatives, ruined lives, etc...
the "Project for the New American Century" is an absolute failure - desuka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12amen!
- carve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Clinton did prusue Bin Laden (with cruise missiles), and kept close tabs on him. Before 9/11 there wasn't support for anything like a full-scale invasion though. Bush pretty much neglected the Al queda problem before 9/11, doing far less than Clinton to combat and monitor terrorism. He dropped the ball bigtime.
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Heres to President Clinton!
- ToeCheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's different to comment about the GOP and their lack of success in securing the nation and the Vice President stating that a vote for a non-GOP is a vote for the terrorist. jamie939 joked about Osama in the US shooting grandmas but that is only because it's the picture the GOP is painting.
- gronne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Read this:
http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clinton_and_Terrorism.html - plutarch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@gronne
Great link, my favorite quote from there is this:
"Combating terrorism requires patience, courage, imagination, and restraint. Perspective is essential. Overreaction and bombast play into terrorist hands. Good intelligence, a professional security force, and a measured response are necessary. Most important for any democracy in its struggle against terrorism is a public that is informed and engaged, and understands the nature of the threat, its potential cost, and why the fight against terrorism is its fight too. It is how well the United States meets this challenge that will determine the winners, the losers, and the price paid by each."
It's hilarious because this administration has fostered overreaction and bombast, undermined the theory of a "measured response," and willfully kept the public uninformed other than to trot out the old standby of "a vote for a democrat is a vote for TERRISM" every 2-4 years. - anelajett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Clinton years were great:
His Nat'l. Security Adviser, Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to stealing some of the nation's most highly classified TERRORISM documents. Also, Berger signed off on instructions NOT TO ATTACK BIN LADEN at least 3 times before the '01 attacks. Since this was a matter of public record, I wonder what unrevealed scandal(s) Berger trying to conceal (and for whom - - Bill Clinton?).
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43623
How 'bout FLAN and the other 200 last minute executive pardons by Clinton?
FLAN (a terrorist group, which was responsible for planting over 130 bombs in public places in the U.S)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#FALN_pardons
Yep, fond memories... - gronne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is also very interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374125023/104-8057425-0366318?v=glance&n=283155 - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Clinton...he could have done a lot more to make this country safer, but instead, he pushed it off to his successor, who has had to suffer for it."
What? Don't you remember that Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be shot at Osama? He tried to kill the SOB because of the USS Cole bombing. I don't recall Bush even attempting to lift a finger until 9/11. - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"If any of us run up against these Muslim extremists and admit that we believe in God they will kill us."
What... The... *****...
Technically Muslims believe in the same god as we do. It even says so in the Quaran to respect the people of the book (Jews and Christians).
What they don't believe in is that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Of course neither do the Jews...
The real reason they want to kill us is because Osama was offended by King Saudi's offer for the Americans to come to their nation when Osama had offered the king to use Al Queda to defend them from Iraq after the Kuwait invasion.
He went to Sudan after that and after we forced Sudan to kick him out he ran to Afghanistan and from there he and the Taliban pulled off 9/11 in hopes to get us to leave Saudi Arabia. They figured that since they were able to get us out of Somalia (at least Osama thought he was helping the Somaili's) just by killing a few Marines, he could get us out of Saudi Arabia by taking the attack to our own throats...
Now he was terribly wrong about our reaction to said events and he would have done better by attacking military bases in Saudi rather than us directly, but in no way or shape is this really over the fact we believe in a Christian god.
He has purley secular reasons to kill us... My main beef is why we haven't gone into Pakistan after him. If we spent 100 billion in operations in those mountains we could have got him, but we have been pussy footing around over there and spending all our resources in Iraq and the man is still on the loose. Therin lies the true problem. - stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4datastorageguy only hears what he wants to hear, he lives in fantasy neo-con land. You are wasting your time if you try to reason with him. Polarized.
- Striker840, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@pushmouse: great link, have spent the last hour going thru it. One thing I found was in an interview with Richard Clarke, I thought this quote was quite good. In fact, it is the exact same thing I said in my original reply in this thread:
" the role of law enforcement in going after terrorists I think has been misunderstood. John O'Neill did not think these were law enforcement problems; he thought they were national security problems. He didn't think that for every terrorist event, the solution was going out finding the guy who did it and arresting him, bringing him back to New York and trying him":
I think that is the whole problem we as a country has been facing for years. - pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Striker840
You remember that statement from Frontline on PBS. The episode was called "The Man Who Knew".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually Craigslist is where you should go to look for that sort of thing...
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Draft dodger". That's funny.
Other than Rumsfeld, can you name a single member of the Bush Administration who served in the military? Draft dodgers include Dick Cheney (who literally dodged the draft 3 times), John Ashcroft (7 times), and Karl Rove (who sneakily avoided the draft for 3 years). Even our Commander in Chief, who spent 4 years in the National Guard, saw absolutely no combat whatsoever. And these are the men putting our Finest on the line? Great. - designer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3President Clinton only became interested in terrorism after he left office.
- carve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Bush didn't do crap to stop terrorism- FAR less than Clinton, until 9/11
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3True.. but..
In his defense, we did not have a firm grasp of the potential for harm. I did not like the man, did not like his policy - but at that time we had no firm indication of what was heading our way. (Yes I am aware of the CIA briefings and if you read ALL of them we should already be dead.) - carve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4He did more than Bush did his first 9 months in office, which was also after the first world trade center bombing. If Bush thought it was still a problem, then how come he didn't dive into the issue head first? He must've thought Clinton handeled it satisfactorily.
- flernk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Clinton had a chance to nab Bin laden..."
Missed opportunity? Sure. But it was the Bush administration that officially shut down the unit dedicated to the search and capture of Osama Bin Laden (Alec Station). And don't give me any of this crap about not being a threat anymore. He's a mass murderer and a war criminal. The fact that Bush has turned his attention away from bin Laden, Al Quieda, and the Taliban is one of the greatest presidential blunders in history. That's not missing a "chance to nab", that is deliberately turning your back on a terrorist threat. - dancpsu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Doing more" doesn't necessarily mean a ground invasion of the middle east. Taking out OBL covertly and beefing up intelligence resources against global terrorist organizations would have gone a long way.
- krische, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2to jbformby
So wait, let me get this straight. Clinton engaging in oral sex with an intern is worse than Bush invading a country that has never attacked us, all on the basis of false intelligence, thus resulting in the deaths of thousands of US soldiers and countless innocent Iraqi civilians. It makes perfect sense! - datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Here is an open call to all Bill Clinton supporters (I know this is off topic but w/e)
Please name the positive contributions to the economy and fighting terrorism that Bill Clinton is responsible for. - pkghost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@brufleth
Google agrees. I was wrong. Statement retracted. - krische, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2perjury? He technically didn't lie. He did not have sex with her according to the definition of sex he was giving.
- Metman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Go back in history, there is no appeasement."
Good luck. No one pays attention. Look at the polarized comments regarding Israel and Lebanon. So many Americans are writting "Israel should just leave!" yet they sit comfortably in their homes that their ancestors killed and displaced thousands of Native American Indians to secure.
However, I will preach with you!
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it!" - George Santayana - mojee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I understand how looking back, people can say, "well Clinton could've done more to fight terrorism."
But if you sit down and think about it, truth is, he really couldn't have. How do you think a hostile Republican Congress would have reacted if Clinton one day just declared back in 1998, "We are fighting a War on Terror and I'm sending our troops to the Middle East?"
Do you honestly think they would have supported him? Or do you think Newt would've gotten on the talk shows yelling something akin to, "We have a lying cheat in the Oval Office with no previous military experience who wants to send our troops into harms way. Hell no, this Republican Congress won't let that happen. We're not the world's police!"
Hell, I am/was a registered Republican and that's what I would've said. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The political section represents nothing more than a herd mentality. One guy says Bush is the devil, and the rest of you jump on the bandwagon and interject your perceived interpretations of the truth, and then someone disagrees and he is attacked by the herd who waits for the opportunity to pounce on anyone who doesn't share the same view. None of you know the full and OBJECTIVE truth. Deal with it. Political section of digg = very worst aspect of the entire site. You're all a bunch of sheep (on both sides of the political fence), and you don't even realize you are all slaves to the perceptions and "truth" a variety of sources created in your heads.
- Striker840, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@carve: I don't think Bush did enough either. In fact the past several administrations have pretty much had their collective heads in the sand regarding this issue. there have been a few individuals who realized what we faced but were basically told to shut up.
Failure to properly address goes back several admins, failure to prosecute properly goes back 3. Bush Sr in my opinion stopped too early during the Gulf War and that just gave fuel to terrorists. - Lanser84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've heard enough about not "politicizing" things. Instead of this term meaning turning something that has no relations to politics into a political tool (eg ad hominem against someone's family) it means using *any* issue to promote your political aspirations and ideals.
Would it be bad for democrats to "politicize" poverty by using poverty statistics to promote their minimum wage and entititlment programs? To "politicize" old people being in financial trouble by pointing out their sufferings to promote social security programs?
Although I don't like how Bush is leading this war (I've made plenty of comments over the weeks on that) it is stupid to call his pointing out the threat that terrorism poses "politicizing" that issue. He thinks he has a political solution to that issue, so he points out that it is a real issue. Wow, that sounds entirely reasonable...but the term "politicize" has this negative feeling associated with it...so let's call that "politicizing the issue" to smear it.
Argue against his position - argue against how he's going about it...but don't just use this meaningless smear term uncritically. - NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn edit times.
"So the DOD and CIA were also involved with the trial?"
You're comparing a single person to the CIA and the DoD. The CIA nor the DoD put down everything for that trial. Clinton on the other hand had to prepare for and go to the impeachment hearings. Then you have to add in that fact that the trial will be on his mind for the remainder of the day.
The president is a person. - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> I love how all the lefties forget the little perjury bit too. people are
> so closed-minded it's ridiculous. oh, how about the impeachment,
> there's a reason a president gets the big boot yet is of course the
> keynote speaker at future democratic conventions. what a joke.
I love how everyone always forgets that he didn't actually get impeached, and that the whole thing was a big ***** joke, but Bush can lie as much as he wants about things like leaks and domestic spying and terrorism etc, and its ooooookkkkkkk - NoNom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"So the DOD and CIA were also involved with the trial?"
You're comparing a single person with the CIA and the DoD. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is