Can you point us to any of your posts where you were critical of Clinton? How about a post where you were critical of any leberal democrat? joe Wilson?(talk about a liat?)
Why limit the scope of the question (but note the inclusion of deaths resulting due to his lies)? Deaths due to President Clinton’s decisions include:
When I came on to this forum, Clinton was no longer president. Thus, in my opinion, he is totally irrelevant in most ways. We can learn from his mis-deeds and mistakes, but that’s about all. I do not want Clinton to be involved in our government any time in the future nor do I want to see him as head of the UN. I also do not want to see Hillary as president.
IMO the Democrats have functioned as an opposition party quite well. They have opposed everything the administration has proposed. They choose to wait until Social Security is bankrupted right before their eyes before they will be willing to admit that something needs to be done. They look like they are going to do everything in their power to block the Alito nomination. My gripe has been that the Republicans are sitting back, letting them get away with all of this. Dems tactics are “if you say something often enough, people will believe it”. It’s sad that so many folks form their opinions on sound bites and make no effort to find out if what they have heard is true.
Fair Enough.
How odd, I distinctly remember Bush being president at that point. And Bush cutting anti-terrorist funding, and Bush being warned about the attacks.
First Wikepedia is not much of a source for anything as it is filled with whatever garbage any poster wantsto add to it. Try using it as a surce in a paper of any credible university and youll get a resounding “F”
Maybe Bush should have called in the lawyers, or the right lawyers, and then maybe he wouldn’t have embarked on some un-Constiutional policies and legislation.
Don’t know what anti-terrorist funding you are talking about. Please enlighten. Cuts in covert activity came from several Democrat administrations. Perhaps GW was warned about Osama bin Laden, HOWEVER President Clinton received several “shots across the bow” i.e. first Trade Center bombing, incident on the Achille Lauro (forgive spelling), and the bombing of the USS Cole. We had several other warnings from terrorists that we did not heed. I did check one of the websites, the one about Florida elections. Finding the falacies in it that I did, I did not check the others. Just a few points: 1. press called the election in 2000 in Florida before the polls closed on the west side of the state; 2. Floridians had been using the butterfly ballot for many years, as have other states, 3. I admit I don’t know about the felons but I do know that many folks, particularly on the east coast of the state, voted and still vote in two states, one by absentee ballot. How do I know this? I was there.
I am sorry but you could not be more wrong. Clinton cut intelligence spending and his Democrat friends in Congress fought Bush’s attampts to restore it. If you do some research through RELIABLE sources (estesbob cound not be more correct about your sources) into the Able Danger scandal you will find that the hijackers were identified by name and Clinton’s Justice department blocked their arrest by the FBI. That’s right, the Clinton administration took action to PROTECT the highjackers. Clinton also ignored no less than THREE offers from the Sudan to turn Bin Laden over to us for prosecution. The warning Bush got which you refer to was in the form of attacks Bin Laden carried out during Clinton’s administration that were not responded to.
I read your post and thought “so much misinformation; so little time.” Where to begin? Where to begin?
Please enumerate which of the statements by Shelbys2 is incorrect. There are no innocent parties here, but if the Clinton administration had done something about the previous strikes by the terrorists, we might not now be in the situation we are in now. Remember our soldiers being dragged thru the streets in Mogadishu?
I don’t have to enumerate which statements are incorrect. It’s for the person bringing the charge to present evidence of that charge, not the other way around.
You talk about misinformation and make accusations but you never support anything you say with facts as I do. That is because you can not do it. This has nothing to do with “Clinton hating” and everything to do with facts. Facts that are well-known and easily provable to anyone who cares to do some research. As I said, it is certainly not ALL Clinton’s fault but when he ignores three offers to have Bin Laden delivered into our custody for trial it makes him greatly responsible for anything Bin Laden does after that. When a highly placed member of his justice department refuses to let the FBI arrest Mohammed Atta and others connected to him that they have identified BY NAME as a grave threat to the US he becomes greatly responsible for what they do after that. When he cuts the intelligence budget nearly in half he becomes greatly responsible for any intelligence failures that result from it.
Fallacious argument. You made an assertion of misinformation. After doing so it’s your responsibility to validate that assertion with facts.
Error of fact. It’s America’s war. Both Houses of Congress signed the resolution giving President Bush authority to use force to remove Saddam from office.
But why? No one has actually demonstrated that President Bush lied. Not providing demonstration to back up assertions is merely par for the course.
No, no. You forget: President Bush lied to Congress in order to dupe them into the war. Bush lied! People died! No blood for oil! Halliburton!
You all might want to research the Church Amendment, which was probably the first of the legal efforts that successfully emasculated the CIA. After that, the intelligence community was effectively handicapped in data gathering. The Church Amendment pre-dated the Clinton Administration.
The Cooper-Church Amendment was specifically directed against funding for ground troops and military advisors in Cambodia and Laos. It had little to nothing to do with cuts in intelligence assets during the Clinton administrations.
Oh no. That’s not how it goes. I have repeatedly given evidence to my contention that the administration deliberately left the American public with a false impression (lied) for war.