Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2006-09-25 21:22:26

Ah my old advesary, I salute you...

PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

Look at the total number of people killed under Bush's war policies (hundreds of thousands) compared to Clinton.

Not this crap number again.

WHATEVER number you accept have been killed as a result of Bush's actions is still vastly greater than the number killed by Clinton's actions. So you've done nothing to counter the actual point being made there.

PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

To say Clinton was responsible for standing by while Rwanda happened is no different than Bush now standing by while Darfur happens

Actually, no. Clinton agreed with the UN and held restraint. Bush has been pushing for a peacekeeping force inside the Sudan, but the UN doesn't want to for fear of offending Muslims.

If Bush really wanted to put troops in the Sudan, he wouldn't have put all our troops in Iraq; most UN peacekeeping forces are to a large extent American, and if we can't contribute any troops because we're stretched to the limit as it is, then we're telling them to do something we won't do ourselves or even help them with. Also, if Bush really wanted results from the UN, he wouldn't have such a hostile attitude towards them, sending in a controversial combative figure like John Bolton, and making one of the neo-con talking points in the lead up to the war that the UN is irrelevant and should be ignored (if not outright disbanded). When that's your angle, it's hard to trun around and ask the UN to send a major peacekeeping force you don't plan on contributing many troops to.

PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

including the recent conservative-made movie aired on ABC full of blatant lies about 9/11 in order to implicate the Clinton administration.

The main source for that movie was Richard Clarke.

No, the main source was a Republican who spearheaded the whole project, I need to look up the name because I don't remember it off the top of my head, but Clarke spend years after 9/11 speaking on television and writing books that clearly blamed Bush for not trying as hard as Clinton.

But all that aside, there's a clear bias in the movie. Three reasons why:

1. The movie was advertised as being based on the 9/11 commission report.

2. The movie glaringly contradicted the 9/11 commission report.

3. The movie only contradicted the 9/11 report in ways that presented the Clinton administration in a negative light, and suggested they were less proactive against terrorism that the commission's report says they were.

At the end of the day, if those three things are true, you have to admit the movie is biased with a pro-Bush/anti-Clinton slant, regardless of whether the rest of the movie also criticizes Bush for stuff the 9/11 report says he should be criticized for.

PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

Bottom line: Clinton declared war against Bin Laden in the late 90's and committed resources to fighting terrorism, it's a matter of official record, so I don't know why anyone falls for the propoganda that says that Clinton was unwilling to pursue him.

Gee, maybe it was the multiple times that foreign countries tried to hand him over and he refused that clued people in.

If I am to believe that, what's the theory behind why he did it?

PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

spent 42% of his time.

Man, I haven't heard that talking point in a while. That number included weekends at Camp David (not vacationing), and hosting foreign leaders in Crawford (also not vacationing).

Let's say it's not 42% then, for the sake of debate. Certainly he spent more time vacationing than other presidents, even conservatives don't try disputing that.

And even if you take vacationing out of the equation, my point there still stands. Had Clinton reduced our time and resources on terrorism from the previous administration, and eight months later we were attacked by a method already anticipated by the very counterterrorism experts being ignored after that reduction, let alone over a month after the "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" memo came across his desk, Clinton would be BURNED ALIVE politically. And that's not even including if his administration blocked every effort to make a 9/11 commission after the fact.

[default homepage]

[print][

6:23:45am Jun 04,2024
load time 0.02248 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]