Clinton slaps down Fox, sets record straight on terrorism

Well, I guess we’ll have to wait to see whether it was in fact a mistake at all. I don’t think it was a mistake. . . .[/quote]

[color=blue]Our man in Pakistan doesn’t agree apparently:[/color]

"url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601582.html Stewart[/url] asked (Pakistan president) Musharraf why he hadn’t made much reference in his book to America’s war in Iraq.

‘Is that because you felt like it was such a smart move, and has gone so well that to mention it would be gloating?’ Stewart asked.

Musharraf laughed and said of the war, ‘It has led certainly to more extremism and terrorism around the world.’

‘So we’re safer?’ Stewart pressed.

Musharraf laughed again. ‘No, we’re not.’"

Deftly bringing the thread back on topic…despite attempts to avoid the actual topic…

[quote]Bill Clinton Meets the Smirk
By Debra Saunders, September 26, 2006

" Since 1999, Dems have been dreaming about wiping the smirk of George W. Bush’ face. Sunday, Clinton expanded the smirk zone when he chided Wallace for having “that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever.” Left-leaning blogs are lauding Clinton’s tantrum. Thinkprogress.org reported that Clinton taught Wallace “a lesson.”

If so, it was a lesson on How Not To. Bubba looked silly dismissing Wallace, his “nice little conservative hit job on me” and the Fox News network as conservative tools. Sorry, Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch donated $500,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative last week and hosted a fund-raiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton this summer."

“I don’t get it. If Bill Clinton is so smart, why has he made his failure to get Osama bin Laden the big story of the week twice in the last month? Start with the ABC miniseries “The Path to 9/11.” I never saw it, so all I know about it is that Clinton thought it showed him to be too soft on bin Laden. Oddly, when Democrats were billing themselves as tough on terrorism, Clinton turned the spotlight on his failure to vanquish bin Laden.”

" For three years, the left has accused Bush of lying to the public about intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Partisans seem to have forgotten that Clinton ordered air strikes over Iraq in 1998 in order to check the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program.

On Sunday, Clinton got a taste of the Dems’ bitter medicine, and he choked on it.
realclearpolitics.com/articl … _smir.html[/quote]

Former President Clinton* is trying hard to re-write his legacy…and history.

a bit off topic,but could someone please explain why the witch hunt for the blowjob??

receiving oral job made him a poor politician?

are peoples so lame that they think politicians should live the life of pious?

[quote=“dablindfrog”]a bit off topic,but could someone please explain why the witch hunt for the blowjob??

receiving oral job made him a poor politician?

are peoples so lame that they think politicians should live the life of pious?[/quote]

The witchhunt had nothing to do with the blowjob per se. That’s just Clinton supporters confusing the issue.

It was because Clinton lied under oath about a “pattern of behaviour” question in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

If Clinton was the victim of a witchhunt then sexual harassment lawsuits are witchhunts and, no, no one begrudged him getting a blowjob unless it was his wife Hillary.

[quote=“dablindfrog”]a bit off topic,but could someone please explain why the witch hunt for the blowjob??
receiving oral job made him a poor politician?
are peoples so lame that they think politicians should live the life of pious?[/quote]DBF -
Again, it was not about a blow-job, it was about LYING UNDER OATH. Perjury…not telling the truth after taking an oath to tell the truth.

Heck, he was even convicted, fined and dis-barred(lost his lawyer license) in his home state of Arkansas for perjury.

Thats what it was about. A history and pattern of decption.

ahh ok,thanks for the enlightenment

my 2 cents,but in france he was regarded as the best leader the US ever had(i know most of you won’t give a toss about french view)
and i found his video pretty sincere,as someone else said,he admitted failing his duty,but he failed while trying his utmost.

when will we see Bush admitting to have failed ?-on multiple issues-:never is my best guess

Really? I would be interested in seeing a quote on that. Admitting mistakes is not exactly Bushes forte. Neither is listening to the advice of his own experts. He just sort of plows ahead with his own agenda no matter what as far as I can see.

My guess is that as a child he always felt insecure about himself. I can see how it must have been difficult though, short, stupid, squeaky high pitched voice, and son of the President. This led to alcoholism, as deep seated insecurity often does, and having never really resolved the issues at the heart of that he took on a mesiah complex. Of course he doesn’t really listen to anyone. He thinks he’s God.

Wow, it’s going to get ugly now though as the enormity of his blunderings become clearer to even larger segments of the population and as a consequence more journalists grow the balls to question him publicly. The shock of self recognition he will experience as he realizes what a dangerous fool he has been… God, I almost feel sorry for him.

President Bush yesterday conceded for the first time that he had “miscalculated” the post-war situation in Iraq, but insisted US strategy was flexible enough to deal with the insurgency…

President Bush today said mistakes were made in planning for the Iraq invasion…

US President George Bush has acknowledged for the first time that he miscalculated post-war conditions in Iraq, according to the New York Times daily.

TMan -
Damn MAN!
Don’t piss on their fantasies with facts… :no-no:

How 'bout them Steelers?

Judge Andrew Napolitano fact-checks the hell out of Clinton’s legal argument - Video

Facts…Them damn pesky facts…

Uuuuugh… :frowning:

I’ve made some major mistakes in the war on terrorism myself.

I think the biggest mistake I made was that I didn’t invest heavily in gold back in 2002 when it was clear we were going into Iraq. Fortunately I was flexible enough in my conflicts investment strategy to rectify that miscalculation in 2003.

Well, live and learn. I feel better already for having gotten that off my chest.

By gosh grinning mimby has never been one to paint a gloomy picture has he? Anyway, thanks for that. It would have made more gratifying somehow if he had said that he miscalculated what the situation in Iraq “and” Afghanistan would be (despite what his own experts advised and the lessons of history foreshadowed) thereby leading to the sensless death of thousand of Iraqis and young Americans, civil war and the spread of al Qaeda into Iraq, increased heroin production in Afghanistan, an explosion in Islamic extremist sentiments worldwide and a major loss of face for America in the world community, but heck, any sign that the man recognizes any sort of fallability in himself at all is a good sign I’m sure. Perhaps the psychosis isn’t as deep as it appears. Maybe he just doesn’t like thinking and would have mentioned those things were his understanding of English grammar sufficient to allow the creation of such a long sentence. Maybe he is just plain dumb, or just plain lying. I really can’t say for sure and I’ve given the issue quite a bit of thought.

Anyway, here is what your senior level government experts have to say about it…

nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world … ?th&emc=th

[quote]WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Portions of a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism that the White House released under pressure on Tuesday said that Muslim jihadists were “increasing in both number and geographic dispersion” and that current trends could lead to increasing attacks around the globe.

“You know, to suggest that if we weren’t in Iraq we would see a rosier scenario, with fewer extremists joining the radical movement, requires us to ignore 20 years of experience,” Mr. Bush said. He added: “My judgment is: The only way to protect this country is to stay on the offense.”

“The war in Iraq has made us less safe,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee. Mr. Rockefeller said the judgments contained in the intelligence estimate “make it clear that the intelligence community — all 16 agencies — believe the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism.”

The release of the findings added fuel to an intense political debate about the administration’s record in combating terrorism. Mr. Bush used the news conference to reassert his view that the Iraq war was not to blame for the growth of Islamic radicalism.

He also attributed the disclosure of some of the assessment findings to what he said were government officials leaking classified information to “create confusion in the minds of the American people” weeks before an important Congressional election.

The first article on the findings was published Sunday in The New York Times after more than five weeks of reporting. More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for the article, including employees of several government agencies and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration.

National intelligence estimates are the most authoritative documents that American intelligence agencies produce on a specific national security issue. They represent the consensus view of the 16 intelligence agencies in government, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. [/quote][/quote]

And what would your solutions have been in the beginning?

senseless? fighting terrorism is senseless? or is it that you think that there should be no deaths at all? Very big of you and how bad of us to “want” deaths. Why are thousands of Iraqis dying? Because of American troops? And when they were dying in the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands under Saddam, why weren’t you concerned then? And IF we are to believe that civilian deaths is your big worry, the greatest number of such deaths is now in Sudan and Congo. What would you like to do about that?

The major conflict is centered on Baghdad. That could be a “civil war” in Baghdad but what about the rest of the country? AND al Qaeda is on the decrease in Iraq. The problem is now the sectarian death squads NOT al Qaeda.

Heroin has ALWAYS been grown in Afghanistan. No news there BUT you have a choice and ONLY ONE. You either get the Taliban executiving women and letting women and children starve while hosting al Qaeda OR you get the heroin production with the Taliban removed.

Fuck them. I recall an “explosion” of such sentiments since the Shah was overthrown in Iran and Salman Rushdie had a fatwa slapped on his ass and the whole Palestinian thing since the 1960s. The only difference is that we are actually fighting it this time rather than making concession after concession after concession after engaging in dialogue, negotiations, consultations, etc to “understand” this anger. Fuck it!

hehe right… that is why we have Germany, France and Britain working like hell to further OUR goals with regard to Iran. Yes, it is all about America being in the wrong… haha

I am sure that he will be most gratified to see that you approve of his ability to recognize that he is not perfect and as a human is prone to make mistakes when given a number of conflicting situations that will not result in any clear-cut benefits or advantages. Choosing the best of a bad situation?

The only psychosis here is the belief that the Muslims (fanatics) would not be “angry” if George Bush were not in office, had not invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and was more “fully engaged” in peace negoatiations in Palestine.

Coming from you? haha

Now, now, if you are going to make fun of others’ intelligence and grammar, perhaps then I need to open a new can of whup ass on you regarding your philosophical insights?

yeah, THAT must be it. That is why the most articulate, intelligent voices on this forum, support him.

Something out of the ordinary, eh?

I’m certain this will not be a hindrance to your trying.

“Him” being, paradoxically, one of the least articulate presidents, the U.S. has ever had. :slight_smile:

Tell me one place in the world where it is not wholey a legal problem. It’s the biggest legal problem in Iraq. It is the biggest legal problem in Afganistan. It’s a big legal problem everywhere else. It is being delt with as a legal problem in Egypt, Pakistan…

The only place I would say it was more than a legal problem, prior to the war on Iraq which made it a military problem there, was Afganistan. There the lunatics had truly taken over the asylum. They had to be delt with militarily because they were harboring the likes of OBL and wouldn’t hand him over. Plus they were pricks.

Israel
Lebanon

Delete please.

[quote=“fred smith”] And what would your solutions have been in the beginning? [quote]

I would not have lied about the WMDs in Iraq or started a war there and I would have sent adequate forces into Afghanistan to actually take control of the situation. I would taken steps to seriously clamp down on small arms dealers in Afghanistan and the rest of the middle east and Africa while I was at it. It is to quite an extent American companies that are manufacturing the weapons so some progress could have been expected on that front. I would have subsidized the Afghani farmers in producing something other than heroin until their economy developed. And I would have gone some distance to reducing the demand for heroin by making it’s use a medical problem rather than a legal one. If and when the situation in Afghanistan actually improved so that it would serve as an attractive model to anyone I would have pushed for the removal of Saddam.

Miscalculating your enemey is senseless. Creating more terrorsist is senseless. Acting as though your enemy has no legitamate grievance is senseless.

It is now too late for the US to do anything about the Sudan or the Congo because it’s military capacity and it’s willingness to engage in conflict has been so utterly devestated by the fiasco in Iraq.

al Qaeda is on the decrease in Iraq? Surely you jest?

The Taliban hasn’t been removed and there was another choice and that would have been to subsidize the farmers who don’t grow poppies.

Oh, OK. Fuck it.

Perhaps a nuclear free Iran is in their interest too.

Does Bush read my posts? Funny, it wouldn’t mean a thing to me if he did because I know he would ignore anything that didn’t conform to his world view, ie. almost everything.

Did you read the link I posted above, cuz it seems like you didn’t. Nobody is saying that it was a mistake to invade Afghanistan. What they are saying is that adequate resources should have been used in the subsequent occupation. Resources that were instead diverted to Iraq. These are really key issues fred. You might want to familiarize yourself with them before going out in public.

You’ve named a bunch of philosphers at random and dished out insults like peanuts at party but you have never won a major argument with me about philosophy or anything else.