List your main objections to Hillary Clinton

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Actually when I was young I bought into that BS too, as I was in teh military and the threat posed by my superiors was the USSR. They would hang posters that had representations of 1 tank for 1,000 tanks and have a picture graph that showed how all the military people and equip was so much larger by numbers with the Commies. Then the wall fell, the Commies were exposed as the broke0dick country the US knew they were all along.

It would have been nice to spend a few millions on some of the proper gear for the troops themselves... so they did not have to scavenge the garbage dumps for some steel plates to add to their personal armour.. but the Administration boys were far more interested in the BILLIONS going to their campaign contributors in defence contractors.


And hence the attendant "PEACE DIVIDEND" we were all finally supposed to get. The problem with a LOT of carreer military is their JOBS were on the line...since they were no longer needed in such great numbers as they once were. That is why you get so much bitterness from the military types who were serving at the time.. not many of them wanted to make those changes in thinking needed to make a life in the civilian world. Then you also had the economies that were affected in areas surrounding the military bases that get closed...DAMN what the military actually needs..... when the politicians see their local cash cow getting closed.. and a whole bunch of their constituents no longer being able to feed at the local feed trough any longer.

Yes the level of spending on the OLD weapons of war that we fought the Cold War is still there.... unlike the stuff our guys REALLLY needed to keep their assses alive when Rummy sent them there with outdated equipment to keep them safe....I think he needs to be stationed at Balad for a year.. AND lead from the front and go on patrol with the vehicles... and body armour he provided the troops with.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't necessarily "hate" Hillary, but knowing she holds me in contempt does nothing to enhance an attitude of civility and respect.

Politically, I object to her because every time people like the Clintons get what they want, I lose more money and more freedom.

The easiest way to end up in front of a judge in "free" America is to refuse to do what liberal Democrats tell you to do.

Cheers,
Jon S.

Quote

I don't necessarily "hate" Hillary, but knowing she holds me in contempt does nothing to enhance an attitude of civility and respect

How does she personally hold you in contempt Please.

Quote

Politically, I object to her because every time people like the Clintons get what they want, I lose more money and more freedom.

Please explain. They might be slighly more out for your guns, slightly more than the Repubs and the Bush's, but as for civil rights they are far more for you. Compare all the warrantless searches and the myriad of Const slams ove rthe last 6 years to the ones with the 8 before that - give me examples. As for military paycuts, do research and then we'll talk about what a pig Regan was to the troops. Of the last 4 presidents, his pay increases were significantly less than the other 3, the Bush's were slightly higher than Clinton's.

Don't beieve the brainwashing from your superiors w/o doing the research first.

Quote

The easiest way to end up in front of a judge in "free" America is to refuse to do what liberal Democrats tell you to do.

Explain. Examples. I have some for you, all of the many people to peacfully show up at conservative rallies wearing Dem shirts and be arrested then have all charges dropped the next day. It has happened several times including Cindy Sheehan.

Give examples of your claims.

[Lucky... 0]

Yep, all true. That's a good angle with which to look at it in addition to what I posted; military spending has stayed high, troop levels have tailed off substantially, so where is the $$$ going? Not to equipment. You would think that if these GOP scumbags wanted to keep pumping the Military War Complex full off cash, they could at least do so via legitimate contracts for gear. These guys are such scum that they can;t even take the embezzled $$$ from the US to build gear/armor as justification.

Will the US people ever pull their heads out to see the light? I'm pro-military, as I was in the service, but I want it funded only to what is needed and used repsonsibly.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I had a graph saved that now doesn't work when I prompt on it, but I did find this:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VIgsaJFpev4J:www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21754.pdf+u.s.+military+size&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

That's a Congressional report from May, 2004. I'llanswer the rest of the post later.

Point is, the numbers dropped steadily from 89 to 99 and have remained stable sinc ethen. CONCLUSUION:

1) GHW Bush started the drop

2) CLinton continued the drop

3) GW Bush as of May 2004 has done nothing to increase the numners

Here's a graph. The increases are not substantial, but they are higher, notably in the Air Force and Army. The Army is in process of adding between 80,000-100,000 within the next few years. Enlistments are way up across the board.

Your conclusion is broadly correct, but inaccurate. President GHW Bush started a reduction, President Clinton accelerated the cuts, particularly in the Army and Navy. President GW Bush is increasing the numbers.

Actually I found a numerical posting of the troop numbers. Here it is:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:rYkt9lW3ci8J:web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf+Active+Duty+Military+Personnel+Strength+Levels&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Here's the extrapolation:

1981 2,082,560

+47,669

1989 2,130,229

-425,126

1993 1,705103

-319,987

2001 1,385,116


With that, how can you argue that Clinton cut the military beyond all reason? GHW Bush cut it SUBSTANTIALLY more and GW Bush has done little to increase troop numbers. This is simply Clinton/Dem bashing. Face the numbers, answer my questions, please.....

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Nice find.

Thanks.

Quote

QUESTIONS:

1) How is it that Clinton is such a SOB? All he's done is to continue what daddy did and jr apparently agrees with, as troop levels are approximately the same.

I've never said that President Clinton was an SOB. I did say he was overly agressive in continuing the cuts started by President GHW Bush.

Quote

2) How is it that Clinton is a SOB for closing bases, but when Jr does it it's oh so justified?

There is a difference here that I want to point out. I've been trying to focus on force strength, not base closings. The latest BRAC findings are aligning and consolidating forces, while not reducing force strength. Not that many facilities are being closed.

Quote

Can you see the false perception here that Clinton was so bad? It's just a kneee-jerk reaction when a Dem cuts military spending to think that he's trying to crawl into bed with the Commies, but it usually is BS.

I don't think this is BS. I'll answer this question, but I have a counter-question. President Clinton's motives aside: He cut too much (especially in the Navy) in the face of continued attacks on US civilian, diplomatic and military assets, and one planned assassination attempt. His responses to these attacks were weak (whether by choice or circumstance is another issue). COUNTER-QUESTION: Might you agree that President Clinton held the military with little respect or regard overall?

Follow-on questions: Why is it a knee-jerk reaction when the last democratic presidents in office since Vietnam did cut military spending dramatically, to the point of debilitation of our ability to assert US power?

I disagreed with, but understood what President Carter was trying to do, unfortunately, he found out the hard way that his policy with the USSR failed.

I disagreed with, and did not understand what process of thinking President Clinton was following. Barely a year after taking office, the WTC was attacked. Nothing was done. Embassies attacked, nothing was done. He all but ignored offers to take OBL into custody. He did nothing over the USS Cole and he did nothing to eradicate the threat posed when the plot to assassinate then-former-President GHW Bush.

Quote

Furthermore, if the Dems are such pussies, explain how every war the US entered into in the 20th century other than the 1991 Gulf War was started when a Dem was in office.

Both of us can agree that the democratic party was fundamentally different back then. Sen. Clinton is not a mid-20th-Century democrat. Hell, the republican party was different back then too. It could be argued though that for reasons unknown, we cow-towed to the USSR at the end of WWII, giving them eastern Europe (why is beyond me, other than to engineer a "balance" between two presumed super-powers to get the rest of the world to behave. Oddly, it worked for the most part).

Quote

Point is, these cuts were neccesary and woud have gone down inder any president and Congress.

I've never said otherwise, again, I've said President Clinton went too far.

Quote

I was in teh military and the threat posed by my superiors was the USSR. They would hang posters that had representations of 1 tank for 1,000 tanks and have a picture graph that showed how all the military people and equip was so much larger by numbers with the Commies. Then the wall fell, the Commies were exposed as the broke0dick country the US knew they were all along.

I don't know what branch you were in, but broke-dick or no, a 10:1 tank ratio is a 10:1 tank ratio. There was never any doubt that we would clean the floor with Warsaw Pact, it was simply a task of having enough ammo to do so and maintaining the logistics to keep the bullets coming. Some long-timers here at the 101st told me of stories of their training in the days of the 8th ID, about DIP (die-in-place) positions they would exercise with in West Germany.

Quote

How is it that defense spending is going thru the roof, especially with this pseudo-war, but troops numbers are lower than post-WWII?

One of the answers is technology. On the line, we're getting gear that used to be reserved only for Delta and SF units. Every Infantryman has night-vision, IR targeting, high-end optics, MICH helmets, body armor, etc. It's maintained a high quality kill ratio. Integration between the services is up as well, during my time in Iraq, I with surrounded by not only Army, but Navy, Marines and Air Force.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[okalb 104]

This is completely off topic, but I wanted to point out that I am impressed. You are one of the few people from the right that I have seen show President Clinton the proper respect. You may not like him, but you still respect the office and refer to him a "President Clinton"

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This is completely off topic, but I wanted to point out that I am impressed. You are one of the few people from the right that I have seen show President Clinton the proper respect. You may not like him, but you still respect the office and refer to him a "President Clinton"

I like him, but I refer to him as President Manwhore ...... hey, who can think less of a guy that scores on younger chicks, even tho they are fatties

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's a graph. The increases are not substantial, but they are higher, notably in the Air Force and Army. The Army is in process of adding between 80,000-100,000 within the next few years. Enlistments are way up across the board.

Your conclusion is broadly correct, but inaccurate. President GHW Bush started a reduction, President Clinton accelerated the cuts, particularly in the Army and Navy. President GW Bush is increasing the numbers.

With that, how can you argue that Clinton cut the military beyond all reason? GHW Bush cut it SUBSTANTIALLY more and GW Bush has done little to increase troop numbers. This is simply Clinton/Dem bashing. Face the numbers, answer my questions, please.....

I'll have to say that in total numbers-wise (end personnel strength), I stand corrected in the time lines of when Presidents GHW Bush and Clinton were in office and the fiscal budgets they signed into effect. The numbers stand up. My hat's off.

I will continue to argue though that this doesn't diminish the crux of my argument.

I'll reiterate my previous comments, using the numbers you provided. President GHW Bush's reductions were done under the auspices that the US must be able to maintain a two-front war and maintain the ability to project power. The primary way the US has done this has been through the use of Naval Carrier Battle groups. President GHW Bush authorized a reduction in the Navy by 69,000, the bulk of this was in the retirement of the battle ships, USS Iowa, USS Missouri, USS New Jersey, and USS Wisconsin.

President Clinton further reduced it by an additional 91,000 personnel. Where else to draw from but the carriers?

Like I said before, I'm not objective on this issue. In the wake of the Cold War, it made sense to stand down our armed forces. To continue it while being attacked though?

I'm not trying to "bash" President Clinton, or Sen. Clinton, I see flaws in their ideas and I'm disagreeing with what I perceive to be their priorities. Based on past performance when her politically parallel husband was in office, I believe that Sen. Clinton, as president would reintroduce reductions in our armed forces. Her own web-site says nothing of how she would support the military in terms of equipment or military spending. It does go on and on about allowing members of the NG and Reserve to buy into their own benefits, which they already get when they're activated.

Now, back to the numbers, while the numbers aren't as significant as I would like (like I've said before), between FY2000, FY2002 and FY2005 , end strength is up in critical areas related to "boots on the ground", while not further deminishing other areas of military power projection.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Like I said before, I'm not objective on this issue. In the wake of the Cold War, it made sense to stand down our armed forces. To continue it while being attacked though?

DAYUM... you just hit on an IDEA.. lets drop a CARRIER TASKGROUP on the terrorists in the NW Pakistani tribal areas....that should take care of them...( since they are the ones who actually fucking attacked us)

Clinton was dealing with stateless individuals.. not the MASSIVE Soviet military that had just collapsed...

I would say we need more forces capable of fighting these types of people in the mountains of.... Name your favorite STAN (Afghanistan...Pakistan..Tajikistan.. and the soon to be....Kurdistan..Shiitisstan...etc as the old borders are redrawn.)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

This is completely off topic, but I wanted to point out that I am impressed. You are one of the few people from the right that I have seen show President Clinton the proper respect. You may not like him, but you still respect the office and refer to him a "President Clinton"

The office of President has been shown a continued lack of respect, especially within the beltway. I'd be tickled pink to meet President Clinton one day, charisma goes a long way.

But seriously, the leadership on both sides of the aisle needs to raise the bar, a lot. When the President is making a speech, TV programs need to be pre-empted again (like back in the days before cable). The President in turn, needs to bring the Congressional leadership back to the after-5 o'clock setting the way Tip O'Neil and President Reagan used to.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Like I said before, I'm not objective on this issue. In the wake of the Cold War, it made sense to stand down our armed forces. To continue it while being attacked though?

DAYUM... you just hit on an IDEA.. lets drop a CARRIER TASKGROUP on the terrorists in the NW Pakistani tribal areas....that should take care of them...( since they are the ones who actually fucking attacked us)

Clinton was dealing with stateless individuals.. not the MASSIVE Soviet military that had just collapsed...

I would say we need more forces capable of fighting these types of people in the mountains of.... Name your favorite STAN (Afghanistan...Pakistan..Tajikistan.. and the soon to be....Kurdistan..Shiitisstan...etc as the old borders are redrawn.)

Not as simple as you noted. The plot to assassinate President GHW Bush was sponsored by Iraq. OBL was under the protection of Sudan at the time. They weren't as stateless as they are now. We can credit the current leadership for that.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Nice find.

I'd like to preface this post by saying that GHW Bush cut far more troops than did Clinton, and Bush did his greater cuts in half the time, meaning the rate of cut was EXTREMELY greater.

Quote

I've never said that President Clinton was an SOB. I did say he was overly agressive in continuing the cuts started by President GHW Bush.

SOB was my paraphrazation from what I see from most conservatives, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

So if Clinton was overaggressive, then GW Bush was passive and negligent for not restoring the force, right?

Quote

There is a difference here that I want to point out. I've been trying to focus on force strength, not base closings. The latest BRAC findings are aligning and consolidating forces, while not reducing force strength. Not that many facilities are being closed.

Well then, Bush has not restored the troop numbers, yet has spent 320B on the Iraq War. I just don't hear complaints and I hear a lot of praise for Bush and his military. It's a bit semantic to claim bases can be ok to close, sometimes not ok, personnel ok to cut, sometimes not ok. Your criticisms are quite directed at Clinton even tho the father/son duo have done the EXACT same thing he's done. It seems a little partisan.

Quote

President Clinton's motives aside: He cut too much (especially in the Navy) in the face of continued attacks on US civilian, diplomatic and military assets, and one planned assassination attempt. His responses to these attacks were weak (whether by choice or circumstance is another issue). COUNTER-QUESTION: Might you agree that President Clinton held the military with little respect or regard overall?

First I'll post the graphical data that supports your claim that he cut the Navy the most:

ARMY NAVY MARINES AIR FORCE

1993 572,423 509,950 178,379 444,351
1994 541,343 468,662 174,158 426,327
1995 508,559 434,617 174,639 400,409
1996 491,103 416,735 174,883 389,001
1997 491,707 395,564 173,906 377,385
1998 483,880 382,338 173,142 367,470
1999 479,426 373,046 172,641 360,590
2000 482,170 373,193 173,321 355,654
2001 480,801 377,810 172,934 353,571

91,622 132,140 5,445 90,780
16% 26% 3% 20%

Great!! It didn't paste for shit, so I'll post the net numbers:

ARMY NAVY MARINES AIR FORCE
91,622 132,140 5,445 90,780
16% 26% 3% 20%


So if Clinton cut too much in the wake of strife, GHW Bush cut too much in light of the ongoing Gulf War, so who is worse? GW Bush hasn't added taht much in the midst of the ongoing Iraw War. Not indicting them, just saying it was the right thing for everyone.

So, no, I don't think Clinton held the military with little regard. I think Clinton continued the cuts, at an extremely slower rate than did his pedecessor. He tapered off GHW's cuts. He didn't enact don't ask/don't tell to spite anyone either, he did it to give liberty to Americans. Don't take that personally.

Quote

I disagreed with, but understood what President Carter was trying to do, unfortunately, he found out the hard way that his policy with the USSR failed.

How did Carter's policy with USSR fail?

Quote

Follow-on questions: Why is it a knee-jerk reaction when the last democratic presidents in office since Vietnam did cut military spending dramatically, to the point of debilitation of our ability to assert US power?

Where have we had a diminished military to the point of not being able to assert power? What action? What war? Furthermore, GHW Bush did it in larger numbers in 1/2 the time, so the rate was astronomical, no beef there?

Quote

I disagreed with, and did not understand what process of thinking President Clinton was following. Barely a year after taking office, the WTC was attacked. Nothing was done. Embassies attacked, nothing was done. He all but ignored offers to take OBL into custody. He did nothing over the USS Cole and he did nothing to eradicate the threat posed when the plot to assassinate then-former-President GHW Bush.

Do you mean barely a month after CLinton taking office? Or is that a way for you to assert that Clinton should have known and that the 93 WTC bombing was during CLinton's time, rather than like 5 weeks after he was sworn in, as was the case?

He did little as far as a counter-attack because he had the wisdom to see what was in store; this mess we now have. I wonder whay no reply to what the Gulf War did to fire-up OBL???? Hmmm.

Quote

Both of us can agree that the democratic party was fundamentally different back then.

Agreed, just as the neo-con agenda is different now than with the GOP of old.

Quote

Sen. Clinton is not a mid-20th-Century democrat. Hell, the republican party was different back then too. It could be argued though that for reasons unknown, we cow-towed to the USSR at the end of WWII, giving them eastern Europe (why is beyond me, other than to engineer a "balance" between two presumed super-powers to get the rest of the world to behave. Oddly, it worked for the most part).

Yes, we should have Imperialized them too. Come on, we are <5% of the world and you advocate telling the other >95% how to live? Do you want your kids growing up in concentration camps? We helped Israel kick the shit out of Palestine, which is really what has precipitated this mess, did we not go far enough? So is your point that the Dems then were pussies or are they now? Maybe we should go Nuke a few countries if a Dem gets in to show we have the cookies.

ME: Point is, these cuts were neccesary and woud have gone down inder any president and Congress.

Quote

I've never said otherwise, again, I've said President Clinton went too far.

HUH???? Let's see, you're saying, "Yes, you're absolutley right I mean no way, you're wrong." WTF? See, since Clinton is sandwiched inbetween your boys, you want to support them w/o hurting your guys. It's kinda like eating the center of an Oreo without touching the outer cookie, and you can't spin it apart. There's really no way to do it, therefore they fall in the same boat as far as culpability.

Quote

I don't know what branch you were in, but broke-dick or no, a 10:1 tank ratio is a 10:1 tank ratio. There was never any doubt that we would clean the floor with Warsaw Pact, it was simply a task of having enough ammo to do so and maintaining the logistics to keep the bullets coming. Some long-timers here at the 101st told me of stories of their training in the days of the 8th ID, about DIP (die-in-place) positions they would exercise with in West Germany.

My point was that the hype and propaganda was BS, and is BS. I'm not sure where you were going here.

Quote

One of the answers is technology. On the line, we're getting gear that used to be reserved only for Delta and SF units. Every Infantryman has night-vision, IR targeting, high-end optics, MICH helmets, body armor, etc. It's maintained a high quality kill ratio. Integration between the services is up as well, during my time in Iraq, I with surrounded by not only Army, but Navy, Marines and Air Force

Right, and that is one reason why lower troop numbers will work, technology. We need fewer troops when we can deliver a bang from anywhere. But I think a lot of the spending is due to Haliburton and other contarctors who get toomuch for little given. But my piont was that while troop numbers have shrunk, military spedning has maintained or risen - Repubs shifting it off to their buddies in large-part.

• Quote

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I'll have to say that in total numbers-wise (end personnel strength), I stand corrected in the time lines of when Presidents GHW Bush and Clinton were in office and the fiscal budgets they signed into effect. The numbers stand up. My hat's off.

I will continue to argue though that this doesn't diminish the crux of my argument.

Oh, I like that. "Never mind the facts, my mind's made up"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

I want to post this by itself and expound:

First I'll post the graphical data that supports your claim that he cut the Navy the most:

ARMY NAVY MARINES AIR FORCE

1993 572,423 509,950 178,379 444,351
1994 541,343 468,662 174,158 426,327
1995 508,559 434,617 174,639 400,409
1996 491,103 416,735 174,883 389,001
1997 491,707 395,564 173,906 377,385
1998 483,880 382,338 173,142 367,470
1999 479,426 373,046 172,641 360,590
2000 482,170 373,193 173,321 355,654
2001 480,801 377,810 172,934 353,571

91,622 132,140 5,445 90,780
16% 26% 3% 20%

True, Clinton hade his largest cuts in the Navy, but then if he cut more in the Marines wouldn't your argument be that we are in the middle of an XYZ and we need those Marines? If we cut more in the AF, you could say the same.

So your argument that he cut the most in the Navy is true, but cuts are cuts and we can complain about anything. Who knows what his motives were, perhpas by leaving the Army and Marines with the fewest cuts he was prepared for a ground struggle, but the technolgy of the Navy and AF would suffice with fewer people.

Either way, you're still trying to eat the center of teh Oreo w/o touching the cookies on either side.

Get it: GHW Bush made cuts taht were neccessary, Clinton's were not / Foley was a SOB, but so are the Dems. Come on man, these are the types of rationalizations that cause people to think the Repubs are flip-floppers.

TRUTH: We have needed to shrink the military for a long time, I give all presidents since GWH bush credit for doing so, especially GHW Bush for

A) Starting it, and
B) Making the largest cuts in 1/2 the time.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll have to say that in total numbers-wise (end personnel strength), I stand corrected in the time lines of when Presidents GHW Bush and Clinton were in office and the fiscal budgets they signed into effect. The numbers stand up. My hat's off.

I will continue to argue though that this doesn't diminish the crux of my argument.

Oh, I like that. "Never mind the facts, my mind's made up"

.............................

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So if Clinton was overaggressive, then GW Bush was passive and negligent for not restoring the force, right?

I answered this in my other post. I think we've ended up with a double conversation between us (like two threads within this thread).

Quote

It seems a little partisan.

Like I said, I've not claimed to be objective on this matter. The initial thread was political in nature, and I've made no secret what my political alignment is geared towards.

Quote

First I'll post the graphical data that supports your claim that he cut the Navy the most:
Great!! It didn't paste for shit, so I'll post the net numbers:

I understood what you were posting.

Quote

GW Bush hasn't added taht much in the midst of the ongoing Iraw War. Not indicting them, just saying it was the right thing for everyone.

I am not disputing that.

Quote

So, no, I don't think Clinton held the military with little regard. I think Clinton continued the cuts, at an extremely slower rate than did his pedecessor. He tapered off GHW's cuts. He didn't enact don't ask/don't tell to spite anyone either, he did it to give liberty to Americans. Don't take that personally.

I wouldn't have a problem with your point if those of us that serve were entitled to the same constitutional rights as civilians. Since we aren't...

Quote

How did Carter's policy with USSR fail?

President Carter sought to continue a status quo of "detente". However, this policy in the wake of the Vietnam War really caused the vultures to start picking at the integrity of the US. The Iranian Revolution took advantage of that, and once the USSR invaded Afghanistan, President Carter realized that detente would no longer work, but his actions to increase spending in defense were too little, too late.

President Reagan accelerated the expansion of defense, and abandoned the consessions of "detente" and left the SALT II treaty talks.

Quote

Do you mean barely a month after CLinton taking office? Or is that a way for you to assert that Clinton should have known and that the 93 WTC bombing was during CLinton's time, rather than like 5 weeks after he was sworn in, as was the case?

My bad on "year vs month" thing. Attacked once. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Twice, I'd put a hold on all cuts. Three times, four times, five times (Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia I left out), plus an assassination attempt... No, we should have seen this coming.

Little did we know, the pot would boil over.

Quote

He did little as far as a counter-attack because he had the wisdom to see what was in store; this mess we now have. I wonder whay no reply to what the Gulf War did to fire-up OBL???? Hmmm.

We haven't been talking about OBL and Saudi Arabia or the Gulf War...why bring it up now.

Quote

Yes, we should have Imperialized them too. Come on, we are <5% of the world and you advocate telling the other >95% how to live? Do you want your kids growing up in concentration camps? We helped Israel kick the shit out of Palestine, which is really what has precipitated this mess, did we not go far enough? So is your point that the Dems then were pussies or are they now? Maybe we should go Nuke a few countries if a Dem gets in to show we have the cookies.

I don't know what you're talking about here. We could have demanded that the USSR end its occupation of Eastern Europe. That would've saved Germany, Poland, Hungary, the balkans, et al a whole lot of trouble.

Quote

ME: Point is, these cuts were neccesary and woud have gone down inder any president and Congress.

I've not said otherwise. Why are you making me repeat myself?

Quote

HUH???? Let's see, you're saying, "Yes, you're absolutley right I mean no way, you're wrong." WTF? See, since Clinton is sandwiched inbetween your boys, you want to support them w/o hurting your guys.

Dude...don't get frustrated, read my posts. I said it makes sense to stand down a chunk of the army in the wake of the Cold War, it doesn't make sense to continue to do so when outside entities are making calcuated attacks against you.

Quote

My point was that the hype and propaganda was BS, and is BS. I'm not sure where you were going here.

My point is that even a souped-up army in mass numbers is a real threat. The "human" wave would've overpowered NATO. Why do you think our doctrine called for a response with nukes?

Quote

But my piont was that while troop numbers have shrunk, military spedning has maintained or risen - Repubs shifting it off to their buddies in large-part.

And I'm partisan?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

My bad on "year vs month" thing. Attacked once. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Twice, I'd put a hold on all cuts. Three times, four times, five times (Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia I left out), plus an assassination attempt... No, we should have seen this coming.

Some people did see this coming, but their advice was ignored by their successors. If you want to blame someone, blame those successors.

Quote

WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I’ve got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaida out of business when you were president?

There’s a new book out, I suspect you’ve already read, called

The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops. Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

CLINTON: OK, let’s just go through that.

WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20…

CLINTON: No, let’s talk about it.

WALLACE: … but the question is, why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.

I’m being asked this on the Fox network. ABC just had a right-wing conservative run in their little Pathway to 9/11, falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.

And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people.

They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk down, and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations.

OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

WALLACE: I understand, and I…

CLINTON: No, wait. No, wait. Don’t tell me this — you asked me why didn’t I do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul. All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day.

You brought this up, so you’ll get an answer, but you can’t…

WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to.

CLINTON: All right, secondly…

WALLACE: Bin Laden says…

CLINTON: Bin Laden may have said…

WALLACE: … bin Laden says that it showed the weakness of the United States.

CLINTON: But it would’ve shown the weakness if we’d left right away, but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out.

He was not a religious fanatic…

WALLACE: But, Mr. President…

CLINTON: … there was no Al Qaida…

WALLACE: … with respect, if I may, instead of going through ‘93 and…

CLINTON: No, no. You asked it. You brought it up. You brought it up.

WALLACE: May I ask a general question and then you can answer?

CLINTON: Yes.

WALLACE: The 9/11 Commission, which you’ve talk about — and this is what they did say, not what ABC pretended they said…

CLINTON: Yes, what did they say?

WALLACE: … they said about you and President Bush, and I quote, The U.S. government took the threat seriously, but not in the sense of mustering anything like the kind of effort that would be gathered to confront an enemy of the first, second or even third rank.

CLINTON: First of all, that’s not true with us and bin Laden.

WALLACE: Well, I’m telling you that’s what the 9/11 Commission says.

CLINTON: All right. Let’s look at what Richard Clarke said. Do you think Richard Clarke has a vigorous attitude about bin Laden?

WALLACE: Yes, I do.

CLINTON: You do, don’t you?

WALLACE: I think he has a variety of opinions and loyalties, but yes, he has a vigorous…

CLINTON: He has a variety of opinion and loyalties now, but let’s look at the facts: He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush; he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him.

They downgraded him and the terrorist operation.

Now, look what he said, read his book and read his factual assertions — not opinions — assertions. He said we took vigorous action after the African embassies. We probably nearly got bin Laden.

WALLACE: But…

CLINTON: No, wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: … cruise missiles.

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.

The CIA, which was run by George Tenet, that President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to, he said, He did a good job setting up all these counterterrorism things.

The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came there.

Now, if you want to criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: After the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.

But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got after 9/11.

The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would’ve had to send a few hundred Special Forces in in helicopters and refuel at night.

Even the 9/11 Commission didn’t do that. Now, the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too. All I’m asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book.

emphasis mine

Source

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Royd 0]

Quote

Yes the level of spending on the OLD weapons of war that we fought the Cold War is still there.... unlike the stuff our guys REALLLY needed to keep their assses alive when Rummy sent them there with outdated equipment to keep them safe....I think he needs to be stationed at Balad for a year.. AND lead from the front and go on patrol with the vehicles... and body armour he provided the troops with.

The problem with staying armoured up is a bunch of peacenik liberals screaming that it is a waste of money, when in truth they just want to undermine our military capabilities.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

She's a bitch...

that's all.

Seriously, I think she's power-hungry. She had more influence than any other First Lady I've ever seen, in politics, and if a power-trip is her sole goal, I really think we would be in deep shit if we elect her president.

Who needs Bill Clinton back in the white house anyways???

Dude, they're ALL power hungry. Anybody who runs for President (even weirdos like Jimmy Carter) are power hungry. They have to be, or else the election process would eat them alive before they even got started. It's like saying rock stars have big egos, "so your point is ????".

Hillary broke the mold when it comes to First Ladies. She is smart and VERY ambitious. But why should she be content to just be some guy's wife, especially when she nearly left the guy while they were in the White House ? Yeah yeah, it's a marriage of convenience. So FDR never left Eleanor either, not after she remeinded him that a divorcee could never get elected (true in those days, though times changed and Reagan got past being divorced to become a very popular President). Hillary won't divorce Bill because he's a brilliant strategist and campaigner and IF she gets elected, it will be in large part because of Bill's advice and coaching. And she knows it.

I'm not sure I like Hillary and I'm not at all sure I'd vote for her. At least not during the Primaries. But IF she wins the nomination, I'd probably vote for her against almost any Republican.

As for who wants Clinton back in the White House, the answer is that plenty of us would. Every time the guy says anything at all, it makes me yearn for the days when this country had an intelligent educated President who could speak English and put two thoughts together without the guys from Halliburton writing his script for him.

Don't forget that Bush was narrowly elected BOTH times, that HUGE portions of both thhe Popular and Electoral vote went to Gore and Kerry. And by 2008 there will be a Democratic Congress (in both houses), this country will be trying to dig itself out of the HOLE that Bush and the Reptialians have dug us into.

It might be Hillary, or not. Might be Barak Obama. Should be interesting, let's see what the voters have to say.....

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Royd 0]

Quote

Hillary broke the mold when it comes to First Ladies. She is smart and VERY ambitious

She's not smart enough to think on her feet. She always has to have her new conferences completely scripted. Maybe, she's got something to hide.

[Lindsey 0]

She's plenty smart. My main objection is her legs. She needs to not wear a skirt with those legs. But, of course she is from New York now, so it prob'ly doesn't matter anymore....

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

She's not smart enough to think on her feet.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

You sound like a McDonald's fry cook criticizing a sous chef.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Hillary broke the mold when it comes to First Ladies. She is smart and VERY ambitious

She's not smart enough to think on her feet. She always has to have her new conferences completely scripted. Maybe, she's got something to hide.

Actually, she's pretty quick witted, but her demeanor is quite different between ad-hoc versus structured environments -- they put her into a bit of a conflict.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Hillary broke the mold when it comes to First Ladies. She is smart and VERY ambitious

She's not smart enough to think on her feet. She always has to have her new conferences completely scripted. Maybe, she's got something to hide.

Have you actually listened to George W. Bush speaking unscripted?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Have you actually listened to George W. Bush speaking unscripted?

Actually, yes. Once upon a time he could do that very, very well.

Which brings us back to the question of whether he is really an idiot, or a faker, trying to win over those Americans that tend to be intimidated by intelligence.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!