So Clinton Dropped the ball....
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=163537
Printed Date: 16 January 2026 at 12:04pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: So Clinton Dropped the ball....
Posted By: .Ryan
Subject: So Clinton Dropped the ball....
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 9:50pm
|
....in regards to 9/11?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jtfGtWKqh4&mode=related&search= - Another gem by Keith Olberman.... -------------  |
Replies:
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 10:01pm
|
Click..............did not go off, must be another dud....
Nice try...but too old ------------- 
|
Posted By: Da Hui
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 10:01pm
|
I watched about the first 46 seconds. ------------- 
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 10:01pm
|
i thought it said clinton dropped his balls ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: RicWhic414
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 10:02pm
|
hmm... very interesting
------------- Tuesday starts the weekend... YAYAYA!!!! CHUFF CHUFF |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 10:12pm
|
The date of the video doesn't refute its factual content....Did ya watch it? Wanna respond to the arguments themselves? Oh and, for those who didn't watch, its worth 9 minutes....seriously... ------------- |
oldsoldier wrote:Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 10:23pm
|
Seen it before, this issue will go on just like the FDR did he know Pearl Harbor fiasco. Depends on the point of view and what you care to believe.
Clinton had a chance for Bin Laden, should of, could of, didn't history, works both ways. And each side can offer facts to support any claim. Whose "lies" do we believe The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements. The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts. In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. -------------
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 10:23pm
|
They bring up the warning of terrorist patterns of threats of hijacking and other types of attacks. Yeah, cause thats specific. Im sure Bush gets memos of that threat all the time. Seriously. Also, to blame one man, even if it is the president is just wrong. Several people have enough power to get stuff done, they just need to get off their butt and do something. So if your going to tell me that a senator doesnt have enough power to get something done, then what is the point of congress. What is the point of the Judicial system. What is the point of elections at all? |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 11:03pm
|
Edit: Monk, we know that. Usually when I say "Bush", I mean he and his administration....However, "the buck stops here" is as true now as it was when Give 'Em Hell Harry coin it... ------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 12 January 2007 at 11:30pm
|
Why would Bush respond to the USS Cole, was on Clinton's watch.
Still waiting on the total package, there is the question of the missing Sandy Berger files, we could just be getting what remains and information modifacation. Kinda like the single shooter Kennedy report, physical and forensic evidense can go both ways. And how did the Iraqi WMD's and programs instantly dissappear the day of Bush's innaguration? -------------
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 12:04am
|
Cole: Investigation was ongoing when Clinton left.
WMDs: Those quotes were from 1998.... ------------- |
Posted By: Rock Slide
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 12:30am
|
What's scary is that this crap will continue going on until WE decide to elect honest people who will look out for us and not their own, got to keep this cushy job, interest. That goes on on BOTH the left and right. Beware of stupid people in large groups. Too many sheep out there. About time the concept of independent thought came about. The only people I really trust are close friends. Yes there are probably a few honest politicians out there that really try. But they are outnumbered by the heard. · Do you trust politicians? o Nope. · Then why elect them? o They're the only ones on the ticket. · Why not write somebody in? o It wouldn't matter. · Wouldn’t you rather have a clear conscience knowing you tried? You fall right into their trap. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is bravo sierra.
------------- I bring annihilation and cheap red wine! |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 12:36am
|
Agreed. I've been saying for years that they need to get money out of politics. This would not only help keep our politicians honest, but it would also give third parties a go at actually competing with the big two.....Kill lobbying and make all elections publicly funded, that would just about do it....Real simple, but I doubt we'll ever see it....maybe though...I tend to think that there are more real honest politicians in it for their people than most think there are, so that makes me a little more hopeful than many... ------------- |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 12:42am
United we stand; divided we fall. I'm tired of people like you who are so stuck on one side of the fence. Open your mind. Forget democrats and republicans. Let's try Americans. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Simma Down!!
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 12:50am
Agreed.....too many people see republicans and democrats. Their party will never be the worse of the two. Its complete BS, maybe if they worried about the actual problem then maybe we would get somewhere. Yes Bush went about the war in Iraq totally wrong and the Democrats can blast him all they want because I feel he did botch it. But in all reality, I want the democrats to quit their moaning and compaining and actually put a plan worth considering on the table. So far all ive seen is alot of finger pointing and no actions. |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 1:04am
|
I agree, but I will say that a lot of real complaints and statements of dissent get labled at partisan bickering. I hate Bush, his croneys, and most of his party because I feel that they have done a lot of harm to this country in their tenure, among other reasons, but not because they are Republicans or I'm a Democrat. I identify myself as a Democrat because I feel that they are the party that has the best ideas and the right mindset for the country right now, not because they are Democrats. This isn't a my team-their team mentality, at least not with me, it's about right and wrong, and the facts of reality.
Also, the Dems have done a lot more than just moan abotu Bush, they have continuously been putting alternatives out there, but since they don't have the power to enact them, or atleast they didn't until recently, and because the media likes to focus on the moaning, you don't see it as much. If you care to really listen, they do have ideas, not just complaints. ------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 3:03pm
|
Strange.....When an American is overseas, he is seen as a single entity, an American, only when he/she is in thier own country are they placed into racial/cultutal/ideological catagories, by a system that fosters conflict, and can not and almost refuses to unify.
I too get tired of the political diatribe, by those who have no comparison. Our history is full of he said, he did, he was wrong, but only recently has the politics turned to "impeach" for any percieved injustice or bad decesion, and loses sight of itself. Polititians spend 1/3-1/2 of thier term in a singular goal of personal advancement (re-election needs) over the needs of the people they represent. So the two year house cycle requires up to one year of campaigning over governing. Fine example is Hillary, who if so deciding will abandon her real job in congress for her personal goal for the next two years, and place those who placed thier trust in her secondary. For 40 plus years the Dems controled congress, and all the problems of the 60's, 70's' 80's are still with us, and they held the pursestrings and had the ability to enact true change. And only find fault with the less than a decade the Republicans were the majority. A question I ask constantly if all our social ills were solved overnight what would the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, etc do for employment, it is in thier personal self interest to keep these divisions out there. In diversity the prof asked what would be a counter to MLK day, I play the radical right winger by request to get discussion and debates going, and I stated Nathan Bedford Forest Day and not one person in the room knew who is was, but they know the PC MLK info, and no counter for reference. The news, both sided of the event is bias for iots own agenda, and those here who see people like myself as single minded, check the mirror. -------------
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 3:42pm
|
I'm starting to see a formula with your posts OS....Something like this: [Statement that partisanship is bad] [Somewhat respectable non-partisan statement about politics as a whole] [Attack on single, popular Democrat] [Attack on Democratic Party as a whole] [Statement implying that all others are idiot sheep] [/Right Wing Rant] ------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 4:04pm
|
Close....just a differant axis of attack on our politics to counter the constant anti-Bush administration slant here. I understand that many here only have seen the current administration, but are ready to attack any challenge/comparison to thier learned bias.
Too many here are sheep, for either side, and refuse to see anything other than thier position. I personally look at both sides with a critical eye, but find it fascinating the non-referenced ideas based on singular information that fits only the individuals need. Historical reference is too easily dismissed if it does not fit the view required. Look at the story on the 100 hour plan of Pelosi, and all the "new" modifacations, I beleive they have been in session for approximately 48 hours, and the clock is only at 17 hours. That behavior is a constant on both sides but only found to be critical if a Republican makes a simular statement claim (Contract with America). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_go_co/counting_the_hours - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_go_co/counting_the _hours -------------
|
Posted By: Heres To You
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 6:47pm
You act is if yours don't follow the same process. Just change every Democrat and put a Republican. Your lucky that the majority of this forum agrees with your opinions. If oldsoldier post alot of articles, everyone says "Gah, quit posting these" and he get's most annoying forumer of the year (not that the vote was legit, but whatever). Yet you do the same thing with nearly every thread you post and take nothing for it. Good luck. ------------- |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 7:29pm
|
I really don't see how I do that....Most of my posts are anti-Republican, but that's because I see what they're doing as wrong....I absolutely know that there are good and bad in both parties and I really don't see my self as a hardcore partisan person....and I definitely am not nearly as condescending as OS....But if you say so...Good luck...
------------- |
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 8:18pm
| I gotta admidt I didn't watch it. Olberman was great at ESPN...but since hes become a mouth piece for the DNC. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 8:21pm
|
The difference .Ryan is I readily admit I do it, and for a purpose. You really need someone to look at your work from a neutral light, you may not like what you hear. We are no differant except in admission.
Keep up the fight................... -------------
|
Posted By: Heres To You
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 9:31pm
I don't see OS being anymore condenscending than you. I'm not saying you arguments aren't legit, and I see where your coming from even If I don't always agree with it. I wasn't talking as much about the way you debate as much as just the fact that all your post are always one-sided. You never post about a stupid democrat. Anyone can post Bill O Reilly (not that you do, but others do) and say "He's such an idiot" and point out something a Republican does. ------------- |
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 9:52pm
|
I don't know man. If you pay attention, I've posted quite a few completely party-neutral posts, like my response to Rock Slides post in this thread, but I do admit that I tend to be rather one sided. I don't do it on purpose or to push any other agenda than what I think is right. I started this thread because I think it's wrong that Clinton is blamed for 9/11 in a lot of circles and that Bush gets none of it, not because of either parties political affiliation...plus I love Olberman's oratory....I don't attack or defend along party lines, just on the line or right and wrong. Believe me or don't, I don't care. But I don't care what anyone says, OS is 5x more condescending than me on a bad day and he uses 10x more bumper-sticker logic and I would ever allow myself to. And OS, I'll admit to being strong in my convictions but I do not see myself as absolutely left-wing biased...that's just how my opinions tend to align themselves. And that's actually not as strong of an alignment as some here probably think... Oh and, as a side note, I think Olberman is a lot along the same lines. Loyal to truth and the ideals of this country. He sees this Administration as against those, and makes a very good point to that effect, and for this he is called a mouthpiece for the DNC....I would never compare myself to him or his inspirational figure, Ed Murrow, but I think that I, and a lot of other people, get the same thing. Conviction is branded as partisan bias too often, by both sides. Hell, I could be doing the same to OS right now, but he's admittedly uber right-wing and uses logic that has to be so faulty that he sees it himself, so it's apparent that his words go beyond his convictions and head into the territory of defending the his team for it's own sake... ------------- |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 9:59pm
|
OS is to conservatives as .Ryan is to liberals.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 9:59pm
Here here. ------------- 
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 10:00pm
|
Damn it...I give up...whatever...
------------- |
Posted By: Heres To You
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 10:02pm
Bush has tooken alot more than Clinton. Clinton has not had popular documentaries linking him to Sept. 11 like Bush has. Either way, everyone has their own opinions on Clinton. Personally, I do not care for him because of the military cuts. That made it really diffucult for alot of military families, but you live and learn I guess. My post arent directed so much as to linking you as biased as much as just saying your doing the same thing that OS did and gets criticized for, so you should just be happy your posting on a very liberal board. ------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 10:11pm
|
.Ryan, I am disappointed that you still can not see the forest through the trees. You are in college, you know the state of affairs the country is in, and you know that many youth only are presented with one side of most issues. The ability to reason and to make informed decesions must come from sorting through both sides of an issue, not following blindly like sheep the singular information from one side or the other.
I have been specificly asked by two proffesors to take a decidedly uber right-wing stance in poly-sci and socialology/diversity class to present the opposition in debates and discussion. We had a sign up for the scheduled debates and no-one signed up for the right side counters, and the reason was that "they do not know" what the stance is, or the oppositions position is. And several refused to take on the right's position, even after it was explained that "to known thy enemy" is the first step to effectivly battle that enemy. I did the same by request last quarter prior to my injury and withdrawal, and the classes were more informative than a singular position presented, nod your head and agree attitude. You remmember our discussion on women in combat. Do we not agree that the media as presented tends to be more left leaning, with only one network aligned with the right. The negativity of many issues is way out of balance to any positive message or action by the administration, yet negative stories are seldom presented on the left. I find it interesting for example the current story on the Carter Foundation resignations is almost unheard of over his new book, nor Presidents Ford's negative comments and observations on the Carter years get any play, yet Carter throws up a home, or condemns this administration and he is a media darling. To educate, there must be arguement and different positions presented, for the student to decide, or it is not education it is indoctronation. -------------
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 10:25pm
|
OS, I live in central Ohio.....Almost no one I talk to is "liberal". I'm surrounded by the "other side". Hell, I used to be on the "other side"...Let's not forget that I used to be one of your little clones not that long ago....I know the other side, I just absolutely disagree with it now. Also, the university setting being a liberal haven thing is over-played, at least. As is the "liberal bias" in the media. Reality has turned against the right and (most of)the media reports on reality, thats how I see it. ------------- |
Posted By: Heres To You
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 10:36pm
Not true at all... ------------- |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 13 January 2007 at 10:39pm
|
Lincoln, NE is a college town, UNL and several others, and I attend classes at the local community college and the university, and at least here the left position is dominant. I observe my classes as part of my study for secondary education, and find a distinct generalization of negativity towards anything on the right, and find a very left slanted presentation by academia here.
I did my debate last quarter in full uniform, and the looks more from the staff than the students was another interesting read. -------------
|
Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 14 January 2007 at 1:32am
|
The one thing we have to remember is the US was "diffrent" pre 9/11. As much as I Loathe Clinton I can't blame him, or W for 9/11. The thinking was just different then(up to 9-11-01). What is important is the thought process and the lessons learned since 9/11/01. Anyone who is foolish enough to think the US can go back to the pre 9/11 days is either an idiot or suicidal.
|