Requirements for Democratic Presidential Candidate

[brogers]

I feel the same way. I refuse to be part of the death of innocent people. If you want to support murderers thats fine. I won't.

Are you familiar with the bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII?

 

[DOMS]

Are you familiar with the bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII?

It's like the idea that innocent people die in wars is news to them.

 

[Big Smoothy]

The bolded part I generally agree with. However, this propagandized "weak democrat" stigma is ridiculous. Weren't the last several major influential wars fought under Democratic presidents??

This weak Dem shit is ridiculous.

The Democrats have used the military and engaged in wars many times since the early 1800s.

The Republicans are more prone to use the military to further the economic interests of the U.S.

 

[Decker]

Uh-oh, it's another "9/11 was a conspiracy" person, because it sounds like you don't think that the attacks in the '90s lead up to 9/11.

From the start Clinton never really tried to get the people responsible for attacks against the US.

Let me guess, you see no connection between the numerous attacks under Clinton's useless guard and the lack of terrorist attacks after Bush started to hunt them down?

I bet your also one of those people that say shit like "Crime is lower despite the rise in prison population" people.

Come on DOMS. What numerous attacks? What useless guard? So now your retroactively reading the minds of the terrorists--they were emblodened by Clinton's failures....

It was 19 guys with box cutters that attacked us. Bush took that attack and painted a pic of Iraq as a major Al Qaeda player.

What did Bush do prior to the attacks? He ignored the outgoing administration's warnings of the dangers Al Qaeda presented. He fired Dick Clarke--arguably the gov.'s top terrorist expert. He went on vacation for months at a time to clear brush instead of attending to duties of office. He ignored the brief, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US."

Then when the attacks happened he sat like an addled dope in a florida classroom before bouncing around the country in his plane. He mismanaged the Afghan war. He attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9/11...and mismanaged that war.

Every step this buffoon has taken, illegal invasion, authorizing torture, letting Iraq and Afghanistan go to hell almost seems designed to inflame our allies, our enemies and turn up the boil in the middle east.

 

[DOMS]

Come on DOMS. What numerous attacks? What useless guard? So now your retroactively reading the minds of the terrorists--they were emblodened by Clinton's failures....

The embassy bombing? The USS Cole? Any of this ringing a bell? And those are only two of the attacks during the '90s.

Every step this buffoon has taken

Focus, man! Focus! I'm not talking about Bush or Iraq, I'm talking about Clinton.

 

[Decker]

The embassy bombing? The USS Cole? Any of this ringing a bell? And those are only two of the attacks during the '90s.



....

I stand corrected. The attacks are legion.

You state a conclusion with zero factual support:

Clinton never really tried to get the people responsible for attacks against the US


What would you have done differently than Bill Clinton in handling the Cole incident?

What did Clinton do?

What did Bush do? The attack occurred on 10/2000.

What would you have done differently than Clinton re the East African bombings (embassies)?

It just seems that you bash Clinton with jaded conclusions and offer no reasons for me or others to agree with you.

 

[DOMS]

I stand corrected. The attacks are legion.

My apologies. I wasn't aware that in the your liberal fantasy world that numerous meant legion. I'll watch out for that from now on.

You state a conclusion with zero factual support:

I already told you what Clinton did to retaliate. Which was, for all intents and purposes, nothing. He attacked an empty training facility and an aspirin factory. Whoodie-fucking-doo.

What would you have done differently than Bill Clinton in handling the Cole incident?

It's not just the Cole incident, it's his lack of real retaliation for all of the attacks.

What did Bush do? The attack occurred on 10/2000.

He has gone on to remove two governments that were friendly to terrorists, freeze the financial accounts of those that support terrorists, and stopped attacks against US interests abroad.

It just seems that you bash Clinton with jaded conclusions and offer no reasons for me or others to agree with you.

I've already pointed out that he did nothing of value to stop the attacks; an that lack of retaliation led to more and more attacks, culminating in 9/11. Just because you don't want to acknowledge the facts doesn't mean that they're not there.

 

[Decker]

My apologies. I wasn't aware that in the your liberal fantasy world that numerous meant legion. I'll watch out for that from now on.

"numerous" means more than two my friend.

I already told you what Clinton did to retaliate. Which was, for all intents and purposes, nothing. He attacked an empty training facility and an aspirin factory. Whoodie-fucking-doo.

You operate under the same mistaken assumption that Bush does: Terrorism/evil is a state entity subject to conventional warfare. You are both wrong.

It's not just the Cole incident, it's his lack of real retaliation for all of the attacks.

Lack of retaliation. No, we have a lack of historical recount on your part again.

President Clinton directed the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the State Department to send officials to Yemen to investigate the attack. Clinton ordered U.S. ships in the region to pull out of the port, and ordered U.S. land forces to increase their security.
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/uss_cole.html

The CIA fired a missile at one of the suspected planners of the attack.

Sure there's always more that could be done.
How would you do things differently?

He has gone on to remove two governments that were friendly to terrorists, freeze the financial accounts of those that support terrorists, and stopped attacks against US interests abroad.

He's failed miserably at both endeavors. Worldwide terrorism is through the roof. And do I have to keep reminding you that Al Qaeda and Iraq were not two peas in a pod?

Stop suggesting otherwise. If you continue with this ridiculous line of reasoning, then I suggest you list the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Israel, Egypt, and more as governments also friendly to terrorists.

I've already pointed out that he did nothing of value to stop the attacks; an that lack of retaliation led to more and more attacks, culminating in 9/11. Just because you don't want to acknowledge the facts doesn't mean that they're not there.

What facts? All I see are your misguided conclusions. Here are some facts showing exactly what the Big Dog did to battle terrorism:
Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
· Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
· Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
· Passenger Profiling: $10 million
· Screener Training: $5.3 million
· Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
· Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
· Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
· Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
· Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
· Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
· Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
· Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
· Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
· Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
· Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
· Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
· PublicBuilding and Museum Security: $7.3 million
· Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
· Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
· Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
· Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
· Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. Source William Rivers Pitt


Why oh why do you make me do that pasting?

Are those enough facts for you?

The world is a dangerous place. If a suicide bomber has your number, your number is likely up. Ameliorating the US's ability to stop those psychos is what the above facts are all about. Not perfect but good.

 

[Decker]

I was told when I grew up I could be anything I wanted: a fireman, a policeman, a doctor - even President, it seemed. And for the first time in the history of mankind, something new, called an astronaut. But like so many kids brought up on a steady diet of Westerns, I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero???that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. And in my heart of hearts I still track the remnants of that dream wherever I go, in my endless ride into the setting sun.

--Bill Hicks

I just felt like posting this.

 

[DOMS]

You operate under the same mistaken assumption that Bush does: Terrorism/evil is a state entity subject to conventional warfare. You are both wrong.

So tell me, oh wise one, where are the terror attacks against US interests abroad since Bush went ape shit on the Middle East? Sure our troops get attacked in Iraq, but where are the embassy bombings? Where are the attacks against US force elsewhere? Where are the attacks on US soil?

President Clinton directed the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the State Department to send officials to Yemen to investigate the attack. Clinton ordered U.S. ships in the region to pull out of the port, and ordered U.S. land forces to increase their security.
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/uss_cole.html

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/uss_cole.html

I said it before, but it bears repeating here: whoopdie-fucking-doo. That did nothing to deter future attacks.

The CIA fired a missile at one of the suspected planners of the attack.

Would that be the empty terrorist camp or the aspirin factory?

He's failed miserably at both endeavors. Worldwide terrorism is through the roof.

Care to try and back that up with figures? You won't, because you can't. Those numbers don't exist.

And do I have to keep reminding you that Al Qaeda and Iraq were not two peas in a pod?

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, Saddam supported terrorist organizations. They were two peas in the terrorist pod. There is no iron-clad proof that they did, or did not, work together, but they both were part of the terrorist world.

Stop suggesting otherwise.



Are those enough facts for you?

Nice facts you have there. Not that any of that stopped all the attacks that followed. Certainly not 9/11. They were all substantially ineffective.

You keep trying to say that Clinton did something of value to stop terrorist attack, yet they continued to happen! They culminated in 9/11! You can bullet list all you want, you can talk about the paltry money that Clinton spent, but none of it means jack shit. The attacks kept happening and resulted in 9/11. That is a fact that trumps your shitty little list or anything else that you have to say.

 

[ABCs]

Nice facts you have there. Not that any of that stopped all the attacks that followed. Certainly not 9/11. They were all substantially ineffective.

You keep trying to say that Clinton did something of value to stop terrorist attack, yet they continued to happen! They culminated in 9/11! You can bullet list all you want, you can talk about the paltry money that Clinton spent, but none of it means jack shit. The attacks kept happening and resulted in 9/11. That is a fact that trumps your shitty little list or anything else that you have to say.

Nice.

 

[maniclion]

He has gone on to remove two governments that were friendly to terrorists, freeze the financial accounts of those that support terrorists, and stopped attacks against US interests abroad.




I've already pointed out that he did nothing of value to stop the attacks; an that lack of retaliation led to more and more attacks, culminating in 9/11. Just because you don't want to acknowledge the facts doesn't mean that they're not there.

You are right Bush did nothing to thwart the attacks on 9/11, in fact he must have thought al-qaeda was less of a threat than Clinton before 9/11 because he didn't do a gotdamned thing; if Clinton should have done more after the Embassy and Cole bombings which he tried to make surgical strikes on possible Bin-Laden locales, why didn't Bush jump right in and start doing something instead of sitting on his thumb at his ranch? And yeah Bush went to war with 2 countries but isn't the war against terrorism? Terrorism is a tactic, we also have this war on drugs does that mean we should invade Colombia and set it's people free, what about Afghanistan's new heroin market....and where are these surgical strikes on Bin Laden now? At least Clinton tried to take out one of the main players and not the zillion "leaders" if you want to take out a hydra wouldn't it be smarter to strike at the heart of it and not the heads that will keep growing back.....

Tell me DOMS why was it that Clinton could come close to getting Bin Laden and Bush can't?

 

[DOMS]

You are right Bush did nothing to thwart the attacks on 9/11, in fact he must have thought al-qaeda was less of a threat than Clinton before 9/11 because he didn't do a gotdamned thing;

Again I say, I was talking about Clinton, not Bush. Can't you people get that though your fucking heads? I know Bush is an ass hat and a moron, but at least he stopped the attacks. He actually did something.

Besides, Bush has just gotten into office in his first term and was still learning the ropes. Clinton had 8 fucking years and did shit.

Tell me DOMS why was it that Clinton could come close to getting Bin Laden and Bush can't?

Come close? Put the fucking pipe down. He didn't go anywhere near Osama. If anything, that cock sucker was offered Osama on several occasions and turned the offer down.

 

[DOMS]

Nice.

It going to amusing to see them try to refute that.

So far all they can do is talk about how bad Bush is doing.

 

[maniclion]

Again I say, I was talking about Clinton, not Bush. Can't you people get that though your fucking heads? I know Bush is an ass hat and a moron, but at least he stopped the attacks. He actually did something. Tell the soldiers in Iraq the attacks have stopped...Tell that to Spain and Great Britain....

Besides, Bush has just gotten into office in his first term and was still learning the ropes. Clinton had 8 fucking years and did shit.



Come close? Put the fucking pipe down. He didn't go anywhere near Osama. If anything, that cock sucker was offered Osama on several occasions and turned the offer down.

Tell me why Clinton would have taken Sudan up on it's offers to give Bin Laden up in 1996 when the he wasn't Public Enemy #1 until 1998 2 years after he left Sudan? You see he hadn't been connected to any attacks on the US until 1998...

"an audio recording of Clinton has since surfaced admitting that he did not take bin Laden since they would not be able to charge him with any crimes." I mean come on we are American's, here everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty....until recently when our knew fascist gov. decided that some people are not entitled to the unalienable rights our forefathers had said all men were supposed to have....

 

[DOMS]

Tell the soldiers in Iraq the attacks have stopped...Tell that to Spain and Great Britain....

You may not know this, but neither of those countries are the US.

Also, what happened to the IRA after the US and the UK turned turned their eyes on terrorism? They shut down.

Spain's terrorist problems are its own. The took one hit and went down like a bitch. That is why their terrorist problems persist.

Tell me why Clinton would have taken Sudan up on it's offers to give Bin Laden up in 1996 when the he wasn't Public Enemy #1 until 1998 2 years after he left Sudan? You see he hadn't been connected to any attacks on the US until 1998...

Sure... The Saudis just offered the US some random terrorist. Really, try to think these things through. The offered him to the US because he had been attacking the US.

"an audio recording of Clinton has since surfaced admitting that he did not take bin Laden since they would not be able to charge him with any crimes." I mean come on we are American's, here everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty....until recently when our knew fascist gov. decided that some people are not entitled to the unalienable rights our forefathers had said all men were supposed to have....

That shit is copout. Period.

He attacked the US several time by that point. The Saudi knew he was in on it, that's why they offered him to the US; and the US knew he did it too.

When it comes to American lives, you don't play games like that. This isn't a school yard. It's not all in fun. In the real world, the enemy must die.

 

[maniclion]

The facts are that Bin Laden could not be connected to any attacks on the US until 1998, the facts are that during Clinton's time he was able to find the perpetrators of the Oklahoma bombings, the first WTC bombings...took action against Iraq for it's attempt to assasinate Bush the First as well as dealing with Somalia and Bosnia....I mean the man had his hands full and Bin Laden really didn't become a big enough pain in the ass until 1998....that is when he authorized the arrest/assasination of ol' Osama....

When's the last time Georgie boy or any of the republicans have brought up Osama.....why isn't there a more concerted effort to find this great pest of Islam....

 

[maniclion]

When it comes to American lives, you don't play games like that. This isn't a school yard. It's not all in fun. In the real world, the enemy must die.

This also isn't the prison yard where you walk up to the biggest most influential guy and punch him straight in the face without facts to back up why you did it...in this world that won't get you more respect, it'll get you very little respect....to get respect you need to flaunt your intelligence gathering and then respond to that, blindly attacking people who you think might be a problem shows that you have lost your ability to gather intelligence and for a long time that was the US' claim to fame that we were able to spy on anyone at anytime...

 

[BigDyl]

Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorism. Period.


Whatever country we attack will have a huge power vacuum that will suck radical groups in.


Next thing you know, we attack Iran, and Al Qeada shows up in Iran. Conservatives will think: "Look it's proof that terrorists are in Iran!" No shit, they will follow us wherever we go in the Middle East. We are also creating more of them.

 

[DOMS]

The facts are that Bin Laden could not be connected to any attacks on the US until 1998

No, that was the year that he was found guilty in a US court of law. It's also the same year that the Saudis made one of their offered to hand over Bin Laden. It was also the year that Bin Laden blew up 5 Americans.

the facts are that during Clinton's time he was able to find the perpetrators of the Oklahoma bombings, the first WTC bombings

Those were all domestic attacks were the perpetrators lived. Some of the other conspirators of 9/11 on US soil were also captured.

dealing with Somalia and Bosnia

Handled? Bullshit! Those were both cluster fucks.

When's the last time Georgie boy or any of the republicans have brought up Osama

I'm sure that if someone offered him to Bush, he wouldn't turn them down.

Once again, you try to drag Bush into this. Can't you read? I'm talking about Clinton. You keep trying to bring Bush into because your side of the argument is shit. Absolute shit. It's all you can do.

 

[DOMS]

This also isn't the prison yard where you walk up to the biggest most influential guy and punch him straight in the face without facts to back up why you did it...in this world that won't get you more respect, it'll get you very little respect....to get respect you need to flaunt your intelligence gathering and then respond to that, blindly attacking people who you think might be a problem shows that you have lost your ability to gather intelligence and for a long time that was the US' claim to fame that we were able to spy on anyone at anytime...

No, that's the way that you wish it was. That's the way that it works in your fantasy world.

In the real world, you make examples out of your enemies. You kill those who are your enemies, or who harbor your enemies.

 

[goandykid]

Once again, you try to drag Bush into this. Can't you read? I'm talking about Clinton. You keep trying to bring Bush into because your side of the argument is shit. Absolute shit. It's all you can do.

He's bringing up Bush to halt your liberal bashing. Look me in the avatar and tell me you honestly think GWB was a better president than Clinton.

Fine, yes, maybe Bill couldve done more, but atleast he didnt invade Iraq for no real reason, or lose a 6 foot 4 arab man named Osama.

Truth is, Clinton, a liberal, did much better saving American lives than GWB, a conservative. Stop the hate.

 

[DOMS]

He's bringing up Bush to halt your liberal bashing. Look me in the avatar and tell me you honestly think GWB was a better president than Clinton.

I think they were equally bad. Bush makes us look stupid, and Clint made us look like pussies.

And both are responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans.

Fine, yes, maybe Bill couldve done more, but atleast he didnt invade Iraq for no real reason, or lose a 6 foot 4 arab man named Osama.

"For no reason?" Not quite. Since Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq, terror attacks against the US are almost nil.

Truth is, Clinton, a liberal, did much better saving American lives than GWB, a conservative.

You're wrong.

 

[goandykid]

I think they were equally bad. Bush makes us look stupid, and Clint made us look like pussies.

And both are responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans.



"For no reason?" Not quite. Since Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq, terror attacks against the US are almost nil.




You're wrong.

Taking credit for thwarting non-existent attacks is not a strong stance to take kind sir. What did Iraq have to do with any terror attacks?

 

[Big Smoothy]

Talking about Clinton and Osama Bin Lauden is really a waste of time.

Rice was told by Tenet of the specific intelligence about the coming attack on 9/11.

Clinton never received intelligence about a pending attack on US soil.

 

[DOMS]

Taking credit for thwarting non-existent attacks is not a strong stance to take kind sir. What did Iraq have to do with any terror attacks?

Sure, the fact that there were regular attacks against the US through most of the '90s and into 2000 (when Clinton did shit to stop them), and then stopped as soon as we started to go after them was just a coincidence.

 

[DOMS]

Rice was told by Tenet of the specific intelligence about the coming attack on 9/11.

 

[maniclion]

Taking credit for thwarting non-existent attacks is not a strong stance to take kind sir. What did Iraq have to do with any terror attacks?

I would say it's like Bush taking credit for no more major disasters after Brownie did such a good job after Katrina....

Sure, the fact that there were regular attacks against the US through most of the '90s and into 2000 (when Clinton did shit to stop them), and then stopped as soon as we started to go after them was just a coincidence.

Clinton had one domestic terror case, one attack on the WTC and the rest were on foreign based US outposts....Do you not count any of the IED strikes on our troops as attacks? And further more we have always been at war against terror, I was in the Navy during Clinton's years and I recall constant intel reports
discussing terrorist activities around the world....I remember being shot at by terrorists, I remember scrambling from Australia across the Indian Ocean because of an Imminent Threat posed by Iraq in 1997....In my opinion nothing has changed since those days....Iraq is still posing threats to our military based over there, Osama is still making the weekly Intel Reports ships are still manning mine watches; so where is definitive proof that we are any safer?

 

[min0 lee]

Didn't we lose a few hundred overseas during Reagans watch?

 

[Big Smoothy]

Didn't we lose a few hundred overseas during Reagans watch?

Yes, specifically in Beirut, when the Americans chose a side.


Very smart, considering a full-on civil war with at least 14 different groups trying to kill each other.