Bill Clinton pwns Fox News

[Will]

One More Point:

3) Yeah... Clinton was a real bitch for withdrawing from Somalia, if only we had listened to those steadfast republicans who demanded that we stay.

Oh wait .... is that what happened?

GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993
I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and
limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in
Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the
scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat
for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is
sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent
option.


GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993
Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid
has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation
building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The
United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young
soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then
it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the
United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the
American troops home.


GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993
I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not
know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of
Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to
bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . .


GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:
All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who,
by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in
efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best
to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by
George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban
environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under
the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we
tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr.
President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to
sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking.
Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.


President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal
And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other
nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and
starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission.
. . .
If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will
die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a
reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to
take our place. . .
So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the
job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a
way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin
Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult,
you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution."
. . .
So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world,
as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a
challenge, they do the job right.


Sen. John Kerry, Senate floor speech, 10/7/93, supporting Clinton's
anti-withdrawal position
But, Mr. President, I must say I have also been jarred by the reactions of
many of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress. I am jarred by
the extraordinary sense of panic that seems to be rushing through this
deliberative body, and by the strident cries for a quick exit, an immediate
departure notwithstanding the fact that what we are doing in Somalia does not
bear any resemblance to Grenada, to Panama, to Iraq, and most importantly, to
Vietnam. . . .
We must recognize that any decision that we make about Somalia is not just a
decision to get our troops home. It is not just a decision about looking out for
the interests of the United States. There are extraordinary ramifications
attached to the choice that we make in the next days in the Congress and in this
country. . . .
Mr. President, we are in a situation now where withdrawal would send the
wrong signal to Aidid and his supporters. It would encourage other nations to
withdraw from the U.N. effort in Somalia and no doubt would result in the total
breakdown of the operation and possibly the resumption of the cycle of famine
and war which brought the United States and other members of the international
community to Somalia in the first place.
Rightly or wrongly, the Bush administration committed us to this operation.
We, as a nation, have accepted this responsibility. We should not panic and flee
when the going gets rough. If we are going to withdraw, we have an obligation to
do so in a responsible manner, in a way that does not undermine the operation or
leave the Somali people to a worse fate. I think the President's plan, as
currently outlined, will allow us to step aside responsibly.


New York Times article, October 6, 1993, by then-reporter Thomas Friedman
As hundreds of additional United States troops with special weapons and
aircraft began heading to Somalia, a wave of hostility toward the widening
operation swept Congress. . . . But Mr. Aspin and Mr. Christopher were besieged
by skeptical lawmakers, who scorched them with demands for a clear road map for
an exit from Somalia, coupled with bitter complaints that the policy goals were
unclear or unrealistic.
It is not clear whether the critics can assemble sufficient votes to pass a
law requiring Mr. Clinton to stop the operation. But Congressional anxiety,
already high, has been fueled by a wave of constituents' telephone calls
reflecting outrage over the prospect of a new hostage crisis, and television
pictures of Somali crowds dragging a dead American servicemen through the
streets. . . .

Mr. Christopher said the United States wanted to withdraw its forces when
possible, "but not before our job is done of providing some security."


New York Times, October 6, 1993
A wave of hostility toward the military operation in Somalia swept Congress
today, forcing the White House to send two Cabinet secretaries to Capitol Hill
to try to calm critics and plead for additional time to formulate a new policy.

"It's Vietnam all over again," said Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of
South Carolina, who is in a group of conservatives calling for quick withdrawal
from Somalia. . . .

Mr. McCain, a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, said of Mohammed Farah
Aidid, who has been blamed for attacks on United Nations peacekeepers: "We
should tell Mr. Aidid that we want the Americans back. Otherwise he will pay
sooner or later. Then we should come home."

[Tri-Ungulate]

Will, why are you confusing the issue with facts?

I mean, Clinton had a gap between his shoes and pants fer Chrissakes.

Jeezus, get with the program.


Funny how Ripzalot disappeared after his "fact check" was shown to be a loose collection of right wing fluff. mr_gyptian is gone after parroting the party line falls flat. Tuckerman? "Stop the haten" heh... And MeatPuppet? Indigestion after his "lunch break" must be keeping him away.

[AstroPax]

Fact is that neither Clinton or Bush did/is doing enough. They are both putzes in their own unique ways.

And, they both have a fundementally different approach to counter-terrorism.

Clinton model: terrorism is crime, it's primarily a Law Enforcement issue...terrorists are criminals.

Bush model: terrorism is an act of war, it's primarily a national defense issue...terrorists are the enemy.

Personally, I prefer the Bush model...but it certainly could use some tweaking on the execution phase.

-Astro

[BeanDip4All]

Wow- Olbermann is going off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/

[Spats]

Nice job, Will.

Clearly there are a lot of people here who have swallowed the neo-con party line. Unfortunately, as we've showed time and time again, they LIE. They say exactly what makes them look good and what you want to hear. It doesn't matter if it's true, false, or irrelevant...they'll say it over and over, because they know you don't have the patience to check facts. When confronted with their lies, they stridently deny everything -- just like a little child with sticky hands and face yelling "NO I DIN'T EAT THAT ICE CREAM".

You have to be *vigilant* in order to see this. You have to be *responsible*. You have to *check facts*. You have to do your duty as a goddamn American and *not believe everything you're told by the political party you like*, and *not cop out by saying "everyone lies, there are two sides to everything"*. No. Facts are checkable. They are correct or incorrect. And they don't change if you smirk or say them louder over and over.

Meanwhile the neo-cons are raping you, me, and our country, giving the spoils to their friends in the oil and defense industries, and they will leave us for dead when they are done. The US Government is beyond bankrupt, and the boomers haven't even hit retirement yet.

[MeatPuppet]

Two points:

1) Meat Puppet is thinking of Ansar al-Islam when he refers to "terrorist training camps".

Actually I was thinking of Salman Pak.

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp.

MP might also be thinking of Abu Nidal

That's him.
Interesting though, Saddam didn't seem to mind Nidal taking refuge in his country. It was only when the US named him did Saddam have a problem with it. Which reinforces my point that Saddam was friendly to terrorist's and terrorism.

[kidwoo]

I listened to sean hannity's full radio show today and this was 2/3rds of the program. All he could say was that Clinton is a mean mean man and this is proof....that he went crazy on an innocent journalist (who relies on "emails" for his questions).

fucking classic

oooh he's just so big and mean

tacomaluv: thanks for that link, no time for terrah, I got's golf n' brush tah cuht

[MeatPuppet]

And MeatPuppet? Indigestion after his "lunch break" must be keeping him away.

Heh, no, just a bitch of a day at work.

[Grange]

And, they both have a fundementally different approach to counter-terrorism.

Clinton model: terrorism is crime, it's primarily a Law Enforcement issue...terrorists are criminals.

Bush model: terrorism is an act of war, it's primarily a national defense issue...terrorists are the enemy.

Personally, I prefer the Bush model...but it certainly could use some tweaking on the execution phase.

-Astro

You take amazing pictures, but you need turn off Hannity for a while. Did you not listen to Clinton? He said he wanted to use the military to go after OBL but couldn't because of the lack of support. When a crime is commited rarely do the authorities use the military.

Now compare what Clinton did and tried to do after the terrorist attacks on Americans before 9/11 and what Bush did after the same terrorist attacks before 9/11. Look no further that what Mrs. Rice said about memo "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the US". Here's her quote in case you don't remember:

"historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information."

Here's a paragraph from the memo:

"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparation for hijacking or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Now this administration says this was old news, which means they knew Bin Laden wanted to attack the US and what did they do?

It was only after 9/11 that the Bush administration took Bin Laden seriously whereas Clinton took Bin Laden seriously and tried to do something about him before 9/11. The US's attitude changed after 9/11. Bush said so himself. So imagine what Clinton would have tried after 9/11 when the the politicians actually realized Bin Laden was determined to attack the US.

[PNWbrit]

Actually I was thinking of Salman Pak.

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage [said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp.

MP you're a propoganda swallowing moron.

Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq:

"no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." DIA assessed that the foreigners were likely volunteers who traveled to Iraq in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began to fight overtly alongside Iraqi military forces...DIA said it has "no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa'ida with the former regime."

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that:

"Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

CIA report to the committe:

"There was information developed after OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedem) that indicated terrorists were trained at Salman Pak; there was an apparent surge of such reporting. As with past information, however, the reporting is vague and difficult to substantiate . As was the case with the prewar reporting, the postwar sources provided few details, and it is difficult to conclude from their second-hand accounts whether Iraq was training al-Qa'ida members, as opposed to other foreign nationals. Postwar exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida linked individuals took place there, and we have no information from detainees on this issue"

[roll - gybe]

I thought it was pretty cool. Clinton doesn't have to answer to anyone anymore, so he can pipe off if he wants to. He couldn't do that while he was in office, and Bush can't really speak his mind right now.

I had a couple ideas while reading some of these posts:

- One military strategy is to occupy the enemy and waste their time. I think there is a lot of that going on on both sides.

- Recently there has been a lot of bad press about my business in the press - and it is really poorly informed. I feel a new kind of understanding for all these leaders who are trying to go about their work. I mean, the press has really tried to make my line of work look really bad lately, and if people just got their information from the media - which they do - then it's totally wrong. I wish there was a better way. Fox and CNN both suck.

- A couple months ago, I got to kick it with Guiliani for an afternoon. I have never spent time with a "leader" before, and I was skeptical - even though I'm a New Yorker. I have to say, the guy was really cool. People say Clinton is kind of a regular guy with special qualities. I think I saw that with Rudy.

[BeanDip4All]

Clinton doesn't have to answer to anyone anymore, so he can pipe off if he wants to.

You think he's not just a talking head for Hilary '08?

[rideit]

Bill Clinton is fluent in 'head'.

[MeatPuppet]

You take amazing pictures, but you need turn off Hannity for a while. Did you not listen to Clinton? He said he wanted to use the military to go after OBL but couldn't because of the lack of support. When a crime is commited rarely do the authorities use the military.

You are exactly right. When a crime is committed they don't use the military, they convene a grand jury and issue indictments.

-----

"June 8, 1998 The grand jury investigation of bin Laden, initiated in 1996, issues a sealed indictment, charging Bin Laden...


November 4, 1998 A new superceding indictment is issued against bin Laden...


January 16, 1999 The US Attorney's office files its most complete indictment to date of Osama bin Laden..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

-----

Lets face it, every administration for the last 30 years has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to terrorism. Clinton is just trying to rewrite history to make it seem like he was different. He wasn't.

[AstroPax]

So imagine what Clinton would have tried after 9/11 when the the politicians actually realized Bin Laden was determined to attack the US.

I don't know, that's a hypothetical. But to make an educated assumption, I suppose you could look back at the Clinton administration and analyze exactly how they reacted to the following terrorst attacks, and ask yourself how Clinton responded to...

...the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000

...the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel

...the 1996 al-Khobar towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 US military personnel

...the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Africa, which killed 257 and injured 5,000

...the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured three US sailors

Regardless, plenty of fault to go around.

Furthermore, you should stop blaming the world problems on the US Governemnt, dumbass! It's the terrorists and Islamo-fascism that you should be expending your energy attacking. Amazing, you just don't see the big pic...which is typical of a secular progressive such as yourself.

-Astro

[rideit]

Once again, the fact of partisan stifling of executive initiative is not addressed in your list of occurances....Clinton was handcuffed by the new political climate in congress and senate that was brought about by Newt Gingrich's ascendancy.
I believe republican populist blocking of any initiative that Clinton endorsed handcuffed his ability to push an aggressive counterstrike through.
That and the fact that international relations AT THE TIME were not conducive to overwhelming shows of force, either covert or overt.

Hindsight is 40/70, at best.

[gh444]

"Islamo-fascism"


please explain this term....if you knew what it meant you would certainly veiw Bush differently.

fascism by definition is simply putting corporate interests above that of the public. point blank.

please review your history books before calling someone else a dumbass.

-aaron

[roll - gybe]

You think he's not just a talking head for Hilary '08?

He could be, but for some reason, I don't think he gives a damn anymore. I could be wrong... hell if I used to be President, I would take -273 degrees of sh!t from any reporter!

[gh444]

not only that but we aren't fighting terrorists. terrorism is a technique of war, not a political party, idealogy or even a group of people.
so lets start by defining who it is we are fighting cause for the life of me i havent heard one good answer to that question.

rule number one-when you start a war, know who you're fighting..

-aaron

1984 really pointed out the concept of not knowing who you're fighting and changing who your fighting in an attempt to scare the public.

[PNWbrit]

which is typical of a secular progressive such as yourself.

What's a secular progressive and why is it worse than being religous neo-con wackjob?

[MeatPuppet]

MP you're a propoganda swallowing moron.

Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq:

"no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." DIA assessed that the foreigners were likely volunteers who traveled to Iraq in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began to fight overtly alongside Iraqi military forces...DIA said it has "no information from Salman Pak that links al-Qa'ida with the former regime."

I'll have to admit PNWbrit, you have impressive Straw Man killing skills.

Since you didn't provide a link, so I can read the whole report for myself, I have a few questions for you:

Did the report also conclude that there was no terrorist training going on at Salman Pak after 1991, or just that there was no non-Iraqi terrorist training going on at Salman Pak after 1991?

With that question as context, I'll ask another. If you are killed by an Iraqi terrorist, are you any less dead than if you are killed by a non-Iraqi terrorist?

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that:

..it is difficult to conclude from their second-hand accounts whether Iraq was training al-Qa'ida members, as opposed to other foreign nationals...

So if I understand this correctly, it is difficult to tell wether al-Qa'ida was being trained or other foreign nationals were being trained. Does it really make a difference to you? It doesn't make a difference to me.

[iceman]

Amazing, you just don't see the big pic...which is typical of a secular progressive such as yourself.

-Astro

You moron, it has nothing to do with religious affiliation, it has to do with right and wrong. For you to drag it down to religious beliefs is fucking whack beyond belief.

BTW, TwoBuddhas still fucking hates you, he talks about you a lot, I don't think he knows where you're hiding, I think maybe I'll invite him over here to explain why and how much you suck and maybe tear the whole fucking place down in the process, you unmitigated piece of shit.

Take pictures, shut the fuck up.

[PNWbrit]

I'll have to admit PNWbrit, you have impressive Straw Man killing skills.

Since you didn't provide a link, so I can read the whole report for myself, I have a few questions for you:

Did the report also conclude that there was no terrorist training going on at Salman Pak after 1991, or just that there was no non-Iraqi terrorist training going on at Salman Pak after 1991?

With that question as context, I'll ask another. If you are killed by an Iraqi terrorist, are you any less dead than if you are killed by a non-Iraqi terrorist?




So if I understand this correctly, it is difficult to tell wether al-Qa'ida was being trained or other foreign nationals were being trained. Does it really make a difference to you? It doesn't make a difference to me.

The reports I quoted are public domain - if you're too stupid, or partisan to find them....

The simple facts are that not a single American or other westerner (no statement of value should be attached to that description) was killed by an Iraqi or Iraqi trained terrorist until we invaded Iraq and gave them a chance, or reason to do so.

The three quotes I gave are quite clear.... there is and was no evidence of terrorist training camps in Iraq. Perhaps you could provide us what the Senate committee and CIA couldn't? THe only people still spouting this bulls shit are you, a.m. radio and the regime occupying the White House.

[gh444]

i should include an amendment to my above statement. I believe we should be in Iraq. No question in my mind. Saddam was a brutal dictator who committed mass genocide. nobody except Saddam will deny that fact. that is reason enough for me.
should bush be thrown in jail? yes. he lied to the american public on a much larger scale than Clinton. It was our choice to go to war (it says so in the constitution) and he stole that from us by using 9/11, fear and lies. he has ordered the deaths of thousands of your brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers and friends all based on lies. does this not bring tears to your eyes? its swelling mine.
I'm also sitting here watching the first half of the Saints game and I can't get it out of my mind how badly he dropped the ball. He failed us again and managed to lie his way out.

tell me when did Clinton let us down on this level? tell me when Clinton lead us into a war based on lies? tell me how Clinton violated our constitution? tell me when CLinton forgot about the Bill of Rights?

-aaron

[AstroPax]

"Islamo-fascism"

please explain this term....if you knew what it meant you would certainly veiw Bush differently.

fascism by definition is simply putting corporate interests above that of the public. point blank.

please review your history books before calling someone else a dumbass.

-aaron

Fuck You. How do you know how I view Bush?

Furthermore, by definition, "Fascism" is the imposition of state control over all aspects of life...political, social, cultural, and economic.

Furthermore, one of the main tenants of fascism is "a belief that the group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits."

Sure sounds like something OBL himself would say.

Why, what's the matter, are you offended by that term?

-Astro