Who was the better american president: Clinton or Bush? 173 replies

Please wait...

Blood n Guts

Wolverine Starting 9/6/2006

50 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

758 Posts

0 Threads

#151 14 years ago

[COLOR=black]

JeffroAfter trapping him in Tora Bora, the U.S. decides to concentrate on Iraq and totally disregard the priority of capturing Osama Bin Laden (I think ). I'm not rationalizing Clinton's mishaps, however just comparing them to Bush's.

Tora Bora was stormed; however the delay came from the special forces waiting for the local northern alliance, not Iraq. These hills were used to cut the soviet army to pieces in the 80s, they are ideal ambush locations; having someone that knows their way around them is a very good idea. The delay may have cost us the capture of Bin Laden, but it potentially saved many soldier's lives and prevented a Somalia like incident.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black] [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]

Just like Rumsfeld didn't provide the sufficient armor for the troops in Iraq? IMO armor is just important as the amount of men on the field.

An armored HMMWV did not exist prior to the war. They were created to address the fact that the unarmored, fiberglass HMMWV did not perform well in urban combat and the military requested an armored version. Clinton denied resources and equipment that were both requested by the military and available at the time.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black] [/COLOR]

After spending billions upon billions on the War in Iraq and the Hurricane disaster, getting out of this debt seems almost impossible.

The US has only ever been out of debt once, temporarily, in the 1830s under Andrew Jackson. Before and since, there always has been a national debt and the economy seems to have functioned admirably. Lowered taxes means less revenue, partially contributing to the deficit, but it also means more money in the economy. More money in the economy means growth, growth means an increase in GDP and an increase in GDP means more revenue. The main reason debt is bad is because the higher it is per GDP, the more likely your country is to be unable to pay back its debts, which can result in massive inflation and economic collapse. But the US's debt per GPD is actually lower than that of many other modern, developed countries. If we are screwed because of our national debt, just about every other developed country in the world is as bad or worse off than we are. Of course, if history is any indicator, debt does not mean that the country is screwed. Some of the largest debts per GDP in US history were followed or accompanied by massive growth.[/COLOR][COLOR=black]since Tap is no longer year to post it:http://gamingforums.com/showthread.php?t=204441[/COLOR]




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#152 14 years ago

USMA2010Amen. Watch: http://www.badtree.com/Chappelles_Show.php?FN=Black_Bush.wmv :rofl:[/QUOTE] :rofl: :rofl: Japan is sending playstations... :lol: "Huh UN? Do you have an army? NO! SO S.T.F.U!" funny as hell crap

IR15HUnder Clinton america moved in the right direction, trying to bring about peace and reducing unemployment in the states.
Bringing about peace by not attacking anyone who attacked us. And unemployment was actually higher then. [QUOTE=IR15H] under bush theres been wars started, refusal to cut down on greenhouse gases, and an increase in uneployment in the states. Clinton is better by a country mile.

Actualy unemployment is at its lowest level in something like 3 decades. Spending for the poor has increased under Bush moreso than ever under CLinton. Wars have been started to protect the country. Did you hate FDR as well because there was a World War during his presendency?




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#153 14 years ago

The New AmericanZacarias Moussaoui, dubbed the "20th hijacker" by federal prosecutors, would have been released from federal custody before the 9-11 attacks if not for the heroic persistence of field agents in the FBI’s Minneapolis office. Agent Coleen Rowley and members of her FBI team carried on a running fight with top FBI and Justice Department officials who tried to stop the Minnesota investigation and prevented a search of his laptop computer until after his fellow conspirators crashed their hijacked planes on September 11.[/quote]

The same information, but much, much longer.

[quote=Colleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Muller] May 21, 2002

FBI Director Robert Mueller FBI Headquarters Washington, D.C.

Dear Director Mueller:

I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning the important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity in the United States prior to September 11th. The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current investigative and management strengths and failures.

To get to the point, I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring. The term "cover up" would be too strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here. I base my concerns on my relatively small, peripheral but unique role in the Moussaoui investigation in the Minneapolis Division prior to, during and after September 11th and my analysis of the comments I have heard both inside the FBI (originating, I believe, from you and other high levels of management) as well as your Congressional testimony and public comments.

I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:

1) The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point. The decision to take him into custody on August 15, 2001, on the INS "overstay" charge was a deliberate one to counter that threat and was based on the agents' reasonable suspicions. While it can be said that Moussaoui's overstay status was fortuitous, because it allowed for him to be taken into immediate custody and prevented him receiving any more flight training, it was certainly not something the INS coincidentally undertook of their own volition. I base this on the conversation I had when the agents called me at home late on the evening Moussaoui was taken into custody to confer and ask for legal advice about their next course of action. The INS agent was assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and was therefore working in tandem with FBI agents.

2) As the Minneapolis agents' reasonable suspicions quickly ripened into probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui's arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden, they became desperate to search the computer lap top that had been taken from Moussaoui as well as conduct a more thorough search of his personal effects. The agents in particular believed that Moussaoui signaled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer.

3) The Minneapolis agents' initial thought was to obtain a criminal search warrant, but in order to do so, they needed to get FBI Headquarters' (FBIHQ's) approval in order to ask for DOJ OIPR's approval to contact the United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota. Prior to and even after receipt of information provided by the French, FBIHQ personnel disputed with the Minneapolis agents the existence of probable cause to believe that a criminal violation had occurred/was occurring. As such, FBIHQ personnel refused to contact OIPR to attempt to get the authority. While reasonable minds may differ as to whether probable cause existed prior to receipt of the French intelligence information, it was certainly established after that point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information from the French and other intelligence sources. The two possible criminal violations initially identified by Minneapolis Agents were violations of Title 18 United States Code Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, which, notably, includes "creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States") and Section 32 (Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities). It is important to note that the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th was based on probable cause of a violation of Section 32.1 Notably also, the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th did not include the French intelligence information. Therefore, the only main difference between the information being submitted to FBIHQ from an early date which HQ personnel continued to deem insufficient and the actual criminal search warrant which a federal district judge signed and approved on September 11th, was the fact that, by the time the actual warrant was obtained, suspected terrorists were known to have highjacked planes which they then deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To say then, as has been iterated numerous times, that probable cause did not exist until after the disasterous event occurred, is really to acknowledge that the missing piece of probable cause was only the FBI's (FBIHQ's) failure to appreciate that such an event could occur. The probable cause did not otherwise improve or change. When we went to the United States Attorney's Office that morning of September 11th, in the first hour after the attack, we used a disk containing the same information that had already been provided to FBIHQ; then we quickly added Paragraph 19 which was the little we knew from news reports of the actual attacks that morning. The problem with chalking this all up to the "20-20 hindsight is perfect" problem, (which I, as all attorneys who have been involved in deadly force training or the defense of various lawsuits are fully appreciative of), is that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th. Even without knowledge of the Phoenix communication (and any number of other additional intelligence communications that FBIHQ personnel were privy to in their central coordination roles), the Minneapolis agents appreciated the risk. So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act! Also intertwined with my reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.2

4) In one of my peripheral roles on the Moussaoui matter, I answered an e-mail message on August 22, 2001, from an attorney at the National Security Law Unit (NSLU). Of course, with (ever important!) 20-20 hindsight, I now wish I had taken more time and care to compose my response. When asked by NSLU for my "assessment of (our) chances of getting a criminal warrant to search Moussaoui's computer", I answered, "Although I think there's a decent chance of being able to get a judge to sign a criminal search warrant, our USAO seems to have an even higher standard much of the time, so rather than risk it, I advised that they should try the other route." Leaked news accounts which said the Minneapolis Legal Counsel (referring to me) concurred with the FBIHQ that probable cause was lacking to search Moussaoui's computer are in error. (or possibly the leak was deliberately skewed in this fashion?) What I meant by this pithy e-mail response, was that although I thought probable cause existed ("probable cause" meaning that the proposition has to be more likely than not, or if quantified, a 51% likelihood), I thought our United States Attorney's Office, (for a lot of reasons including just to play it safe) in regularly requiring much more than probable cause before approving affidavits, (maybe, if quantified, 75%-80% probability and sometimes even higher), and depending on the actual AUSA who would be assigned, might turn us down. As a tactical choice, I therefore thought it would be better to pursue the "other route" (the FISA search warrant) first, the reason being that there is a common perception, which for lack of a better term, I'll call the "smell test" which has arisen that if the FBI can't do something through straight-up criminal methods, it will then resort to using less-demanding intelligence methods. Of course this isn't true, but I think the perception still exists. So, by this line of reasoning, I was afraid that if we first attempted to go criminal and failed to convince an AUSA, we wouldn't pass the "smell test" in subsequently seeking a FISA. I thought our best chances therefore lay in first seeking the FISA. Both of the factors that influenced my thinking are areas arguably in need of improvement: requiring an excessively high standard of probable cause in terrorism cases and getting rid of the "smell test" perception. It could even be argued that FBI agents, especially in terrorism cases where time is of the essence, should be allowed to go directly to federal judges to have their probable cause reviewed for arrests or searches without having to gain the USAO's approval.4

5) The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably,5 throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.6 In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!

Nor did FBIHQ personnel do much to disseminate the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities. When, in a desperate 11th hour measure to bypass the FBIHQ roadblock, the Minneapolis Division undertook to directly notify the CIA's Counter Terrorist Center (CTC), FBIHQ personnel actually chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval!

6 ) Eventually on August 28, 2001, after a series of e-mails between Minneapolis and FBIHQ, which suggest that the FBIHQ SSA deliberately further undercut the FISA effort by not adding the further intelligence information which he had promised to add that supported Moussaoui's foreign power connection and making several changes in the wording of the information that had been provided by the Minneapolis Agent, the Minneapolis agents were notified that the NSLU Unit Chief did not think there was sufficient evidence of Moussaoui's connection to a foreign power. Minneapolis personnel are, to this date, unaware of the specifics of the verbal presentations by the FBIHQ SSA to NSLU or whether anyone in NSLU ever was afforded the opportunity to actually read for him/herself all of the information on Moussaoui that had been gathered by the Minneapolis Division and the French intelligence service. Obviously verbal presentations are far more susceptible to mis-characterization and error. The e-mail communications between Minneapolis and FBIHQ, however, speak for themselves and there are far better witnesses than me who can provide their first hand knowledge of these events characterized in one Minneapolis agent's e-mail as FBIHQ is "setting this up for failure." My only comment is that the process of allowing the FBI supervisors to make changes in affidavits is itself fundamentally wrong, just as, in the follow-up to FBI Laboratory Whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst's allegations, this process was revealed to be wrong in the context of writing up laboratory results. With the Whitehurst allegations, this process of allowing supervisors to re-write portions of laboratory reports, was found to provide opportunities for over-zealous supervisors to skew the results in favor of the prosecution. In the Moussaoui case, it was the opposite -- the process allowed the Headquarters Supervisor to downplay the significance of the information thus far collected in order to get out of the work of having to see the FISA application through or possibly to avoid taking what he may have perceived as an unnecessary career risk.7 I understand that the failures of the FBIHQ personnel involved in the Moussaoui matter are also being officially excused because they were too busy with other investigations, the Cole bombing and other important terrorism matters, but the Supervisor's taking of the time to read each word of the information submitted by Minneapolis and then substitute his own choice of wording belies to some extent the notion that he was too busy. As an FBI division legal advisor for 12 years (and an FBI agent for over 21 years), I can state that an affidavit is better and will tend to be more accurate when the affiant has first hand information of all the information he/she must attest to. Of necessity, agents must continually rely upon information from confidential sources, third parties and other law enforcement officers in drafting affidavits, but the repeating of information from others greatly adds to the opportunities for factual discrepancies and errors to arise. To the extent that we can minimize the opportunity for this type of error to arise by simply not allowing unnecessary re-writes by supervisory staff, it ought to be done. (I'm not talking, of course, about mere grammatical corrections, but changes of some substance as apparently occurred with the Moussaoui information which had to be, for lack of a better term, "filtered" through FBIHQ before any action, whether to seek a criminal or a FISA warrant, could be taken.) Even after September 11th, the fear was great on the part of Minneapolis Division personnel that the same FBIHQ personnel would continue their "filtering" with respect to the Moussaoui investigation, and now with the added incentive of preventing their prior mistakes from coming to light. For this reason, for weeks, Minneapolis prefaced all outgoing communications (ECs) in the PENTTBOM investigation with a summary of the information about Moussaoui. We just wanted to make sure the information got to the proper prosecutive authorities and was not further suppressed! This fear was probably irrational but was nonetheless understandable in light of the Minneapolis agents' prior experiences and frustrations involving FBIHQ. (The redundant preface information regarding Moussaoui on otherwise unrelative PENTTBOM communications has ended up adding to criminal discovery issues, but this is the reason it was done.)

7) Although the last thing the FBI or the country needs now is a witch hunt, I do find it odd that (to my knowledge) no inquiry whatsoever was launched of the relevant FBIHQ personnel's actions a long time ago. Despite FBI leaders' full knowledge of all the items mentioned herein (and probably more that I'm unaware of), the SSA, his unit chief, and other involved HQ personnel were allowed to stay in their positions and, what's worse, occupy critical positions in the FBI's SIOC Command Center post September 11th. (The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!) It's true we all make mistakes and I'm not suggesting that HQ personnel in question ought to be burned at the stake, but, we all need to be held accountable for serious mistakes. I'm relatively certain that if it appeared that a lowly field office agent had committed such errors of judgment, the FBI's OPR would have been notified to investigate and the agent would have, at the least, been quickly reassigned. I'm afraid the FBI's failure to submit this matter to OPR (and to the IOB) gives further impetus to the notion (raised previously by many in the FBI) of a double standard which results in those of lower rank being investigated more aggressively and dealt with more harshly for misconduct while the misconduct of those at the top is often overlooked or results in minor disciplinary action. From all appearances, this double standard may also apply between those at FBIHQ and those in the field.

8) The last official "fact" that I take issue with is not really a fact, but an opinion, and a completely unsupported opinion at that. In the day or two following September 11th, you, Director Mueller, made the statement to the effect that if the FBI had only had any advance warning of the attacks, we (meaning the FBI), may have been able to take some action to prevent the tragedy. Fearing that this statement could easily come back to haunt the FBI upon revelation of the information that had been developed pre-September 11th about Moussaoui, I and others in the Minneapolis Office, immediately sought to reach your office through an assortment of higher level FBIHQ contacts, in order to quickly make you aware of the background of the Moussaoui investigation and forewarn you so that your public statements could be accordingly modified. When such statements from you and other FBI officials continued, we thought that somehow you had not received the message and we made further efforts. Finally when similar comments were made weeks later, in Assistant Director Caruso's congressional testimony in response to the first public leaks about Moussaoui we faced the sad realization that the remarks indicated someone, possibly with your approval, had decided to circle the wagons at FBIHQ in an apparent effort to protect the FBI from embarrassment and the relevant FBI officials from scrutiny. Everything I have seen and heard about the FBI's official stance and the FBI's internal preparations in anticipation of further congressional inquiry, had, unfortunately, confirmed my worst suspicions in this regard. After the details began to emerge concerning the pre-September 11th investigation of Moussaoui, and subsequently with the recent release of the information about the Phoenix EC, your statement has changed. The official statement is now to the effect that even if the FBI had followed up on the Phoenix lead to conduct checks of flight schools and the Minneapolis request to search Moussaoui's personal effects and laptop, nothing would have changed and such actions certainly could not have prevented the terrorist attacks and resulting loss of life. With all due respect, this statement is as bad as the first! It is also quite at odds with the earlier statement (which I'm surprised has not already been pointed out by those in the media!) I don't know how you or anyone at FBI Headquarters, no matter how much genius or prescience you may possess, could so blithely make this affirmation without anything to back the opinion up than your stature as FBI Director. The truth is, as with most predictions into the future, no one will ever know what impact, if any, the FBI's following up on those requests, would have had. Although I agree that it's very doubtful that the full scope of the tragedy could have been prevented, it's at least possible we could have gotten lucky and uncovered one or two more of the terrorists in flight training prior to September 11th, just as Moussaoui was discovered, after making contact with his flight instructors. It is certainly not beyond the realm of imagination to hypothesize that Moussaoui's fortuitous arrest alone, even if he merely was the 20th hijacker, allowed the hero passengers of Flight 93 to overcome their terrorist hijackers and thus spare more lives on the ground. And even greater casualties, possibly of our Nation's highest government officials, may have been prevented if Al Qaeda intended for Moussaoui to pilot an entirely different aircraft. There is, therefore at least some chance that discovery of other terrorist pilots prior to September 11th may have limited the September 11th attacks and resulting loss of life. Although your conclusion otherwise has to be very reassuring for some in the FBI to hear being repeated so often (as if saying it's so may make it so), I think your statements demonstrate a rush to judgment to protect the FBI at all costs. I think the only fair response to this type of question would be that no one can pretend to know one way or another.

Mr. Director, I hope my observations can be taken in a constructive vein. They are from the heart and intended to be completely apolitical. Hopefully, with our nation's security on the line, you and our nation's other elected and appointed officials can rise above the petty politics that often plague other discussions and do the right thing. You do have some good ideas for change in the FBI but I think you have also not been completely honest about some of the true reasons for the FBI's pre-September 11th failures. Until we come clean and deal with the root causes, the Department of Justice will continue to experience problems fighting terrorism and fighting crime in general.

I have used the "we" term repeatedly herin to indicate facts about others in the Minneapolis Office at critical times, but none of the opinions expressed herin can be attributed to anyone but myself. I know that those who know me would probably describe me as, by nature, overly opinionated and sometimes not as discreet as I should be. Certainly some of the above remarks may be interpreted as falling into that category, but I really do not intend anything as a personal criticism of you or anyone else in the FBI, to include the FBIHQ personnel who I believe were remiss and mishandled their duties with regard to the Moussaoui investigation. Truly my only purpose is to try to provide the facts within my purview so that an accurate assessment can be obtained and we can learn from our mistakes. I have pointed out a few of the things that I think should be looked at but there are many, many more.8 An honest acknowledgment of the FBI's mistakes in this and other cases should not lead to increasing the Headquarters bureaucracy and approval levels of investigative actions as the answer. Most often, field office agents and field office management on the scene will be better suited to the timely and effective solution of crimes and, in some lucky instances, to the effective prevention of crimes, including terrorism incidents. The relatively quick solving of the recent mailbox pipe-bombing incidents which resulted in no serious injuries to anyone are a good example of effective field office work (actually several field offices working together) and there are hundreds of other examples. Although FBIHQ personnel have, no doubt, been of immeasurable assistance to the field over the years, I'm hard pressed to think of any case which has been solved by FBIHQ personnel and I can name several that have been screwed up! Decision-making is inherently more effective and timely when decentralized instead of concentrated.

Your plans for an FBI Headquarters' "Super Squad" simply fly in the face of an honest appraisal of the FBI's pre-September 11th failures. The Phoenix, Minneapolis and Paris Legal Attache Offices reacted remarkably exhibiting keen perception and prioritization skills regarding the terrorist threats they uncovered or were made aware of pre-September 11th. The same cannot be said for the FBI Headquarters' bureaucracy and you want to expand that?! Should we put the counterterrorism unit chief and SSA who previously handled the Moussaoui matter in charge of the new "Super Squad"?! You are also apparently disregarding the fact the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), operating out of field divisions for years, (the first and chief one being New York City's JTTF), have successfully handled numerous terrorism investigations and, in some instances, successfully prevented acts of terrorism. There's no denying the need for more and better intelligence and intelligence management, but you should think carefully about how much gate keeping power should be entrusted with any HQ entity. If we are indeed in a "war", shouldn't the Generals be on the battlefield instead of sitting in a spot removed from the action while still attempting to call the shots?

I have been an FBI agent for over 21 years and, for what it's worth, have never received any form of disciplinary action throughout my career. From the 5th grade, when I first wrote the FBI and received the "100 Facts about the FBI" pamphlet, this job has been my dream. I feel that my career in the FBI has been somewhat exemplary, having entered on duty at a time when there was only a small percentage of female Special Agents. I have also been lucky to have had four children during my time in the FBI and am the sole breadwinner of a family of six. Due to the frankness with which I have expressed myself and my deep feelings on these issues, (which is only because I feel I have a somewhat unique, inside perspective of the Moussaoui matter, the gravity of the events of September 11th and the current seriousness of the FBI's and United States' ongoing efforts in the "war against terrorism"), I hope my continued employment with the FBI is not somehow placed in jeopardy. I have never written to an FBI Director in my life before on any topic. Although I would hope it is not necessary, I would therefore wish to take advantage of the federal "Whistleblower Protection" provisions by so characterizing my remarks.

Sincerely

Coleen M. Rowley Special Agent and Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel




Crazy Wolf Advanced Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#154 14 years ago

That took me like 10 minutes to read, maybe I'll try again when I'm not tired, But, uh, way to get sources. Oh and NiteStryker, the big difference between Clinton and Bush in Iraq-blowing-up was that Clinton used an Air Force to blow up stuff, and chose not to invade. Bush, however, attacked with ground troops, who, shall we say, have been out of action for a while. One thing I like about desert combat, training for it in the USA almost always is in the Mojave. Me likey the Mojave




amoreelitesoldier

Back from the dead!

50 XP

8th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,047 Posts

0 Threads

#155 14 years ago

Or they could come to Arizona and use thee illegals as targets. :naughty:




IR15H

An end has a start.

50 XP

7th September 2005

0 Uploads

2,031 Posts

0 Threads

#156 14 years ago
All the other presidents over the past 200 years have been able to restrain themselves, why couldn't he?

Maybe they didnt restrain themselves either, maybe it just never got out.

Clinton also refused Usama bin Laden at least four times.

Ahh so Bush has him in custody then?

His civil rights laws prohibited the FBI from even touching one of the 9/11 hijacker's laptop computers, which contained complete data on the attack as well as correspondence with his comrades, even though we had it for something like two months before the attack.

As far as im aware nobody in America was expecting such a huge tradgity on its on soil. The world had not seen such an act of terrosim like this before so it was a new kind of threat to the world. Also i gather there was a large amount of information not being shared between the FBI and CIA which is also partly responsible. There was also failed security services at the airport where one of the hijackers set of the metal dectector, was search with no result and was then allowed to pass throught anyway. Since 9/11 and 7/7 legislation in America and Britian has got tougher in order to try and deal with this new kind of threat imposed on them, prior to 9/11 these act were unthought of so legislation had not previously been required. Had 9/11 not happened i imagine legislation would be the same today as it is was then.

He outright lied to the American people.

You'd be niave to think Bush has never lied, all politians do, it seems to be part of their jobs.

George W. Dealt with Hurricane Katrina just recently

The situation in New Orleans was a disgrace, a nation so powerful and strong yet it cant even help its own people effectively in a time of need.

Bringing about peace by not attacking anyone who attacked us. And unemployment was actually higher then

Look Here

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination. In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia and bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO.

He also worked on trying to solve the Northen Ireland problem.

Did you hate FDR as well because there was a World War during his presendency?

FDR didnt get involved in WWII until Japan attacked America and German declared war on America also. Prior to this he supplied aid and support to Britian but didnt want to get involved. However, the end of the war resulted in a successful outcome, the german army was defeated and its fascist leader dead. If we look to Bush's campaign we see that Sadamm Hussien is caputered.... thats it, Bin Laden is still running around free and there have been furthur terroist attacks on countries that supported America. Im not saying Bush should of done nothing after 9/11, infact i liked his determination to try and caputre and hold accoutnable all those responsible but at the end of the day virtually all the problems before still remain. Im not saying Bush is a terrible president and he has had to deal with difficult things in his time but i believe that had Clinton been in the same situations he would of delt with them better. Bush to me strikes me as a man of limited itellect who quite frankly doesnt know much about anything, he relies on his advisors completely and i wonder how many decisions he actually makes himself. Here are a selection of his best quotes; "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 "I try to go for longer runs, but it's tough around here at the White House on the outdoor track. It's sad that I can't run longer. It's one of the saddest things about the presidency." —interview with "Runners World," Aug. 2002

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002 Now, im sorry this might seem perfectably accpetable to you but if i heard the leader of my country come out with some of the quotes i would be seriously worried. I believe his heart is in the right place but his brain is somewhat lacking.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#157 14 years ago

The point about him not being a great public speaker has been beaten to death, then sliced up, burned, and is now decomposing.

And did you even try to read the article's posted about Bush's intellegence? Read them this time:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...tudent?mode=PF http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...s_x.htm?csp=34 http://www.political-news.org/breaki...-to-bushs.html

Hell, go back and read the posts I have made in the past two pages. They will address every statement you made. If you have any questions, then come back.




IR15H

An end has a start.

50 XP

7th September 2005

0 Uploads

2,031 Posts

0 Threads

#158 14 years ago

Its not about public speaking its about a total lack of knowledge about anything outside his 4 walls. Your links are related to Kerry and Bush, i dont recall mentioning Kerry anywhere, if i am somewhat mistaken please point out where. Also everyone knwos IQ tests are crap, they're socially based. As for grades at uni, who cares? Do you know the reasons why? Maybe it was poor teaching, maybe he was unwell on that day, theres a million reason but none are important. Its easy to mistake academic achievement with intelligence but they are different things. Some one who is academic may just be able to write good essays, cram information in before an exam or even cheat on the work. Intelligence is the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have opinions based on whats going on around them. These relate to people not just facts out of textbooks and to events that are going on now. Bush's gaff are not just slips of the tounge but show unbelievable stupidity in my opinion. If i recall correctly, when Bush was asked to point to where Israel was on a world map he couldnt, a good sense of knowledge of the world then. On another occasion he met a girl called Charlotte Church and asked where she was from, she replied Wales, to which Bush replied 'What state is that?'. For those that dont know Wales is a COUNTRY next to England. Also relating to your previous posts, they dont address my issues with the exception of the hijackers laptop which i have also debated on. I wasnt asking questions anyway, i was stating my point of view.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#159 14 years ago

:cort:

So all of the sudden one's scholastic grades no longer reflect their intellegence? In that case, the GPA that I worked hard for obviously means nothing, and toasted stoners should be able to get into Harvard.

Instead of making stupid claims based on hearsay, like Bush doesn't know where Israel is, why don't you find some good, unbiased support? It will make you look far more credible.




IR15H

An end has a start.

50 XP

7th September 2005

0 Uploads

2,031 Posts

0 Threads

#160 14 years ago

Why dont you come up with some links to the topic being discussed, Clition or Bush, not Kerry. What i said was people who are not academic can still be intelligent and vice versa. I didnt say degrees were worthless, i said degrees do not necessarliy imply intelliegence. If it did we would have either intelligent people who were amazing at everything or 'thick' people who were crap at everything, the fact of the matter however is that people are good at different things, what some find easy other find hard. If it is purely intelligence, who is more intelligent, a person whos studies maths or a person who studies french? a person whos studies history or a person who studies biology? a person whos studies art or a person who studies engineering? a person whos studies sport science or a person who studies business? Im not saying everyone could do the work that you have done, but then is that because they're all thick or is maybe because they aren't interested in it, weren't taught well when younger, are crap at writing essays, get all panicked at exams? Maybe their good at things that require intellignece but arent tested at school. Again

Some one who is academic may just be able to write good essays, cram information in before an exam or even cheat on the work. Intelligence is the ability to learn, understand and make judgments or have opinions based on whats going on around them. These relate to people not just facts out of textbooks and to events that are going on now.

As i said before people can just be good at exams and so do well at school, a historian may be able to tell you all about WWII but ask them to wire a televison for you, create a web page, desribe anothers cultures beliefs or thing of a new drug to solve aids and they may come up short. Surely an academic (and therfore intelligent) person would be able to do all this? Some people do admitably have a genetic disposition to find certain things harder. Issac Newton was infact reasonable to poor at school, is he thick?

Instead of making stupid claims based on hearsay, like Bush doesn't know where Israel is, why don't you find some good, unbiased support? It will make you look far more credible.

What biased claims have i made? I saw the interview of bush not knowing where Israel was on English television, channel 4 i think if that helps you. Charlotte Church is a singer well know in Britian and also told about her encounter with Bush on television, it was on a BBC programme called 'Have I Got News For You'. My information about Clinton comes from 'http://www.whitehouse.gov', i hope these sorces aren't too biased for you. My quotes of what Bush have said he actually said and many can be viewed on video tape, i can provide the links for them if you so desire.