Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.
The tape proves the Clinton administration was aggressively tracking al-Qaida a year before 9/11. But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
Sounds a lot like when Dubya/Rummy let Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in Afghanistan...
By all accounts, we had him trapped there - but the U.S. would not commit troops to prevent his escape..
How about your comment on the post 9/11 episode where the only flight in US airspace in the 3 days after 9/11 was to wisk Bin Laden's family members out of the country. Strikes me as a very shady episode that Dubya has a lot of explaining to do on...
There continue to be detractors who say the U.S. administration should have channeled the money through the U.N.; that it has placed too much emphasis on faith-based groups and abstinence; that it has trampled on women's health by shunning anything associated with abortions; that it has concentrated on AIDS treatment at the expense of prevention; and that it has diverted attention away from bigger killers like pneumonia and diarrhea.
I think overall, Bush is doing a good thing. However, the fact that he has been so insistent that funding go to Christian groups that focus on abstinence is a point of contention for me. Why would they do that? People have sex. People get raped. They need better solutions than abstinence, considering that that approach hasn't even worked in the U.S. Also, there are many diseases that need attention, HIV/AIDs is only one. They should give money to other diseases as well. Just because someone does something good, doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism. And I think there are some fair criticisms of the funding Bush is giving.
I believe Bush's leadership on the worldwide AIDS crisis was about the only good thing he did the last 8 years. However, what do you guys think about Bush requiring that 1/3 of his foreign AIDS prevention money be used exclusively for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs?
The right-wingers are indeed quick these days to display the growing symptoms of their further descent into madness. You've got them extolling the manliness of Richard Nixon now, you've actually got them putting up posts by self-aggrandizing crackpot Mansoor Ijaz, you've got them crying perjury (not really related to AIDS) when there isn't a one who could craft a proper definition of it, much less an example. They taunt Bush critics as vitriolic Bush-haters, then plunge into their own rapidly expanding pools of vitriol and hatred before the first page can be filled. This is not exactly a stable group we are dealing with here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramanboy33
I believe Bush's leadership on the worldwide AIDS crisis was about the only good thing he did the last 8 years. However, what do you guys think about Bush requiring that 1/3 of his foreign AIDS prevention money be used exclusively for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs?
While he has otherwise been pretty much a walking crime against humanity, Bush's AIDS efforts in Africa do stand out as a welcome anomaly. To be sure, he back-loaded the promised funding and stole the startup costs from also very much needed childhood immunization programs, and he has certainly left a few stones unturned when it comes to putting pressure on the drug companies to cut the cost of anti-retrovirals going into Africa. It's also true that the ABC approach (Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condomise) needs to be scrapped, that the exclusion of prostitutes is a serious flaw that needs to be fixed, and that more money is needed in the area of women's rights if the dollars going toward AIDS are to be effective. There has also been criticism over the use of faith-based organizations who often refuse to distribute condoms, but the fact is that those people are there and any help they can provide is still help. It is further true that Bush has not been alone. Both the British government and yes, the Clinton Foundation have also been significant players, but it must still be said that a flawed and sometimes poorly administered program, has still had a dramatic and positive effect, even if on account of its magnitude alone. Eventually, a lot of money got into this program, and much of it has made its way past bribe-seeking bureaucrats and into the lives of a lot of desperately poor and desperately ill people. Millions are no doubt alive today who would not have been but for PEPFAR, and the program stands as a laudable stepping stone on which to base further effort toward the humanitatrian, economic, and political progress and development of much of the continent. It would be a sad thing indeed if the economic crisis that the Bush administration also bears great responsibility for should come to mean that his work in Africa will all have been for nought.
The entire Clinton impeachment was started by partisan Republicans who wanted to take him down for an affair with an intern...
As far as impeachable offenses go, GWB's getting us into a useless War in Iraq on false pretenses, his warrantless wire-taps, his imperial presidency - are all far more legitimate grounds for impeachment than anything Clinton did.
And Clinton did warn Bush very strongly about Al Queda when he took office. Bush wasn't interested...
Bush was too consumed with how to start a war in Iraq to get back at Saddam for trying to assassinate Bush Sr for him to be concerned with Bin Laden - so 8 months into the Bush Administration, our guard was down, and 9/11 happened - UNDER BUSH'S WATCH!!!
The entire Clinton impeachment thing began when a couple of gangsters from Arkansas took over the White House while failing to come clean about the shady dealings they had in the Whitewater affair. Hillary lied and concealed documents, Vince Foster "committed suicide" and Susan MacDougal played it smart by refusing to take the stand against the Clintons and did not "commit suicide". She felt less "suicidal" in jail. Bubba got into trouble because he wasn't able to answer simple questions while under oath without telling half truths and outright lies.
The 9/11 operation took place in a number of nations over a five year period prior to the planes hitting the towers. So where was Clinton for four years. If their was action to be taken, why didn't Clinton take it? Maybe he didn't know what to do because he was busy respecting our right to privacy and not tapping phones.
"And Clinton did warn Bush very strongly about Al Queda when he took office. Bush wasn't interested..."
"his warrantless wire-taps, his imperial presidency - are all far more legitimate grounds for impeachment than anything Clinton did."
You have two conflicting positions here. The first one states that he should have done something, but you don't specify what. In the next breath, you complain about wire taps. OK, now pick the one you really want. Or do you just want Bush to be wrong about something so Democrats don't have to talk about the answers they don't have. "We need change" and "it's all Bush's fault" doesn't really get us anywhere.
Your "I want terrorists contained but don't want any brown person's phone tapped" argument is a left wing fantasy doomed to failure from the start. Typical liberal illogical position.
Do you know why Obama has reversed himself on the liberal standard of no telecom immunity? It's because he knows that in order to contain the terrorists who move among us, he has to invade some privacy too. In fact, his administration is shaping up to be Bush's third term.
Having an affair with an intern is 'an affair' - people in government have them all the time - it is no one's business but theirs and their spouses...
Nixon committed an outright crime by ordering the Watergate break in to get dirt on his Democratic opponents and used his power as President to try to cover it up...
The two situations are light years apart in meeting the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'...
He committed purjury. You and I would go to prison for doing that.
He committed purjury. You and I would go to prison for doing that.
The whole thing started with a partisan Congressional investigation into a sexual affair - they NEVER should have wasted time on it to begin with - they just wanted to nail Clinton - they had been gunning for him for years before he was elected and were praying this might stick...
He never should have been deposed in the first place - the entire investigation was a waste of taxpayer money...
The entire Clinton impeachment thing began when a couple of gangsters from Arkansas took over the White House while failing to come clean about the shady dealings they had in the Whitewater affair. Hillary lied and concealed documents, Vince Foster "committed suicide" and Susan MacDougal played it smart by refusing to take the stand against the Clintons and did not "commit suicide". She felt less "suicidal" in jail. Bubba got into trouble because he wasn't able to answer simple questions while under oath without telling half truths and outright lies.
The 9/11 operation took place in a number of nations over a five year period prior to the planes hitting the towers. So where was Clinton for four years. If their was action to be taken, why didn't Clinton take it? Maybe he didn't know what to do because he was busy respecting our right to privacy and not tapping phones.
"And Clinton did warn Bush very strongly about Al Queda when he took office. Bush wasn't interested..."
"his warrantless wire-taps, his imperial presidency - are all far more legitimate grounds for impeachment than anything Clinton did."
You have two conflicting positions here. The first one states that he should have done something, but you don't specify what. In the next breath, you complain about wire taps. OK, now pick the one you really want. Or do you just want Bush to be wrong about something so Democrats don't have to talk about the answers they don't have. "We need change" and "it's all Bush's fault" doesn't really get us anywhere.
Your "I want terrorists contained but don't want any brown person's phone tapped" argument is a left wing fantasy doomed to failure from the start. Typical liberal illogical position.
Do you know why Obama has reversed himself on the liberal standard of no telecom immunity? It's because he knows that in order to contain the terrorists who move among us, he has to invade some privacy too. In fact, his administration is shaping up to be Bush's third term.
I'm sorry. Refresh my memory.
Exactly what crimes were Bill and Hillary convicted of? I didn't hear about it.
As for the wire taps - Shouldn't the fourth amendment be thought of as reverently as the second one?
First of all, you should really lay off the 'vitriolic Bush haters' crap... We put up with 8+ years of non-stop hatred against Clinton - Bush had it easy compared to that - Bush wasn't impeached on trumped-up partisan charges.
Clinton had only himself to blame for being impeached.
Lying under oath (perjury), witness tampering and obstruction of justice are all illegal and not "trumped up" charges.
Clinton had only himself to blame for being impeached.
Lying under oath (perjury), witness tampering and obstruction of justice are all illegal and not "trumped up" charges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
