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.
This is part of the problem you have, Marilyn. You allow yourself to get all worked up in agreement with abstract things that people who don't know what they're talking about go on rants over.
There is no truth to the contention that President Clinton did "nothing at all on his watch to fight terrorism". None. But someone posts it and you believe it without making an effort to find out if there is any validity to such a claim. If you did a little homework and learned that what they've said is factually incorrect, what would that do to how much of the rest of their blustering you'd buy into? Would you believe them more, or less, if you knew they were lying to you?
Do you care when the people you're relying on to help formulate your opinions are using quotes out of context to make their arguments? Please start taking the time to ask the people you're responding to to at least back up their claims with evidence before you decide to agree with them.
I remember that Iraq was not letting people inspect their sites and started that BS. It may have not been under Clinton but the point is Bush was not wrong thats what I feel with IRAQ.
This is part of the problem you have, Marilyn. You allow yourself to get all worked up in agreement with abstract things that people who don't know what they're talking about go on rants over.
There is no truth to the contention that President Clinton did "nothing at all on his watch to fight terrorism". None. But someone posts it and you believe it without making an effort to find out if there is any validity to such a claim. If you did a little homework and learned that what they've said is factually incorrect, what would that do to how much of the rest of their blustering you'd buy into? Would you believe them more, or less, if you knew they were lying to you?
Do you care when the people you're relying on to help formulate your opinions are using quotes out of context to make their arguments? Please start taking the time to ask the people you're responding to to at least back up their claims with evidence before you decide to agree with them.
Jill I also posted a question to you read back a few lines and I would like your answer. I think Bush was right with Iraq. I dont think he was right with everything but I think he was right with Iraq. I dont know about Clinton, I was busy working on my soberity.
I would like to get off Bush and talk cap and trade since thats my worry really. Are you worried that you may pay alot more?????
Sorry. Had to stop reading at this point. Laughing so hard, I couldn't read any further....
I suppose you think the other netword are "fair and balanced"? Even though they regularly do not report things that may show Democrats or Barack Obama in an unfavorable light?
Why is it that:
Fox news is the No. 1 cable news network, bar none?
The Obama/ABC "Healt care Info-mmercial" came in last in the ratings?
Fox covers news that none of the other networks do?
Ratings for the other networks are "in the tank"
There is a reason that people watch Fox more than any other network. Get the picture?
I remember that Iraq was not letting people inspect their sites and started that BS. It may have not been under Clinton but the point is Bush was not wrong thats what I feel with IRAQ.
That's not the point. The point is that a claim was made that was factually false; that President Clinton did "nothing at all on his watch to fight terrorism". I've proven to you that that statement is flat out wrong. From one of my links. . .
Quote:
Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office.
• In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.
• The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.
• Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.
• The CIA's directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no verified damage.
• Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.
. . .
Within days of the August 1998 embassy bombings, the combined efforts of the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency pinned responsibility on bin Laden's organization.
With only Attorney General Janet Reno dissenting, Clinton directed two retaliatory strikes on Aug. 20. One, near the Afghan town of Khost, was timed to kill bin Laden and his associates in their beds at 10 p.m. local time. It missed, the CIA said afterward, by a few hours. The other demolished a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, that the CIA had linked to attempted production of chemical weapons for bin Laden.
Domestically and globally, Clinton National Security Council staffers Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon lamented recently, the missile attack came to be regarded -- wrongly, they argued -- "as the greatest foreign policy blunder of the Clinton presidency." Apart from the "public relations battering," Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's deputy counterterrorism chief at the time, wrote later, the episode inflicted a "broader blow . . . on the perceived integrity of U.S. intelligence and U.S. counterterrorist efforts generally."
Badly burned, Clinton and his national security cabinet turned their emphasis to detecting, disrupting and arresting members of terrorist cells in quiet cooperation with friendly foreign security services. This had been an ongoing project of the FBI and CIA since the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
At the CIA's counterterrorism center in Langley, wall maps the size of Renaissance tapestries depicted the agency's growing knowledge of the al Qaeda network in an intricate web of crisscrossed lines. On occasion Tenet would ask aides to roll them up and carry them, sealed in tubular cases, to brief Clinton or the Small Group in Berger's office.
Beginning in 1996, the Clinton team made increasing use of what Berger described as "a new art form" in the international commerce in terror suspects. Scores of times in the next five years, they persuaded allies to arrest members of al Qaeda and ship them somewhere else. Frequently, somewhere else was not the United States.
. . .
There's more, but I hope you get the point. You've been hoodwinked. You've been led to believe that something that's untrue should help form your opinion about actions that resulted therefrom.
A lot of people, including Democrats, initially thought what President Bush did when he invaded Iraq was the right thing to do. We've all learned some truths since then that have caused many to change their opinion on that matter. You might not be one of them, but I'm simply asking that you not formulate that opinion based on someone else's rant, when that someone else isn't telling you the truth.
That's not the point. The point is that a claim was made that was factually false; that President Clinton did "nothing at all on his watch to fight terrorism". I've proven to you that that statement is flat out wrong. From one of my links. . . There's more, but I hope you get the point. You've been hoodwinked. You've been led to believe that something that's untrue should help form your opinion about actions that resulted therefrom.
A lot of people, including Democrats, initially thought what President Bush did when he invaded Iraq was the right thing to do. We've all learned some truths since then that have caused many to change their opinion on that matter. You might not be one of them, but I'm simply asking that you not formulate that opinion based on someone else's rant, when that someone else isn't telling you the truth.
I understand what your saying, now how about it, what do you think about this cap and trade? ANy ideas or you need more info, just curious. I also appreciate you taking the time to give all this info. you obviously are very passionate about your view and the funny thing is your smart too. I will wait and see. I will see how my life changes and how other Americans lives change. Its funny it seems noone really cares whats going on if the stock market is up so I do get the point that we are all alittle selfish and quick to think only of the economy and not the whole picture. Thanks I really mean it, too bad you were not closer, we could have lunch. This sucks all the people who I like live in other states.
Jill I also posted a question to you read back a few lines and I would like your answer. I think Bush was right with Iraq. I dont think he was right with everything but I think he was right with Iraq. I dont know about Clinton, I was busy working on my soberity.
I would like to get off Bush and talk cap and trade since thats my worry really. Are you worried that you may pay alot more?????
No, I'm not worried I may pay a lot more. First, at this point it's all speculation as to how much increase we can expect as a result of this legislation. And the problem with most of the anticipated increases don't seem to take into account that in the same 10 year period they're projecting, our energy costs are going to go up regardless. And in fact, they may go up even more. Being so dependent on foreign oil, we are at the mercy of others as to what we pay for most of our energy needs and use. Who's to say we wouldn't be paying that much more if we kept the status quo in 10 years?
I'm not necessarily sold on every aspect of this cap and trade scheme, but I'm not against it simply because it might raise my utility rates over 10 years, since I expect them to go up anyway. I'm more concerned about building our energy infrastructure here at home, employing our workforce in more green jobs (not to mention just any jobs at all), and curtailing some of the damage that we humans are contributing to earth's climate change, even if we aren't the only source of that change.
Does that answer your question?
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.
