The Clinton Legacy

[Guest bengalrick]

[i]So the one variable where there is direct control, and it's not pretty. [/i]

unfortinately, i have to agree w/ you on this note... bush has been nothing short of a disaster to fiscal conservatives and their basic rules...

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='ChicagoBengal' post='352262' date='Sep 27 2006, 11:39 AM']This example of bi-partisanship brings a tear to my eye.[/quote]
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//20.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//20.gif[/img]
That was FUNNY!

[Jamie_B]

Why is it people want to go on about the 14 UN Violations emposed on Iraq as a reason for going to war with them, but then ignore the UN Violations of Israel and are ok with us supporting them?

You guys kill me.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='352338' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:38 PM']Why is it people want to go on about the 14 UN Violations emposed on Iraq as a reason for going to war with them, but then ignore the UN Violations of Israel and are ok with us supporting them?

You guys kill me.[/quote]

your talking about UN violations... we're talking about resolutions... in other words, the world sat down and negotiated a way to solve the iraq problem FOURTEEN times!!! and all fourteen times, when iraq broke the agreement, the UN did almost nothing... the final resolution stated, in no uncertain terms, that military action was the next step and it passed unanamously... then, as usual, when they didn't follow the rules set up by the security council, the world was ready for round 15...

a threat is only as good as your willingness to follow through with it... if saddam knew that we pussied out 14 times, why wouldn't we the 15th time? don't make threats you don't plan on following through with... its very simple...

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html"]http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html[/url]
[quote]1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.[/quote]

[Guest bengalrick]

ok, and how many of those resolutions called for either sanctions or military action?

also, i just read through a good majority of those resolutions... i have gone through iraqs in the past... there is no comparison... about 90% of the resolutions against israel have the answer to the solution as "create a palestinian state"...

also, the last one was in 1992, and the one before that, was in 1991 (from what you posted)... so israel had 2 resolutions against them, neither called for anything outside of a palestinian state, while iraq had 15 in that period of time...

don't just quote things you find jamie... examine them closely... so far, every single resolution ends the same: [i]6. Decides to keep the matter actively under review.[/i]

every complaint has the same thing in it: "needs to create palestinian state"... most include deportation charges, which is illegial b/c of the way israel and palestine are seperated right now, but not exactly a problem w/ using chemical weapons on their neighbors...

[b]hence, why we were extremely concerned w/ iraq and not as much so w/ israel... [/b]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jason' post='352308' date='Sep 27 2006, 02:09 PM']And how many Americans have died on US soil as a result of terrorist attacks since then? NONE. Oh, and several al-Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed. No, they have not captured bin Laden yet. But the Sudan was ready to hand him over to Clinton who said no.[/quote]

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2"]Get the story right.[/url] But that really isn't the point, is it? The point is, of course, to keep these murderous assholes currently in power. And the worst part of it all is, some of these folks who support this current crowd actually think they are Christians.

I'm laughing my ass off.

[Jamie_B]

How about if another does the comparison for me?

[url="http://www.mediamonitors.net/michaelsladah&suleimaniajlouni1.html"]http://www.mediamonitors.net/michaelsladah...niajlouni1.html[/url]

[quote]Dear Mr. President:

As we watched your speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002, we were struck by the ironic proximity of the Israeli and Iraqi delegations. Ironic, because many of the accusations you leveled against Iraq could, with ample justification, be directed toward Israel.

We commend you for calling upon the United Nations to prove its relevance in keeping peace and harmony among nations in today’s world. In order to maintain United States credibility in the international arena, we expect that you and the United Nations would apply to Israel the same standards of compliance with provisions of the UN Charter. The Israeli leadership continues to defy countless UN resolutions pertaining to its policies and military tactics of the past 35 years.

Accountability and our nation’s credibility require that Israel be forced to comply with international law, especially if the United States continues to press its case against Iraq.

During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day.

On June, 14, 1967, through Resolution No. 237, the Security Council called upon Israel to "ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949." In subsequent resolutions, the Security Council deplored Israel for the delay in its implementation of Resolution 237. Yet, Israel continued to defy the world community, including the United States. The Security Council, in the face of Israel's defiance, passed no less than five subsequent resolutions demanding that Israel comply but to this day, thirty five years after June 14, 1967, the defiance continues.

On March 22, 1979, the Security Council adopted Resolution No. 446. Israel’s violation of Resolution 446 (sections quoted below) represents the most flagrant violation of Israel, not only of the UN but also the stated policy of our government under successive administrations:

(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

Mr. President, we have cited just a few Security Council resolutions that pertain to Israel. Space and your indulgence do not permit us to cite, in this short letter, the volumes of the other resolutions that have been ignored or brazenly violated by Israel. Therefore, we have compiled in the attached document a list of the UN Security Council resolutions which Israel has violated and/or continues to violate. If Israel’s actions in response to these resolutions do not "flaunt the will of the world community of nations," we do not know what would. And if Israel’s actions do not qualify it as a "rouge state" then reasonable, informed citizens of this great nation, and the entire community of nations, are left to reach the unavoidable conclusion that our government continues to apply very different standards for Israel and for all other nations. Just as no man is above our domestic laws, no state should be left to disregard well-established principles of international law. The acquisition of territory by force and the use of torture are just two clear examples of the shameful records shared by Iraq and Israel.

Mr. President, we take seriously the fact that Israel has defied, and made a mockery of, not only the United Nations but also this great country for we are one of the permanent members of the Security Council. All of these resolutions mentioned above passed with some measure of United States support, or they would not have passed.

Israel even stands in defiance of your own recent public demand that Israel withdraw its forces from the West Bank. In a televised statement on April 9, 2002 you demanded that "Israel withdraw its troops from the West Bank without delay." Israel not only ignored your call, but has actually intensified its illegal military occupation. If you are not willing to force Israel to comply with even your own demands, how do you expect to maintain the credibility necessary to convince the international community to support a war against Iraq? Your success or failure at the international level will depend heavily on the uniform enforcement of UN resolutions against all countries. Selective enforcement will most certainly lead to doubts about US intentions, and, ultimately, can only compromise American influence and effectiveness on the international stage.

We therefore urge you to restore the relevance of the United Nations in maintaining world peace, and restore the reputation and credibility of the United States, by enforcing compliance with UN Security Council resolutions equally amongst all nations. We further urge you to use peaceful means to resolve all such conflicts. We believe in peace, justice and reconciliation and are opposed to war as a means of conflict resolution. War is destructive and can not be justified in any case, especially when peaceful alternatives exist.

With respect,

Michael S. Ladah & Suleiman I. Ajlouni[/quote]

Then goes on to show a chart of all the resolutions, if you follow the link.

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.observer.com/20061002/20061002_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason.asp"]From Observer[/url]

[quote]Bushies Can’t Handle A Dose of Truth

By Joe Conason

The most amusing part of the confrontation between former President Bill Clinton and Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace came in the immediate aftermath, when the bullies of cable and their wingnut gang shrieked about the mean, crazy man picking on them.

Waah! Waah! Waah! they wailed. Clinton planned it! Clinton tricked Fox! Clinton melted down! Clinton is responsible for 9/11!

If Mr. Wallace didn’t want to provoke a tough answer, he shouldn’t have impersonated a tough interviewer. By insinuating that Mr. Clinton was somehow derelict in failing to eliminate Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, he reopened a can of worms that he should have left shut.

That incident wasn’t the first time that the R-epublican Party’s media servants, at Fox and elsewhere, have tried to falsify the history of American conflict with Al Qaeda for partisan purposes. The smearing began within months after 9/11 and has continued for almost five years.

Yet for some strange reason, as Mr. Clinton sarcastically pointed out, his conservative critics show little concern about the Bush administration’s failure to act against the jihadist enemy for eight months after taking office. Not only did they refuse to do anything, but they and their top aides refused to even talk about doing anything.

The Bush White House may still seek to shift responsibility to its predecessors. But such bamboozlements are no longer as easily accomplished as a few years ago, when Condoleezza Rice warned that the “smoking gun” in Iraq’s forbidden arsenal could turn out to be a “mushroom cloud.”

What the Wallace interview and its aftermath proved is that the dumbasss can be relied upon to take the path of political convenience—and to blame someone else for it later. In full confidence that nobody will look up the facts, they love to claim that they were courageous, steadfast and farsighted, when they actually displayed the opposite qualities.[/quote]

[Guest bengalrick]

jamie:

[i]During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day. [/i]

talk about using only facts you want... OK, how about this one (again)... from 1991 to 2003, israel had 2 resolution (involving deporting people) vs. iraqs 15 resolutions (involving things like not creating nukes, and using chemical weapons on both the kurds and iranians)... yeah, great comparision here...

don't quote me shit from 1965 and then try to equate them to 1990's iraq, and say "why didn't we invade israel too then!!" i mean, that is like bj's justifications...

context is the key word...

[Khatmandude]

Jamie B is officially paranoid of the Zionists and is anti-Semetic.

Why don't you give it up Jamie, you probably want the destruction of Israel don't you? I can't believe how much hate you have in your blood. I can feel it through my monitor.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='IKOTA' post='352609' date='Sep 27 2006, 05:00 PM']Jamie B is officially paranoid of the Zionists and is anti-Semetic.

Why don't you give it up Jamie, you probably want the destruction of Israel don't you? I can't believe how much hate you have in your blood. I can feel it through my monitor.[/quote]


IKOTA you dont work for the ADL do you?

[url="http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4878_62.htm"]http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4878_62.htm[/url]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='352531' date='Sep 27 2006, 04:13 PM']jamie:

[i]During the period between 1967 and 2000, Iraq was the subject of 69 Security Council resolutions. By comparison, Israel, our closest "ally" in the Middle East, has been the subject of 138 resolutions. Not surprisingly, most of those resolutions call upon Israel to comply with basic principles of international law embodied by the UN Charter. Many of them condemn actions taken by Israel and call upon Israel on more than one occasion to comply with previous resolutions that Israel ignored and continues to ignore to this day. [/i]

talk about using only facts you want... OK, how about this one (again)... from 1991 to 2003, israel had 2 resolution (involving deporting people) vs. iraqs 15 resolutions (involving things like not creating nukes, and using chemical weapons on both the kurds and iranians)... yeah, great comparision here...

don't quote me shit from 1965 and then try to equate them to 1990's iraq, and say "why didn't we invade israel too then!!" i mean, that is like bj's justifications...

context is the key word...[/quote]



Better idea, how about we dont invade anyone.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='352650' date='Sep 27 2006, 04:08 PM']Better idea, how about we dont invade anyone.[/quote]
Except The Republic Of Boomerstan....they're getting uppity over there. The government of Abandejo is not pleased....

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='352660' date='Sep 27 2006, 06:20 PM']Except The Republic Of Boomerstan....they're getting uppity over there. The government of Abandejo is not pleased....[/quote]

[|Bengal Migration|]

Olbermann contined...

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13lGuuebvfg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13lGuuebvfg[/url]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

When you watch these guys grabbing at straws to justify what is a very transparent and malicious attack on a sovereign nation under a pretext, and you watch them employ the same tortuous rhetoric to justify a whole laundry list of abuses of executive power rationalized by flimsy pretexts, it makes sense to contemplate what sort of people we're dealing with and the implications for people that insist on seeing through this nonsense.

The same guy that says, "Hey, you're my bud, 'cause we both root for the Bengals!" and "Hey, we're all Amkurikkins, come and join the Amurikkkin cause against those filthy rag-heads that hate us so," is the same guy that will use all these jive-assed rationalizations and distortions to explain away your sudden disappearance into the gulag. They'll pretend that this is crazy talk, but you who know better think about just what kind of friends, neighbors and countrymen you really have. That's the real problem.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='353844' date='Sep 28 2006, 09:33 PM']When you watch these guys grabbing at straws to justify what is a very transparent and malicious attack on a sovereign nation under a pretext, and you watch them employ the same tortuous rhetoric to justify a whole laundry list of abuses of executive power rationalized by flimsy pretexts, it makes sense to contemplate what sort of people we're dealing with and the implications for people that insist on seeing through this nonsense.

The same guy that says, "Hey, you're my bud, 'cause we both root for the Bengals!" and "Hey, we're all Amkurikkins, come and join the Amurikkkin cause against those filthy rag-heads that hate us so," is the same guy that will use all these jive-assed rationalizations and distortions to explain away your sudden disappearance into the gulag. They'll pretend that this is crazy talk, but you who know better think about just what kind of friends, neighbors and countrymen you really have. That's the real problem.[/quote]
You've taken the extreme example too far.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='353844' date='Sep 28 2006, 11:33 PM']When you watch these guys grabbing at straws to justify what is a very transparent and malicious attack on a sovereign nation under a pretext, and you watch them employ the same tortuous rhetoric to justify a whole laundry list of abuses of executive power rationalized by flimsy pretexts, it makes sense to contemplate what sort of people we're dealing with and the implications for people that insist on seeing through this nonsense.

The same guy that says, "Hey, you're my bud, 'cause we both root for the Bengals!" and "Hey, we're all Amkurikkins, come and join the Amurikkkin cause against those filthy rag-heads that hate us so," is the same guy that will use all these jive-assed rationalizations and distortions to explain away your sudden disappearance into the gulag. They'll pretend that this is crazy talk, but you who know better think about just what kind of friends, neighbors and countrymen you really have. That's the real problem.[/quote]

i've never talked to a more paranoid person.. its simply amazing... trust me, if you and or bj wasn't here one day, we'd notice!! and we wouldn't have it... do you know how boring it would be for 10 people to agree w/ each other all day on the politcal forum!! i know you think i'm full of shit, but if shit hit/hits the fan like you say, people would stand up and take back control.... the reason i'm so confident nothing like that will happen, is b/c it would cause revolution... quit thinking everyone is out to get you man...

[Lawman]

From "My Girl",

[url="http://www.tammybruce.com/"]http://www.tammybruce.com/[/url]

Remember, I am not making this shit up. They (the Clintons) are the ones that say this crap.

For those of you that want to point the finger back at Bush, I post not in support of Bush, I post to attack the Clinton's; it's like a hobby of mine calling out their bull-shit. God, they make it so easy.

Now Hillary Steps Into It

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Woman Who Would be President, launched a vigorous defense of her husband after he had his Fox News Sunday meltdown. The problem is, while people like her could fabricate history years ago, it's not so easy anymore. Now with the internet, which provides virtually immediate access to documents, she should realize that making it up as you go along just won't cut it. Consider this great analysis by Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard:

[url="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/746wewfh.asp"]Warning Signs: Hillary Clinton attempts to rewrite history. [/url]

YESTERDAY, in the wake of President Clinton's interview on Fox News, Senator Hillary Clinton defended her husband's counterterrorism track record. Reacting to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's assertion that the Bush administration "was at least as aggressive" in the eight months preceding September 11, 2001 as the Clinton administration was in the years prior, the former first lady remarked:

"[i]I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."[/i]

[u]Apparently referring to the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, which was entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," Senator Clinton suggested that her husband did not receive the same type of warnings that President Bush did.[/u]

[b]In fact, President Clinton signed a similar classified document--which contained an explicit warning from the U.S. Intelligence Community that bin Laden intended to strike inside the United States, more than two years prior to leaving office. And the U.S. intelligence community collected numerous pieces of intelligence concerning bin Laden's determination to strike inside the United States during President Clinton's tenure. [/b]

Oops, Hillary, your philandering husband has made you look like a flaming idiot once again. And has anyone noticed, for a man who supposedly "meant" to have a meltdown on national television, there's an awful lot of defense and damage-control going on?

[Homer_Rice]

When 41 does it, it "proves" he's not a wimp. When Clinton does it, it's a meltdown.

It's all political theater.

But here's the point. The extreme crazies who have hijacked the R-epublican party have done quite a bit to destroy this country in the past 6 years. It's time to throw them out of power. And then it's time to throw some of them in jail.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][img]http://www.adamzyglis.com/images/cartoon347.jpg[/img][/center]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='353985' date='Sep 29 2006, 10:44 AM']i've never talked to a more paranoid person.. its simply amazing... trust me, if you and or bj wasn't here one day, we'd notice!! and we wouldn't have it... do you know how boring it would be for 10 people to agree w/ each other all day on the politcal forum!! i know you think i'm full of shit, but if shit hit/hits the fan like you say, people would stand up and take back control.... the reason i'm so confident nothing like that will happen, is b/c it would cause revolution... quit thinking everyone is out to get you man...[/quote]

What I have proposed is a far cry from the idea that everyone is out to get me. That's a deliberate mischaracterization on your part. The fact is that you would likely accept whatever rationalization you were given to hang your hat on. Your track record of doing so in the cases that we have had before us suggests that of you personally, and if not you in the individual case, certainly enough people to allow the policy to go forward. Most people aren't out to get anybody, they aren't out to do much of anything.

I almost wish that I was paranoid, but I'm not. I do however recognize a specific threat that is more credible and present than a lot of the fear of terrorism that people like you are paranoid about. I'm not remotely paranoid, however I am paying attention.