Clinton's Job Approval Rate is Up Again

Discussion in 'Politics' started by The Galatian, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill Clinton was a good president for our economy. However it was during his terms that Bin Laden and his group became a national security threat. In fact several terrorists attacks on the US and US interests during his terms that can now be traced back to Bin Laden (etc). If Clinton had taken stronger measures against them then it is "possible" that 9/11 would not have happened and that we would not be were we are now. Of course Clinton did not have the pleasure of a time machine so I guess there was no way he could have known that.

    In reality though the presidency should not be a popularity contest. Sometimes doing the right thing will make a president very unpopular and sometimes doing the wrong thing will make them popular. A president should not worry about the polls. Another thing is, simply put, I don't trust the majority of these polls. Polls can lie. What do I mean? Well you can ask 100 people the same question in two different ways and get two different sets of results. I am not saying that I think Bush is popular, he is not. Nor am I saying that Bush has done the right thing in Iraq, he has not. Nor am I saying that Bush has done the right thing for the economy, he has not. I am just making some general points.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    Is Clinton running for president again?:rolleyes:
     
  4. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it first became apparent that Bin Laden was a security threat then. He became a security threat because the US had lavished aid and weapons on him because he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Guess who did that? "He's a #*$&, but he's our #"$&" was the byword. And the results were inevitable.

    Let's see, Clinton blew up an Al-Qaeda weapons storage facility in Sudan, put terrorism at the top of the security priorities, and identified Bin Laden as a "most wanted terrorist." He pressured Sudan to expell Al-Qaeda from its territory, and this was done. If Bush had been effective in doing that in Afghanistan before 9/11...

    It wasn't until the Bush administration (according to FBI testimony) took terrorism off the list of security priorities that they were able to put together an major operation in the US. Clinton, of course, is responsible for not making Bush do a better job. :rolleyes:

    That's how democracy works. The most popular candidate wins. It makes some grevious errors, sometimes, but compared to other systems...

    "Democracy is a very bad form of government; it's only better than anything else." paraphrasing Winston Churchill.
     
  5. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gal

    a little googlin' might help you a little, but moving . . .!

    Clinton had at least 3 verified opportunities to remove bin laden. at least one occasion was after what you would know as 'black hawk down', but politicians have always placed a lower price upon our 'boy' than we should.

    Had the Clinton administration done what they could have done, bin laden would be ancient history.

    one of many quotes on the intelligence failure.

    The worst failure was of course TARGETING BIN LADEN AND MISSING. Because we didn't want to 'pay terrorist sympathizers' we fired at the wrong target using the cheap american sympathizers intelligence (lies for money).


    http://www.google.com/search?q=bin+laden+bombing+embassy+sudanese+offer+bin+laden&hl=en&lr=
     
  6. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==The Clinton administration knew of Bin Laden and viewed him as a threat. I remember, very well, reading/hearing stories about the threat Bin Laden presented. The Clinton administration even launched a missle attack against a camp and missed several chances to kill Bin Laden. The Clinton administration could have taken Bin Laden out, but they did not. I am sure had they known what was going to happen they would have but history is history.

    ==Then why did the Clinton administration not launch a full scale effort to kill Bin Laden and break up his group sooner? Why just hit a location why not go all the way?

    Btw let's not try to pin 9/11 on Bush. When 9/11 occured Bush had only been president for about 9 months. Clinton had been president for 8 years (96 Months). I am not pinning 9/11 on Clinton but I am saying that his administration failed to do what should have been done. Clinton is not alone on that either. Neither Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, or GW Bush did all they could have done to stop terrorism of this sort. The blame includes both political parties.

    ==I believe, if I recall correctly, they started planning 9/11 several years before (was it '98). I also seem to recall several terrorist attacks on the United States (WTC, USS Cole, etc) during Clinton's presidency. So whatever actions Clinton may have taken was not enough. In fact, looking back now, it was woefully far from enough.


    ==The popular president did not win in '00. If you recall Al Gore won the popular vote. Bush only became president because of the electoral college and the supreme court.
     
  7. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Teflon Bill! I wonder if, like teflon, he caused cancer - the cancer that is destroying our country?
     
  8. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would vote for him again. I lost more money under Bush than any President. My mother told me to stay out of the bushes.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,308
    Likes Received:
    784
    Im sorry but just how long was bush in office for when 911 hit?
     
  10. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Long enough to take terrorism off the government's priorities.

    On Aug. 9, a chart titled "Strategic Plan — Attorney General Priorities" was distributed inside the department. This listed the same seven goals and 36 objectives under them. Thirteen of the objectives were highlighted in yellow and explained as "Highlight=AG Goal," including reducing gun violence, cutting the immigration backlog and strengthening internal financial systems. One of the 36 items referred to intelligence and investigation concerning terrorists, but it was not highlighted. A Justice Department official said this was a preliminary document and the eventual version, issued on Nov. 8, made counterterrorism "the No. 1 goal."
    http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/How%20Sept_%2011%20Changed%20Goals%20of%20Justice%20Dept.htm

    BUSH ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED PROGRAM THAT TRACKED AL QAEDA: "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." Newsweek, 3/21/04

    Condi Rice did finally admit that the Administraton knew that Al Qaeda was likely to attempt hijackings the summer before 9/11. The only action taken was that some administration officials like John Ashcroft, started avoiding airline flights.

    If Bush had kept terrorism on a priority as Clinton had, and if he had acted on the warnings, and had continued to monitor Al Qaeda financial activities, would 9/11 have been prevented? We don't know.

    But it wouldn't have hurt. And it might have saved thousands of lives.
     
  11. Jack Matthews

    Jack Matthews
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Clinton administration closely monitored the activity of Bin Laden, and successfully foiled his first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center. It also arrested and successfully prosecuted the terrorists who perpetrated the plot. They are still in prison. On several occasions, terrorist training camps in Afghanistan were bombed by American missiles, and while that didn't cough up the remains of Osama, it did continually set back his ability to strike and kept Al Qaida on the run. I will always believe that's why 9-11 occurred on Bush's watch rather than Clinton's. OBL knew Bush's election gave him a golden opportunity he wouldn't have had otherwise.
     
  12. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    We can't say whether or not Osama would have been stopped if Bush hadn't dropped the ball on terrorism.

    But he might have been.
     
  13. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    On the other hand, if investigatory agencies had not had their hands tied by the Clinton Administration with an invisible "wall" built by Reno's Justice Dept., the 911 hijackers may well have been apprehended during the Clinton Administration. Or the Bush Administration, for that matter.

    It's entirely possible, no "wall", no 911.
     
  14. SBCPreacher

    SBCPreacher
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd rather loose $$ than have a president in office that won't take a stand for the unborn. Pres. Clinton did nothing to support the unborn and much to make sure that as many could be killed as possible.

    I wouldn't vote for a dog catcher if he was pro-abortion.
     
  15. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    There was no "wall" under Reno. In fact, it didn't go up, until Bush shut down Operation Catcher's Mitt", which was tracking Bin Laden under Reno. When Bush prevented surveillance of Saudi and other Arab national's movement of money, we lost a valuable way to learn about their intentions. Belatedly, as you may have read, Bush now agrees. Too badk he didn't agree before 9/11.

    Yep. But credit where credit is due. The "wall" was Bush's doing. Just before 9/11, FBI agent John O'Neil, who had been in charge of hunting Al Qaeda, quit in protest, claiming that political pressure was keeping him from investigating Saudis and other Arab nationals. Ironically, he was killed in 9/11.
     
    #15 The Galatian, Jul 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2006
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    You are misinformed.
     
    #16 carpro, Jul 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2006
  17. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Barbarian observes:
    There was no "wall" under Reno.

    Yep. But credit where credit is due. The "wall" was Bush's doing.

    Nope. I knew what had happened. "Catcher's Mitt" was tracking Bin Laden and other's financial dealings. Bush put the wall up, and ended the program.

    The FBI agent in charge of hunting Bin Laden quit in protest, claiming that political pressure kept him from doing his job. That was after Bush was inagurated.

    Those are the facts. You may not want to admit them, but they are still there. And yes, if Bush had continued to keep terrorism a priority, it's possible 9/11 would have been prevented.

    Notice that after 9/11, he re-established Clinton's program.

    A bit late.
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    It appears that you have a different "wall" in mind.

    I am speaking of the legal "wall" erected by the Clinton Administration and authored by Jaimie Gorelick.

    It remained in place until the Patriot Act tore it down, and quite possibly led directly to 911.

    Why was it erected in the first place? Very likely to protect Clinton from prosecution on another matter.
     
  19. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm talking about the one that Bush put up to stop the FBI from monitoring Osama's financial transactions, the one that motivated the FBI agent in charge of tracking Osama to quit in protest, saying that he was being protected.

    That one.

    Ah, that one is called "The Bill of Rights." And so far, no violation of that "wall" has caught any terrorists.

    Who'd have guessed that James Madison was a terrorist? :laugh:

    O'Neill (the FBI agent who quit in disgust) thought that the Saudis were being protected by political pressure. It appears that was the case. Bush downgraded terrorism from Clinton's list of priorities (another FBI agent testified to the 9/11 commission that he "almost fell off my chair" when he realized that they had removed terrorism as a concern).

    You seem obsessed with Clinton. But surely, you can see that the Bush administration, by ending the programs the FBI was using to track terrorists, put us at greater risk of attack. Did it cause 9/11? No one can say for sure. But it made it easier for Al Qaeda.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    You are obsessed with Bush.

    However, different wall, so you change the subject and throw in some red herrings to try to confuse things. If you don't know anything about the subject, just pass or say so. No debate here.

    If you'd like to provide sources for your allegations about your "wall", I'll be glad to look into them and see if we agree.

    At least I'll meet it head on instead of using your favorite liberal tactic of duck, dodge, weave, and change the subject.
     
    #20 carpro, Aug 2, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2006

Share This Page

Loading...