The W
Views: 100248641
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.10.14 1836
The W - Current Events & Politics - What a difference a decade makes (Page 2)
This thread has 50 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2310 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (27 total)
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3483 days
Last activity: 3477 days
#21 Posted on
And whom Clinton probably expected to win the election.

As far as "bad presidents" of American history go, I do believe that Warren G. Harding consistently gets voted the worst president in U.S. history. Personally, if it wasn't for JFK's eventual stance on civil rights in 1963, I would consider him right down there with Harding too (for both would have done little in the White House besides sleep with women and die shortly afterward).

Personally, I don't know how Reagan should be viewed yet. I am soon to do some reading to prepare for a lecture on his presidency, however, so I'll have a better idea soon. It perhaps is still a bit too close to his time to judge him fairly, but there has been some historical work done on him recently offering more perspective on his years.

I guess you can just label all Republicans of the last 20 years "the worst" if you have an aversion to the party's courting of religious conservatives, but then you're still begging the question.

DMC



The instrument markings in the car from Northern Ireland are a touch heavy-handed, but the display is clear and logical, as complete as the rest of the interior. With all the expected trappings of comfort and entertainment, only the unreasonable could go away displeased with DeLorean's ergonomic success.

- Car and Driver Dec. 1981
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 206 days
Last activity: 7 days
#22 Posted on
So if Bush fails to capture bin Laden by the end of his term, can we say that he punted the problem onto future presidencies, just like Clinton?

-Jag



Year after year, the United States has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use they could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

-The hypocrite at work.

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1323 days
Last activity: 89 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    So if Bush fails to capture bin Laden by the end of his term, can we say that he punted the problem onto future presidencies, just like Clinton?

    -Jag


Bin Laden is probably dead anyway. I would say his war on Al Quaida could be deemed a failure if he fails to produce any evidence that he severely impacted the ability of the terrorists to attack us.
But he has already done that.
You guys always seem to forget that from DAY ONE, they have said the goal of this whole thing is not to capture/kill Bin Laden. Sure, that would be nice, but seriously, it would not do much good. They probably already have proof that they guy is dead, they just won't release it because people like you will start to insist that the "War on Terror" is over, when the organization is still strong and aggressive.
Clinton did not do a damned thing to stop Al Quaida. I think the difference between the two is pretty clear. Though, in Clinton's defense (I feel so dirty), 9-11 had not happened. So Clinton's refusal to take Bin Laden was nothing more than lack of foresight.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 8.2.03 1219)



PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2837 days
Last activity: 2680 days
AIM:  
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by Jaguar
    So if Bush fails to capture bin Laden by the end of his term, can we say that he punted the problem onto future presidencies, just like Clinton?

    -Jag



No. The point is not that Clinton tried and failed, but that he did not try.



Damn your eyes!
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2874 days
Last activity: 2874 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
But Clinton wanted to do more than just lob cruise missiles into Afghanistan! He wanted black ninjas to attack Osama!

Click Here

Yeah, I know it's just excuses and spin long after the fact.






I hate the army and I hate the RAF
I don't wanna go fighting in the tropical heat.
I hate the civil service rules
And I won't open a letter bomb for you.
------------------------------------------------
Joe Strummer Lives!
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 589 days
Last activity: 204 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    No. The point is not that Clinton tried and failed, but that he did not try.



Im sorry you are wrong on this one. Ive been in the Navy since 1995, and every year we receive warnings and missions concerning terrorist groups, including Al-Quaeda. Ive done two deployments to the middle east, in 1996 and 1998, and weve supported and assisted anti terrorism missions. Just because CNN didnt tell you about it doesnt mean it didnt happen. There has always been a war on terrorism. They were always hunting for Bin Laden and other leaders.


The reason that Bill Clinton didnt invade Afghanistan or Iraq durinbg his presidency. There wouldve been no support from the American people. And without 9-11 G.W. Bush wouldnt have support either. Its that simple.

PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2837 days
Last activity: 2680 days
AIM:  
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
I'll defer to you on this one, rock, but...

In 1996, Clinton and the Saudis pressured the government of Sudan to get Osama out of there. Osama and a couple cargo planes headed back to Afghanistan, stopping to refuel in Qatar. We could have stopped him with minimal, or even zero loss to ourselves or our allies, by capturing or killing him on the runway or in the air. That was a political decision, and, it seems, a bad one.



Damn your eyes!
Pages: Prev 1 2
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: UN is always good for a laugh
Next thread: Powell's Iraq Case
Previous thread: Question on flying the flag
(2310 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
A man defends his home, and is deemed a "threat to burglars". That is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. I'm actually sitting at work laughing at this because it's so freaking INSANE!!
- Bizzle Izzle, Our Friends Across The Sea (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - What a difference a decade makes (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.113 seconds.