Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (30754)	5/25/2002 11:57:20 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Evidently, by the time he left office, Clinton was convinced that was a number one priority and had done a great deal to implement. OK, as I said before, this is going to be a long spin season. And the fact you state as "evident" is going to be spin topic number one. For the obvious reasons, which we don't really have to go into, we both know them. Popularity ratings, coattails, stuff like that. I don't want to bash anyone about this topic, it's too dang important, and if anyone wants to bash Clinton, I won't pile on, and if anyone wants to bash Bush, I won't fight back. But I would appreciate more factual basis for your assertion other than "evidently." Because it's not evident to me. What was done, and by whom? New agencies? New budgets? New technology? New deployments? What? CB@justhefactsplease.com Edit: I really, really don't want to dig up the Democrat spin after 911 that the reason Clinton DID NOT focus on terrorism was because the Republicans hounded him constantly over Monica, etc. The reason I don't want to dig it up is because I happen to think it's probably true. Which maybe is a backhanded way of bashing Clinton, and maybe a compliment. He probably could have done better. He had it in him. But it was spun that way, and the fact that it was spun at all is totally at odds with the new spin. I am a tough old broad, I can handle spin. Just give me the facts. I am as serious as a heart attack. Don't give me BS, give me facts.

To: JohnM who wrote (30754)	5/26/2002 4:23:31 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Evidently, by the time he left office, Clinton was convinced that was a number one priority and had done a great deal to implement. John, are you joking? why are details always missing from your posts? where is the evidence of evidently and what did he do to make it number one? Clinton had 2 major military/police operations to respond to attacks against America during his 8 years...the first was to fire a few missiles into the dessert...the second was to send a small army of police to liberate a six year old from his family in America. Gregory Rummo describes the clinton response to terrorism as follows: geocities.com An examination of Clinton’s responses to terrorist attacks during his administration demonstrates he was all talk and no action. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised, “We have already begun the process of determining what happened and who, if anyone, was responsible. We will devote an enormous effort to that.” After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 400 U.S. military personnel, Clinton said, “Let me be very clear: We will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them. Anyone who attacks one American attacks every American, and we protect and defend our own.” It wasn’t until this past June when the Bush administration indicted twelve suspects, that here was any progress towards justice. After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno said, “We're going to pursue every last murderer until justice has been done." After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, Clinton threatened, “[You] will not find a safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail. America will not stop standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East and around the world.” After the September 11 attacks, George W. Bush said, “If Osama bin Laden is responsible for these attacks, he will be brought to justice, whatever the obstacles…If the Taliban regime controlling Afghanistan stands in our way, we will remove them if necessary.” It is this stark contrast between the empty rhetoric of Bill Clinton and the resoluteness in the words—and the actions which followed—of George W. Bush that has Clinton hyperventilating over his vanishing legacy. When pressed on the issue of bin Laden back in September, Bill Clinton’s response was that he had “missed getting him by about 30 minutes.” Clinton was referring to his bombing of an aspirin factory in the Sudan, the timing of which coincided with Monica Lewinsky’s appearance before a grand jury. Bill Clinton did make one valiant effort to protect the American people from terrorism. On April 22, 2000—the day before Easter Sunday—Janet Reno sent 151 heavily armed ATF agents into the Gonzalez home in Florida to extract a 6-year old terrorist named Elian. Stains like these leftover from Bill Clinton’s presidency are indelible. They are in fact his legacy. No amount of spin will ever be able to remove them. And in the light of the Bush presidency, they just keep getting darker and more noticeable.