Thursday, May 05, 2005

Hard To Rationalize...

THESE ARE SOME FACTS THAT YOU CAN'T DISPUTE:

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN
Somalia 1993................
WACO 1993...............
Rwanda 1994..............

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible! would be hunted down and punished. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 3,000 people in New York and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Best (and perhaps brightest, between him and Nixon) president we've ever had, although I strongly disagreed with him going into Yugoslavia.

Johnny

B2 said...

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

and for good measure:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

B2 said...

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion (so far) in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD and mass graves in Iraq - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Recession (w/9-11) under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam in custody - bad...

Ah, it's so confusing!

Anonymous said...

I was against the Yugo attacks and against taking Milosevic, just like I was against the attacks in Iraq and taking Sadam. I was against the Chinese Embassy bombing just like I was against the bombs we dropped on schools during this war under Bush (must've forgotten to mention that on B2, we probably just bombed those schools 'cause we're so aware and protective of all life). Clinton said Sadam may have nukes, he didn't forego the UN and the entire world's wishes (I can't believe you would try to misrepresent that the whole world was saying Iraq had WMDs) and start bombing people only to finally show that there were no nukes. Clinton called for a regime change, for a UN investigation (intent: dangerous man may hurt people), didn't forcefully impose it on everyone (intent: oil, money, power, finishing daddy's work). Also, Clinton didn't award a no-bid contract to his own vice-president's company like Bush did, ensuring that his administration and his cabinet would be making money by going to war. Big differences which you fail to see, or more dangerously, fail to note.

Johnny

B2 said...

Clinton's war in Serbia did not have UN approval. How do you justify that and not Bush who actually went to the UN after waiting 13 years for them to enforce their resolutions. You blame Bush for not taking the word of a madman (Saddam)?

Please take some time to read the entire Dosier Report...not just the part reported in the press about Iraq not having WMD's...but the part that includes testimony from Saddam himself, where he admits that he did not have WMD's but was waiting for the inspectors to find nothing and leave, for sanctions to be dropped and then he said he intended on taking the parts, assemblying nukes and attacking Iran to defend his legacy! It's a good thing we did something...even if it was on accident (because of poor intel. caused by the Clinton admin.) I give Clinton props for that mistake. Gotta love serendipity!

Finishing daddy's work? You mean finishing Clinton's work!!!

If Haliburton was good enough for Clinton why is it not good enough for Bush? Cheney had no more ties with Halliburton and stood to make no money. PLUS and most importantly...it has been proven that they were the ONLY company capable of performing the required tasks so even if they had a government bid released...only Halliburton could have submitted a bid for the contract. Instead of wasting our time and money...they skipped that just like Clinton did.

Speaking of awards to Clinton's own VP:

Vice President Al Gore endorsed the sale of a government oil field in 1998, the largest sale of federal property in the history of the U.S. government.
The Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve, located near Bakersfield, California, was established in 1912 to help fuel Navy ships. President Clinton proposed the sale in 1995 saying the oil field no longer served a military purpose!

The DOE (Energy Department) received a total of 22 bona fide offers but decided to sell this "crown jewel" of oil and gas fields to Occidental Petroleum Corp. By selling off this resource the Clinton/Gore team eliminated the U.S. Navy's primary source of emergency crude oil. They argued that this field "no longer serves a national security purpose."

"We view this asset as becoming the crown jewel of our domestic operations," said Occidental Oil and Gas C.E.O. David Hentschel.

Couching this questionable attack on our National Security in conservative jargon, Patricia Godley, DOE's Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, claimed the sale was part of Al Gore's efforts to "reduce the size of government" and "return inherently non-federal functions to the private sector." The largest federal divestiture was also said to help "pay off the national debt."

The sale of this government oil field to Occidental Petroleum may have directly benefited Al Gore through his ownership of Occidental stock. While his aides denied Gore encouraged this sale, his booklet "Reinventing Government" called on the government to sell these precious oil reserves. Gore wrote "...Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserves... no longer serves its original strategic purpose for the Navy."

Gore called for the sale of this prime contingency source of fuel for the Navy, calling it "Common Sense Government." In an emergency, where will our Navy get its fuel? From Iraq?

The same Al Gore witnessed the loss, theft or sale of the crown jewels of our nuclear war know-how from Los Alamos National Laboratory. Whether these events are interconnected we do not know. That our national security has been seriously damaged is a certainty.