login
Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! (Page 5)
-
No new posts
|
 2005-11-04 3:45 PM in reply to: #278508 |
Elite  2421  |  Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!!Opus - 2005-11-04 2:33 PM Rocket Man - 2005-11-04 4:08 PM that being said I felt as if Opus was questioning my qualifications on commenting on the Clinton administration... Please, please, Rocket Man, I beg you, read the question I posed, not the one you think I posed. You will see that I didn't say you couldn't or didn't have a right to comment on something. C'mon, this is crazy! Question: Is this the question to which you are refering? With all due respect to your service to your country, I must ask: How does being a military man in the Clinton years provide you with insight into the machinations of the White House of the period to conclude that the government deliberately caused the deaths of US soldiers to distract the American public from Clinton's problems at home? If so, I think he addressed that and I also cited an article questioning the timing of the attacks. I'll go back and look, but I don't think either of us ever said that he caused deaths of soliders to distract from the homefront issues, but he did risk lives. bts Edited by Brett 2005-11-04 3:46 PM |
| 2005-11-04 3:47 PM in reply to: #278038 |
Pro 3906   St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! While we're throwing out quotes, here's one: Dick Cheney : "A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000 campaign. "There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow." Seems that those forces have done their job well in both Afghanistan and Iraq ( from a purely military standpoint ). Who proceeded the Bush/Cheney administration? Oh... -C |
| 2005-11-04 4:01 PM in reply to: #278518 |
Giver 18427  | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Brett - 2005-11-04 3:40 PM I'm getting confused as to where this is going. I thought we were flaming Clinton, how did the Iraq war come up? The right likes to flame Clinton at any opportunity. The left likes to flame W for Iraq. You talk about my guy, I'll talk about your guy. It's a logical progression. |
| 2005-11-04 4:08 PM in reply to: #278518 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Brett - I won't go as far as to say the ends justify the means... okay I will. The ends justify the means... Here's my allegory for how the military works in this situation... Brett, on a gut level I agree with you about what the military should do in the situation we're in against terrorism. What I can't square is my gut feeling against my knowledge that in no situtation do the ends justify the means. The means must be justified by a higher standard. Help me here. We know now that there were no WMDs when we invaded. At the time the POTUS may well have honestly thought that an attack with WMDs was immanent and that invading was the just and right thing to do to defend the United States. The US military has done a tremendous amount of good in Iraq. It is good that Saddam is gone. He is clearly a war criminal. But, in my opinion, if it was known that we were not under the threat of immanent attack, then we did not have the right to invade. It was not the place of one sovereign nation to invade another. What is the higher standard than the ends justifying the means that we should look to? [edit note: I got my means and ends mixed up on the unedited post] Edited by dontracy 2005-11-04 4:15 PM |
| 2005-11-04 4:13 PM in reply to: #278536 |
Elite 2421 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! run4yrlif - 2005-11-04 3:01 PM Brett - 2005-11-04 3:40 PM I'm getting confused as to where this is going. I thought we were flaming Clinton, how did the Iraq war come up? The right likes to flame Clinton at any opportunity. The left likes to flame W for Iraq. You talk about my guy, I'll talk about your guy. It's a logical progression. Can't ya'll get your own thread for that?  bts |
| 2005-11-04 4:14 PM in reply to: #278539 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Brett - I won't go as far as to say the ends justify the means... okay I will. The ends justify the means... If it means using lies and false information to justify sending Americans into battle and untimately to their death, the means does definitely not justify the end. It's not fair for soldiers to die in battle for a lie. It's not fair for soldiers to be deployed on the ground, searching for something that doesn't exist. It's stupid and it's criminal and it morally reprehensible. |
| 2005-11-04 4:25 PM in reply to: #278543 |
Master 2052 Colorado | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Oh, details run4yrlif - 2005-11-04 5:14 PM Brett - I won't go as far as to say the ends justify the means... okay I will. The ends justify the means... If it means using lies and false information to justify sending Americans into battle and untimately to their death, the means does definitely not justify the end. It's not fair for soldiers to die in battle for a lie. It's not fair for soldiers to be deployed on the ground, searching for something that doesn't exist. It's stupid and it's criminal and it morally reprehensible. |
| 2005-11-04 4:26 PM in reply to: #278476 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Rocket Man - 2005-11-04 12:08 PM I hope the Iraqi courts sentence him to die so he can take his place in Hell with Satan. Man, very funny South Park images come to mind. Sorry, back to our show... |
| 2005-11-04 4:27 PM in reply to: #278474 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Renee - 2005-11-04 12:07 PM I'm really shocked that a political debate is raging at BT. And after I have my 4th glass of wine, I'm going to weigh in on this weighty topic. Working on my 2nd glass so it shouldn't be much longer... She started without me...again. |
| 2005-11-04 4:58 PM in reply to: #278543 |
Elite 2421 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! run4yrlif - 2005-11-04 3:14 PM Brett - I won't go as far as to say the ends justify the means... okay I will. The ends justify the means... If it means using lies and false information to justify sending Americans into battle and untimately to their death, the means does definitely not justify the end. It's not fair for soldiers to die in battle for a lie. It's not fair for soldiers to be deployed on the ground, searching for something that doesn't exist. It's stupid and it's criminal and it morally reprehensible. From a strictly military perspective, he represented an ongoing threat who would have either overtly or covertly killed Americans and done damage to anything beneficial to us at every opportunity. He had used WMDs before, and there was no reason to think he wouldn't use them again. We simply fight differently now. Sitting around and letting folks take shots at us for 10+ years (read: First WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc) while we would lob a missile at an alleged terrorist HQ here and there got us 9/11. Like I said, I don't like it, but that's the way is now... or it is until an adminstration change. bts |
| 2005-11-04 5:35 PM in reply to: #278571 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Sure he was a threat, but not an immediate threat. Sure he would have used WMD's if he had had any. The fact is that the sanctions and inspections had been effective in keeping them out of his hands. I thikn if there was any evidence he WAS a threat there would be much less opposition to the war. Yes, he wanted to harm us, but he was not responsible for any of the attacks you cited. The American public was, and still is, I think very supportive of the war in Afganistan to go after the people who actually harmed us. If we are going to use our military for purposes other than our own security (ie. removing dictators) our leaders should be up front about it. I don't thikn you'll get much argument about using our might for our own security/defense like we have done in Afganistan, but if we are going to throw our weight around for other purposes I thikn there needs to be a debate among the American people beforehand since we are the ones who will ultimately bear the sacrifice. |
| 2005-11-04 6:44 PM in reply to: #278585 |
Elite 2421 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! All excellent points. Sure he was a threat, but not an immediate threat. As I mentioned, from the military side of things it is no longer prudent to sit back and wait for our enemies to attack us. Back when it was superpowers and both sides had nukes, it wasn't a problem. But our new enemies know that they are not subject to nuclear attack. Put simply, he was made an example of. Not very PC, but while a number of other countries have experienced fairly large scale terrorist attacks over the last few years, there hasn't been an effective attack on the US mainland. I can't say without doubt that it is because of the approach being taken... but if you were thinking about an attack on the U.S. and two other countries that were just mildly asociated with an attack were overrun, wouldn't you think twice? If we are going to use our military for purposes other than our own security (ie. removing dictators) our leaders should be up front about it. I don't thikn you'll get much argument about using our might for our own security/defense like we have done in Afganistan, but if we are going to throw our weight around for other purposes I thikn there needs to be a debate among the American people beforehand since we are the ones who will ultimately bear the sacrifice. In this case I think that removing a dictator and securing our borders are one in the same. I don't disagree at all with the rest of that statement. It is possible that the president could have taken a different approach to validating our invasion. And maybe the overall feelings of the American public and the world at large would be different now, it's tough to say. The UCMJ forbids me from going any further than that. bts |
| 2005-11-04 6:58 PM in reply to: #278601 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! When we invaded/attacked a country that had not attacked us, we lost the moral high ground. Americans pride themselves on being morally superior to the rest of the world and in the case of invading Iraq behave in a low, mean and petty manner. This affair is beneath us, it's beneath our national dignity and we should jail the criminal cowboy big-thing's-bigger-than-your-thing POTUS who led us into this immoral war. Think I'll have another glass of wine. |
| 2005-11-04 7:12 PM in reply to: #278038 |
Elite 2777 In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats. | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! I'm beginning to understand why so many neocons hate Bill Clinton. Peace and prosperity just piss some folks the hell off. And to criticice Clinton for remarks about his feelings when he was 9 years old. Where was junior? When he wasn't modeling for Mad Mag covers. Pardon the writing style (or lack), I need another Seabreeze. Edited by gullahcracker 2005-11-04 7:13 PM |
| 2005-11-04 7:58 PM in reply to: #278601 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Brett - 2005-11-04 5:44 PMAll excellent points. Sure he was a threat, but not an immediate threat. As I mentioned, from the military side of things it is no longer prudent to sit back and wait for our enemies to attack us. Back when it was superpowers and both sides had nukes, it wasn't a problem. But our new enemies know that they are not subject to nuclear attack. Put simply, he was made an example of. Not very PC, but while a number of other countries have experienced fairly large scale terrorist attacks over the last few years, there hasn't been an effective attack on the US mainland. I can't say without doubt that it is because of the approach being taken... but if you were thinking about an attack on the U.S. and two other countries that were just mildly asociated with an attack were overrun, wouldn't you think twice?If I recall correctly most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. How many Iraqi terrorists participated in 9/11? Or the first car bomb in the WTC? Was not Libya a supporter of terrorism and Qadafi considered an imminent threat? That situation seems to have been resolved without the same actions that we've taken in Iraq. Iraq is not and was not the threat that Bush ( and you it seems ) wish that it had been. If anything I would argue that terrorists and insurgents are getting a first rate education in how to design and implement attacks against US forces than they ever were while Saddam was in power. If we are going to use our military for purposes other than our own security (ie. removing dictators) our leaders should be up front about it. I don't thikn you'll get much argument about using our might for our own security/defense like we have done in Afganistan, but if we are going to throw our weight around for other purposes I thikn there needs to be a debate among the American people beforehand since we are the ones who will ultimately bear the sacrifice. In this case I think that removing a dictator and securing our borders are one in the same. I don't disagree at all with the rest of that statement. It is possible that the president could have taken a different approach to validating our invasion. And maybe the overall feelings of the American public and the world at large would be different now, it's tough to say. The UCMJ forbids me from going any further than that. btsThere are many other more vehement dictators in power around the world than Saddam was. Are we to undertake military action against all of them? Maybe Hugo *is* right to feel threatened... What is this poppycock you're spouting about the UCMJ? -C |
| 2005-11-04 8:29 PM in reply to: #278601 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Brett - 2005-11-04 4:44 PM All excellent points. Sure he was a threat, but not an immediate threat. As I mentioned, from the military side of things it is no longer prudent to sit back and wait for our enemies to attack us. Back when it was superpowers and both sides had nukes, it wasn't a problem. But our new enemies know that they are not subject to nuclear attack. Put simply, he was made an example of. Not very PC, but while a number of other countries have experienced fairly large scale terrorist attacks over the last few years, there hasn't been an effective attack on the US mainland. I can't say without doubt that it is because of the approach being taken... but if you were thinking about an attack on the U.S. and two other countries that were just mildly asociated with an attack were overrun, wouldn't you think twice? If we are going to use our military for purposes other than our own security (ie. removing dictators) our leaders should be up front about it. I don't thikn you'll get much argument about using our might for our own security/defense like we have done in Afganistan, but if we are going to throw our weight around for other purposes I thikn there needs to be a debate among the American people beforehand since we are the ones who will ultimately bear the sacrifice. In this case I think that removing a dictator and securing our borders are one in the same. I don't disagree at all with the rest of that statement. It is possible that the president could have taken a different approach to validating our invasion. And maybe the overall feelings of the American public and the world at large would be different now, it's tough to say. The UCMJ forbids me from going any further than that. bts Well I would disagree that the reason we haven't been attacked is because we invaded Iraq. I would put most of that to 1) The increase in security here at home and the increased difficulty in carrying out an attack 2) the terrorist just aren't ready. They waited 10 years between attacks on our soil, so if nothing else they are patient. When Bush says "We have to fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here" I just cringe. They WILL attack here again. They are not sitting around say "Oh crap, they attacked Iraq, we better not risk another attack or they might come after us". To take your previous point, they have no country to defend, and vene if they did are we willing or even able to start another front such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. There are many dictators we could remove to make us more secure, but the administration no longer says we removed Saddam to save us from WMD's or attack, which to me admits that we weren't in imminent danger, ie. we could have continued pursuing other means. Maybe it would have ended in war anyway, but at least then we would have our moral authority intact if we need it for another conflict. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf... Have a good weekend & good training. |
| 2005-11-04 9:50 PM in reply to: #278638 |
Elite 2421 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! coredump - 2005-11-04 6:58 PM If I recall correctly most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. How many Iraqi terrorists participated in 9/11? Or the first car bomb in the WTC? While I have no doubt the Saudi's have been complacent in a number of areas, and are certainly in an interesting political situation, linking Saudi's to the WTC bombings because Osama was born their doesn't fly. He was disowned by his family and kicked out of the country. That's why he was based in Afghanistan. Abdul Rahman Yasin - Iraqi dissent, born in Indiana, moved back to Iraq shortly after he was born. Currently on the FBIs most wanted list for his participation in the first WTC bombing. Fled to Iraq shortly after the first bombing. Was allegedly arrested in Iraq, but he remains at large. In April of 1993, Kuwaiti police thwart an Iraqi attempt to assassinate visiting former President Bush.. Iraq is not and was not the threat that Bush ( and you it seems ) wish that it had been. If anything I would argue that terrorists and insurgents are getting a first rate education in how to design and implement attacks against US forces than they ever were while Saddam was in power. Your damn right it's not now. As for what it was, you're basing that on.... what? The fact that we didn't walk in and find warehouses full of nerve agent. That every basement we looked in wasn't packed floor to ceiling with mustard gas. We had a front row seat for the 8 Years War, we knew exactly what the man was capable of. As I noted earlier, he knows how to get his hands on WMDs and he'd had no qualms about using them in the past... on unarmed civilians in some cases. There are many other more vehement dictators in power around the world than Saddam was. Are we to undertake military action against all of them? Next time we'll let you pick the order. Meanwhile, I guess we'll have to get to them one at a time. What is this poppycock you're spouting about the UCMJ? I'm really glad I'm tired otherwise I would found that statement a lot more insulting and condescending than I hope you meant it. According to Article 88 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (the UCMJ if you will), "any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, vice president ... governor or legislature shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." bts Edited by Brett 2005-11-04 9:56 PM |
| 2005-11-04 10:51 PM in reply to: #278038 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Iraq did not pose near the threat that the Bush administration portrayed and used as the justification for going to war. If you're still trying to prop up the administration's claims of WMD, harboring terrorists, terrorist meetings between Iraqi officials and such, how do you explain that nearly every single one of those have been shown now to have been false? The "yellowcake" from Niger never happened. The meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Berlin never happened. There are more insurgents and terrorists in Iraq now than there were before the war, as evidenced by their crossing over from other countries ( Syria, Iran, ... ). I also seriously hope you are not advocating that we invade and overthrow every country with a dictator or other form of government that dislikes us. Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my statement when I suggested that. Are you a current active duty officer serving in the military? I was under the impression that you were not. If you are not currently, then I fail to see the applicability of the UCMJ. The full text of article 88 is (emphasis mine): Article 88—Contempt toward officials “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against thePresident, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, theSecretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, orthe Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, orpossession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as acourt-martial may direct.” |
| 2005-11-05 7:15 AM in reply to: #278038 |
Expert 707 Kansas | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Next time I will let Billy slide.... (Note to self: refrain from political threads on BT) |
| 2005-11-05 8:52 AM in reply to: #278522 |
| Pro 4040 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Brett - 2005-11-04 4:45 PM If so, I think he addressed that and I also cited an article questioning the timing of the attacks. I'll go back and look, but I don't think either of us ever said that he caused deaths of soliders to distract from the homefront issues, but he did risk lives. bts Risking lives when you know for certain some will die is causing deaths. Anyhow, what I was talking about with Rocket Man was I just wanted him to understand that I was not questioning his right to comment on anything but he still seems to think I did. Oh well, so ends my foray into US politics, triathlon seems like a more honest contest. |
| 2005-11-05 9:27 AM in reply to: #278721 |
Elite 2421 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Opus - 2005-11-05 7:52 AM Oh well, so ends my foray into US politics, triathlon seems like a more honest contest. Of that statement methinks there can be no disagreement... bts Edited by Brett 2005-11-05 9:27 AM |
| 2005-11-05 10:11 AM in reply to: #278743 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! This is an amusing thread. Wonder if anyone will be gnashing their teeth about W 6 years after he's left the Office. Maybe, if he's in jail by then. |
| 2005-11-05 1:36 PM in reply to: #278038 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Opus, Once and for all.....Clinton deployed troops twice do distract from his philandering with the White House floozy....did he specifically cause the deaths of some troops and was that the intent? As a commander there is a certain risk involved with any type of operation and every time an exercise of any kind is underataken a risk matrix is done to analyze whether the risk of the operation/exercise is worth the danger to the troops involved. A deployment of any kind whether it is to the local training area or overseas has risk, I bet that you didn't know that a study showed that there were more non-combat realated deaths than deaths from hostile action during the Gulf War. Being in the military in inherantly dangerous in peacetime as well as in wartime, we train as we fight and that involves risk. The point that I am trying to make is that by ordering a deployment of the magnitude that he ordered there was risk involved, while we were in Kuwait there were a number of soldiers killed in training exercises, so by extension was Clinton responsible for those soldiers deaths? I think so...if they had not been deployed there to deflect away from the Lewinsky scandal then they may very well be alive at this time. Now before you and Renee and all of your liberal buddies on here try to equate this argument to the current situation, you can't because it is totally different. We are at war, a war we did not seek but was brought to our shores on 9/11. And yes Saddam was an immenent threat, it is a proven fact that he aided and abbeted known terrorists, compensated homicide bombers in Isreal, and was pursuing multiple forms of WMD's to make war on his neighbors. 14 years of sanctions did nothing but punish the Iraqi people denying them the resources that they needed to survive. It is going to take time to rebuild a country that had been plundered and pilaged by a brutal dictator. There are alot of really good things happening in Iraq now, schools are being built, children who have never attended school are being educated, basic necessities are being given to those who have never had them before. Do not let the actions of a few take away from the successes that have happened. It took years to rebuild Europe and Japan after WWII and it will take a few years to get Iraq up and running, however the recent elections are encouraging. This is all I am going to say on the subject, I won't change your mind if you don't agree with me and you are certainly not going to change mine, so that is that. If this changes your opinion of me then so be it. I am still going to be the same person on here and I am still going to post tri advice and engage in tri discussions. |
| 2005-11-05 2:41 PM in reply to: #278038 |
Elite 2777 In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats. | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! Rocket Man.. you smoketh the wildest of herbs. Wanna buy some land in Florida? btw no offense here, jus tryin' to get to 500. Oh yea and 'Cocks beat Razorbacks 14-10. Wooohoo Edited by gullahcracker 2005-11-05 2:44 PM |
| 2005-11-05 5:32 PM in reply to: #278835 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Bill Clinton is pathological liar!!!! This is all I am going to say on the subject, I won't change your mind if you don't agree with me and you are certainly not going to change mine, so that is that. If this changes your opinion of me then so be it. I am still going to be the same person on here and I am still going to post tri advice and engage in tri discussions. As one of Renee's liberal buddies: The basis of democracy is the open expression of differing viewpoints so I hope you don't think that just because we don't share the same viewpoint it changes our view of you as a person. If people didn't share different viewpoints and closed their minds to any view but their own we would still live in mud huts and think the sun revolves around the earth. I might not be able to convince you that we didn't send troops to Kosovo just to distract from a scandal and you might not be able to convince me that Iraq had ties to 9/11 or WMD's (if you can link me to the evidence I have an open mind) but at least we are able to have the conversation. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK