I suggest you look at the PBS frontline piece about Bin Laden, the one they did before 911 occurred. I am so amazed how boondoggled people can be by this administration and just why do you suppose the Bush Administration fought tooth in nail to prevent a 911 commission?

The outlandish incompetence of this administration is clear, However I do agree that Clinton was distracted by scandal after scandal, but that is all the republicans seem to care about, dragging the country into the mud to get power and once they have it they can't govern. History my friend will remember this period of politic trumping the needs of the nation.

More excuses for Bush's failure to do ANYTHING in his eight months in office BEFORE al Qaeda attacked; since then, he has groveled at the feet of the Saudi financiers. Had Bush continued the monitoring the Clinton administration had in place, there might not have been a 9/11. Bush has had FIVE YERAS since, and still nothing but American lives lost in his PERSONAL vendetta.

The clearest evidence of Bush's incompetence is the fact that he assumed that the Clinton administration was capable of any kind of competent security policy, or that they'd be held accountable for the lack thereof. With a consistent record of almost a decade of ignoring threats, foreign deployments who's success ranged from the ineffectual to the disasterous, sucking up to terrorists like Arafat, and taking a ringside seat to genocide, why would anyone assume that Clinton had left the national security house in order?

I recall that the Bush administration was opposed to members of the Clinton administration sitting on the Commission. It was supposed to be a neutral Commission. I also recall that they siad it had been studied in other venues.

I do not believe the assertion that Bush did nothing . According to Clarke, he continued the policies of the previous administration and was working to get the bad guys. As I stated, the Bush administration is not blameless but it is unreasonable to expect him to have accomplished in eight months what Clinton did not in Eight years, especially given Clinton's admission that he came the closest. He should have pulled the trigger.

"With all the protesting taking place one would have to wonder why so much attention is being paid to this if it is not true."

BULL-CAKA. The reason for the protest is that when presented as a documentary, it is likely that the "Path" could be taken as accurate--or at least ingested on a subconscious level.

It's the same reason people get up in arms when Bush makes a comment off-handedly implying links between Saddam and 9/11--he claims that he's never stated there was a link, yet 35% of the U.S. population believes there was. As you said accurately, "Say it enough and people will begin to believe it."

The truth, sadly, is somewhere in the middle. Bush did squelch FBI investigations into the Bin Ladens, that's been documented. Clinton had to pull back on an attack in 1999 because Bin Laden was camping with royals of the UAE. In both cases, the opposition uses these arguments to assert that the opponent did nothing, when the fact is that placing "blame" on either to the exclusion of the other is dubious at best, partisan at worst.

Clinton could have done more. Same with Bush. Let's move forward.

Reaching back 8 years to attack Clinton - in a election year - is a a cheap political ploy intended to distract people from the failures of the Bush administration. I am sorry that you are cheapening yourself, and our country by wading around in this cesspool. You make some good points at times, big dog, but this post is certainly not one of them.

I will remind you Ryan, the Clinton folks are making the big deal. I merely point out that Clinton is telling lies while defending his legacy. I agree with JP, and I stated in the post, there is enough blame to go around.

I also agree it is time to move on but as long as Clinton and his peeps try to rewrite history, I, and others, will be here to point it out.

You've sliced your reasoning as thin as you can and it still adds up to less than zero. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. He was warned repeatedly about Bin Laden and warned about an imminent attack, but he did absolutely nothing. He never even had a security meeting on the issue.

I remember very well how the Republicans ridiculed Clinton for his "obsession" with Bin Ladin, for "wagging the dog." Now they want to claim that he wasn't doing anything because he was distracted by Monica Lewinsky (or is it that he was distracted by Starr's Star Chamber persecution?). First he's doing too much. Now he didn't do enough? How childish can you get?

Bush failed to look for Bin Laden before 9/11. Then he failed to look for him after 9/11. He wasn't interested. Remember that statement?

You're playing political propaganda games. George W. Bush is an utter failure. He has accomplished exactly nothing when it comes to terrorism. Actually, he's done worse. He has encouraged terrorism by invading Iraq and making a complete mess of it.

Apply the same standards to Bush that you do to Clinton. Otherwise, you should clearly label your blog a donation to the Republican Party.

i much prefer the "den of thieves" as you so nicely call our ex-president to the "den of thugs" in this current incompetent, corrupt and anti-US constitution cabal. i still fail to understand this lame, twisted, flabby thinking supporting the republicans and bush. isn't it enough they trashed our economy, created a nest to train terrorists throughout the world and attack our constitution in an attempt to gain power? no, in order to distract us from the real issues of the horrors of this administration now you must go back 8 years to search for a democratic villain.
i never cared about clinton either way until bush. i then realized dramatically the difference between an intelligent, articulate and sincerely concerned president and the ignorant, disturbing and downright idiotic president we have been saddled with over the last 5 (seems like 50) years. if the right really was so morally superior as they claimed when they practically destroyed the country going after clinton they would have dragged bush out before some open committees - under oath - and without chaney, to truly answer the hard questions about the corruption he has headed.

It is nice to see you read from the Dems talking points memo. The economy is stronger than it was at any time during the Clinton administration.

As for the Constitution, nearly every action has been in accordance with the Constitution and US code. The SCOTUS knocked down the detainees and that is all. All of the surveillance is allowed under our law but the left is too ignorant or obsessed to see that.

Clinton became obsessed with bin Laden after his latest scandal. He found him or had him offerred many times but DID NOT GET HIM.

I find it strange that anyone would have the audacity to say that my piece was a Republican donation. I am the one who said there is blame on both administrations (as the Path also pointed out). You are the ones trying to absolve Bubba of all blame when I clearly point out the lies and inconsitencies in his stories.

I will also say that I believe LTC Buzz Patterson before I believe any of the folks that have protested. He was not caught lying, or stealing documents from the National Archives.

Firstly, the U.S. has peaked as a superpower. We have overextended our military resources and are going into deeper consumer and federal debt. Our singular attitude of "we are the best" is our Achilles heel. Our in-fighting reflects a divided society in which 50/50 is the common split, regardless of the issue.

All this board reflects is more polarization, i.e. more of the same.

Soak it up America because as history will tell, you are following the path of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Visigoths, the Roman Catholic Church, the Spanish Empire, the English and French Empires, Moors, and any other oligarchy, monarchy, or "democracy."

With this current path, our hubris will be our downfall: that is inevitable.

BTW, maybe viewing problems from different perspectives might help, y'know "put the shoe on the other foot," maybe an applicable cliche. Or maybe that nice kindergarten rule of "sharing" and "knowing your limits."

The polarizers are forcing the rest of society to devolve, and part of me hopes that evolution will simply take you out because if it doesn't, you will take us all with you.

/zendadi

Former President Clinton was also on "Meet the Press" today.

At least I tried. That's the difference between me and some, including all the right wingers. They ridicule me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. SO I tried and failed

I am willing to give him some slack as nobody in the government knew about the 9-11 plot or it could have been prevented. However, it is really annoying when he calls conservatives "right-wingers."

The drone was armed and could have taken him out and yet the order to kill him was not given despite the assertions in the 9/11 Report cited above.

I had thought the drone wasn't armed. A CNN article says the right thing, assuming it is the same drone:

The video, taken from an unarmed and unmanned surveillance aircraft over Tarnak Farm in Afghanistan in the fall of 2000, shows a tall man dressed in a white robe.

A CNN article says the right thing, assuming it is the same drone:

This sentence should have been: A CNN article says the same thing, assuming it is the right drone:

And some of you people believe Bush needs psychiatric help? That man is totally paranoid!

The Republican cartel, obsessed with the opportunity to blast Clinton out of the water via Monica, had little time for terrorism or anything else. Could Bill Clinton, as president, get the cooperation of congress, the senate, or anyone other than a minor office functionary? You know the answer. The Republicans rubbed themselves with glee when the "little blue dress" was discovered. C'mon guys, get real.

"he demonstrates anger at the attack on his legacy."

I saw the piece this morning and that's not what he demonstrated anger about. Considering you couldn't get passed the second sentence without misinformation, I stopped reading.

What you call "lies and inconsistencies" are base on right wing interpretations of Clinton's statements. He never said that Somali offered Bin Laden up. He said that they gave signs of wanting to talk.

Do you have any item you've posted where you've analyzed Bush's lies and inconsistencies? If this is such an even-handed piece, where are the specific criticisms of Bush and his policies?

Jules, he did say it. Speech on Long Island. He's either lying now, or was lying then.

See in the Chris Wallace interview clearlr shows Clinton in his "I did not have sex with that women" mode. Ironically, he tries to accuse Wallace of ambushing him...wasnt Clinton the one who attacked the "left wing" ABC (did anyone not laugh when he said that.

Just like the President - Hillary stated when Billy was getting BJ's from a fat chick its all part of a "right wing" conspiracy....those noecons (code word for a Jew in the Whitehouse) have been out to get him for years....

He is doing a great job in clarifying his legacy with interviews like this...needless to say he is doing a great job assuring future generations will know what a scum bag this guy really is...

Bill keep up the good work!

Id rather have a mna in the White House that knows how to use his dick than one that doesn't seem to have one.

I'd rather not be internationally embarrassed by a man who stutters, stammers, and is wearing a cocky grin while being unable to complete a sentence with a dozen Uhs... uhhhs... and um... that is, IF he completes it at all,,through press conferences and interviews either.

...but that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus

Notice that Clinton says (if I am correct here, pretty sure) that three things about the Path to 9-11 are contradicted by the 9-11 Report. He did NOT say that they weren't true.

This is a guy that doesn't have any control over what he says anymore, probably never did. He just talks, lies, whatever. He's weak. Imagine what it must have been like for people in our CIA or military or FBI during that administration; 10 of our people get killed, and you don't know if the Clinton administration will have the guts to do something about it.

There are always 'regional factors' involved, always some legal reason, always an excuse. Clinton says he 'tried', and failed, as if he has the right to be given credit for some great failed effort. No way. Forget about bin Laden in Somalia, take a look at how Clinton abandoned those Rangers. That's the way he handles every crisis, he is more worried about politics than he is about actually winning whatever conflict we are in.

That's why, whatever you can say about immigration or spending, I'm glad George Bush is in office. Clinton was weak, and it cost lives. This why he hates that Path to 9-11.

Gee...so you are saying the only thing that matters to you is that we have a good public speaker in the white house...the Libs are really lowering the bar in this election cycle....

Clinton is washed up...the Dems are better off keeping him out of the public eye....middle of the roaders dont belive him the more he talks the better the Right looks....keep up the good work Bill...

Gee...so you are saying the only thing that matters to you is that we have a good public speaker in the white house...the Libs are really lowering the bar in this election cycle....

Clinton is washed up...the Dems are better off keeping him out of the public eye....middle of the roaders dont belive him the more he talks the better the Right looks....keep up the good work Bill...

....But that is only my opinion!
Justoneman

Obviously you didn't see the interview he did on NBC at 1PM today, not a single um, uh or stutter.
and the man spoke intelligently without a teleprompter for 20 minutes...

which is more than you'll ever see out of Bush

I'm won't convince you
you won't ocnvince me

fuck it

...but of course that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus

Why did the Bush administration fail to act after the Cole attack?
answer: incompetence

Actually Clinton merely pointed out that they at least tried but failed to kill bin Laden. Bush failed to see the threat and we paid for his ignorance.

Keep working on those talking points Big Dog

Yes but he is only an ex-president and he doesnt really mattter anymore...again the Dems are making a big mistake..but I support their efforts

it's just my opinion and it's so much beter than yours...
© 2006 Justoneman

Massoud warned the Bush administration about bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That was one of Bush's mistakes, sitting around for 8 months while this was brewing. But he didn't realize the seriousness of it. Clinton did and did nothing about it.

Let's not kid ourselves: Clinton had 8 years, including 3 months after the Cole bombing, to do something about this. Bush had 8 months. He didn't quite realize the paralysis that he inflicted our system of security. Clinton knew and did nothing.

And bush Sr. Didn't kill bin Laden when he had the chance and the whole world would've understoon.

I hate to be defending Bill Clinton, who thought Bill Gates was the biggest threat to America rather than Bin Laden, but it's not clear that the attack on the WTC in 1993 was an Al Qaeda operation. It looks like Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had other patrons at the time. KSM says that he and Yousef were not recruited by Bin Laden until 1998, when they were on the run from their debacle in the Philippines.

In 1993, I think Bin Laden was still putzing around Sudan and talking jihad with his entourage, but not actually doing it yet.

Also, in the first half of the 1990s the name Al Qaeda was not well known. The Saudis differ from Americans in that they don't name their informal organizations like we do. If there are a gang of Saudi guys, they don't name their gang the Crips or Bloods or Raiders like we might. It's just "the guys."

The Al Qaeda name came from the Services Bureau they set up in Peshawar, where they had a guest house for Arabs headed into Afghanistan. Some of the Arabs disappeared in Afghanistan, killed by the Soviets or others. Arab parents quizzed Bin Laden about where their sons went but he didn't even know the names of the people who passed through. So they had everyone sign in so at least they had a record of them that they could tell their parents. That log became "the base," Al Qaeda. It wasn't really an organization.

However, that doesn't let Clinton off the hook. His team was more interested in finding reasons not to act than in defending America.

it is always so amazing to me { in light of our recent presidential speeches }when i see and hear someone like Clinton speak.
he is AUTHENTIC, compassionate, accurate, and brilliant,along with an honest set of b--ls.
he should defend himself from this administrations vicious lies. not to mention the corruption of every aspect of this great country. i am today embarrassed to be an American.
when Clinton was in office our country was held to very high standards.
with the exception of the misfortune at getting caught with his pants down.
as far as i am concerned, i don't care if my president needs to have sex with barn yard animals,{ it is no ones business anyway} as long as he is intelligent and truly a good man.
'remember bush, Jesus was a liberal' !!!

PS are there any other ROAD SCHOLARS we could draft for the next presidential election ?

"ROAD" Scholar?

You're kidding right?

If that's where you are intellectually, I'm sure you would see Bill Clinton as a superior individual

How lame...the Clinton adminsistration stopped much bigger attacks than 9/11, for instance the 1999 attack on LAX. However the "Blame Clinton" crowd just can't grasp what really happened. Anybody working for the DoD saw first-hand that the focus on Al Qaeda was completely dropped in Februrary 2001 in favor of operations and training to support a war in Iraq. The new administration had a mentality that was "whatever Clinton did, let's do the opposite". Even Clinton opponents now agree that the law-enforcement approach that was effective in the 90s is still the correct approach to truly defend the American people from terrorism.

"I seem to remember then President Clinton being as angry and adamant about not having sex with that woman. Turns out he was covering up a lie at that time."

Yes...people are often most vehement in their own defense when they know they are actually guilty as charged...

"I'm won't convince you
you won't ocnvince me"

And you're making fun of someone for not communicating clearly? LOL...

"And bush Sr. Didn't kill bin Laden when he had the chance and the whole world would've understoon."

???

WTF? Lay off the Dewars, Jet...

"PS are there any other ROAD SCHOLARS we could draft for the next presidential election ?"

You mean "Rhodes Scholars" don't you?

For someone who claims to hold the personal trait of high intelligence above all others, you seem to be oddly deficient in that characteristic...

Just like Bush does repeatedly... You answer good points made by others iwht smartass remarks and smirks-proud of yourself for the come-back you just made, and hoping it'll distract from the fact that you didn't answer the question...

You should be proud


...but of course that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus

"An hears anoder ding Kliten id da best predadent we be eber hab!"

...butt ob kerse dats ony mi opemonion
© 2006 Get in Kolumbus

Tantor, there are a number of stories as to how AQ got its name. They were known by the government, they were just not as well known as today. At first the 1993 WTC was not believed to be a bomb by the Clinton administration. While they were investigating names like AQ and OBL were being passed around but people did not know a lot about them. Richard Miniter has a very good timeline in his book.

Jason, I was in my 21st year in the military in 2001. I do not remember our focus being changed. I do not remember our training switching to fight in Iraq. I do not remember being told to train my company any differently than we had in the past. Law enforcement is not an effective approach. It hamstrings efforts and should not be used when dealing with enemy combatants.

Once again, most of the Clinton defenders fail to see there is blame to go around. They just want to put it all on Bush. As for some of the other comments, I am sorry but I can not even address them. I realize that Bush is not the most gifted speaker, I mean he is no "ROAD SCHOLAR" LOL!!! I can not address items such as this because one assumes if you are coming to the dance you at least have the ability to dance. Product of public education, no doubt.

The US was attacked by Muslim terrorists numerous times from 1993 to 2000. (The WTC, two African embassies, the military barracks in Saudi Arabia, the Cole, etc.) Clinton did not authorize the military to do anything about it, treating it solely as a law-enforcement issue, until he was embroiled in a sex scandal.

And even then, all he did was bomb an aspirin factory in the Sudan, and kill some janitors in the middle of the night at a few Iraqi military facilities (which directly led to UN inspectors being booted out of that country, which helped cause the intelligence failures we suffered prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003).

His weakness is Somalia simply emboldened Osama, and Osama is on record as stating this.

He refused at least one offer from the Sudan to take Osama into custody.

He did absolutely nothing after the attack on the Cole.

He slashed the size and strength of the US military while in office.

But hey, let's defend him! After all, he was "obsessed" with striking at terrorists!

RJ,
Actions speak louder than words and Clintons actions did not match his words.

Mohjho,(from #25)
"Why did the Bush administration fail to act after the Cole attack?
answer: incompetence"

The real answer is, now get this, Bush did not act because he was not in office when the Cole was attacked, Clinton was.

But you are right, the reason the president failed to act was incompetence. Thanks for pointing that out.

Oh, also he's a felon...an IMPEACHED felon...who was DISBARRED from the USSC for PERJURY, which is a FELONY...and he is a serial adulterer, he paid off someone with six figures in $$$ to drop a civil case of sexual harassment, and was credibly accused of RAPE...but hey, at least he's not Bush!

So hey, is there a president we can all agree on?

No?

All right, continue:

RJ,
Clinton has all the attributes the liberals love, liar, cheater, adulterer...

"You're kidding right?"
"You mean "Rhodes Scholars" don't you?"

If you geniuses are going to correct spelling, you really should pay attention to your comma usage.

* A comma sets off a tag question from the rest of the sentence:

I didn't see it there, did you?
That's the best movie of the year, isn't it?

Lesson over.

Wow, Roger...you must be a Road Scholar!!! ;-)

Yes RJ! He is smart (comma) isn't he?

Wow, RJ, you're really talkin' tough tonight. [Edited]

I bring out the very best in people...

RJ Elliott

Don't worry. Soon we will have a President who will be impeached for war crimes and deceiving the American people.

It says something that Conservatives value blowjobs more than waterboarding innocent people.

An impeachment is an endictment not a conviction. Clinton was CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES BY A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. Or have you conveniently forgotten that part?

...but that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus

(:^p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOOUUUUUUUD NOISSESSSSSS

But he was indicted and found guilty of perjury in the Lewinski case.

To clear it up, he was cleared of the impeachment charges period. The Republicans did not have enough votes to do it without crossover and they were not the ones who cleared him nor did they lead the charge to clear him. Interestingly, every donk decided that Clinton did not deserve to be impeached but the articles of impeachment were nearly identical to those drawn up on Richard Nixon. Then, the charges merited impeachment with regard to the Democratically controlled Congress but when the same charges were drawn up against their Democrat in office, the charges did not warrant impeachment.

May you kindly travel out to the big world outside to see what a fool this nation is made to appear under the helm of our alleged president. Corrupt is a compliment for it assumes he has a moral platform to deviate from.
Would you even dare to compare his proactive deconstruction of this nation for his and his cronies personal gain, to Clinton whose fault is what every man could fall prey to under stress he had to deal with, thanks in part, to your party's relentless ad hominum attack on his presidency from the day he took office. I wonder how you would have stood up ?
Yet you show no guilt and admit no fault. Its hardly the "right thing to do", is it under our shared judeo-christian heritage or, am I just being naive ?
But it is not so much a question of the technical content of your arguements as it is your real motivation. Thats the scary part.
Thats the real part we have to deal with in the greater scheme of things, in restoring our environment, education policy, physical infrastructure and energy policy, our international relations, and on and on. The damage left by this alleged president and his administration, is almost incalculable.

RStainley
Lets set the record straight.

1. Restoring our environment - Clinton Did Nothing

2. Education policy- - Clinton Did Nothing

3. Physical infrastructure - Clinton Did Nothing

4. Energy policy - Clinton Did Nothing

5. International relations - Ok Ill give you this one Terrorists, Emasculated Europeans and Third World Thugs prefer Clintion over Bush 100%

Please keep up you posts they illustrate the foolishnees of the left....

"He slashed the size and strength of the US military while in office."
- RJ Elliott

Look, your non-service has done nothing to help the size of our military, and wouldn't have increased its strength even if you had joined...

Incapable of an original, or even a fresh thought; emmy, like a scratched record, just keeps spinning around over and over again in the same groove.

Excellent article, very interesting comments here. Hey... I'm NOT registered Republican, but I have to wonder at the myopia expressed by Clinton supporters replying to this article.

Seems like we have a lot of Clinton apologists writing to protect a tarnished legacy. Come on...Let's face it -- the man has no honor... in his marriage, in his public service, and so certainly in his "legacy."

But he does seem to have left us with:
- A national archives burgler for a former National Security Advisor
- An incident where he gave the head of the Palestinian state (Arafat) a cigar he had used sexually on Ms. Lewinski, and was proud of it (reported in published documents put forward by national newspapers covering the scandal)
- Intimidated and bullied other woman who came forward to testify to his sexual aggressions -- or should we believe a proven liar that their cases had no merit?
- Failure and incompetance over eight years to protect the country from Al Quada
- Was one of only two presidents ever to be impeached by the House of Reps., for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice with several Democrats joining the vote for impeachment. Hmmm. Democrats.
- Is known time and time again not to have respected his marriage vows and committments.

Bottom line: Clinton is without honor -- no need to debate the meaning of the word "is". And that fact requires no right-wing conspiracy... "Slick Willy" did this all to himself.

Two words: Tora Bora. Bush has had so many chances to kill Bin Laden since 9/11. Come on Big Dog you don't believe all this crap. Do you aspire to become just another ultra conservative hack? Are you shooting for a spot on Fox News?

You know the economy is not better now. And there is the the little matter of all that debt we are piling up, you know the debt that was pretty much paid off after 8 years of Clinton.

You ultra guys are really starting to scare me. This constant stream of vitriol has to stop. I can see a time when you guys start beating people in the streets then loading gays, women's rights protesters and anyone you consider liberal into train cars en route to concentration camps. No one can be right except you. Kill em all. To hell with diplomacy just destroy everyone who doesn't agree in our God, our values and Jerry Falwell.

You need to take a step back. Look at what a free society is really supposed to be. Anyone can criticise the President. It's our right. Anyone can disagree with the conservative agenda. Again, it's our right. All of the men in my family have served in every major conflict since the Civil War. I grew up in a military positive environment. My uncle lost a leg in Viet Nam. I support the military. I do not support George Bush. He and his cronies have set this nastiness in motion. Anyone who does not agree with him and his policies is attacked. And now even Colin Powell. Because he chose to tell the truth.

This administration has committed more crimes than Bill Clinton ever did. No Whitewater, it was all made up by the republicans. An excellent economic plan for this country and the restrained use of force. So he had a couple of blow jobs and a mistress or two. Look at history and tell me how many of them did not.

Now before you conservative nasties get cranked up, I believe that we should greatly increase our forces in Iraq to secure that country and the border. It might just make Iran a little nervous too and shut that big mouthed midget up for a while. It's time to go back hat in hand to the other world powers and ask, maybe beg a little, for their help in cleaning this mess up. Then we should all go after Al Qaeda with such ferocity that it stuns the world.

Oh, yeah I go to church every Sunday. I am Methodist and I am president of my Sunday School class. I work in media for a large company and I make a lot of money. By every right I should be a conservative. But the fact is I see through the Republicans. I can see the big corporations and special interests pulling the strings. I see global warming increasing, I see our over dependence on oil as an Achilles heel. I would be willing to vote for John McCain. If the Neos smear him again though I am going with a Democrat and I have no problem voting for Hillary. If you really want people to wake up try toning down your rhetoric, offer some solutions and take a good look at the growing majority of moderates in this country. There really is a silent majority and you better recognize it or you and your blog are going to be out of business just like the republicans.

1. Restoring our environment in your opinion Clinton Did Nothing

2. Education policy in your opinion Clinton Did Nothing

3. Physical infrastructure in your opinion Clinton Did Nothing

4. Energy policy in your opinion Clinton Did Nothing

Bigggggggg difference between your opinion and reality. Couldn't prove no matter how determined that Clinton was guilty of anything having to do with White Water so you got him on cheating on his wife and lied about it... Like he's the first president to do that.

Left turn signals still blown out I see...

you must be so proud...

...but or course that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus

...but or course that's only my opinion

Exactly.

No, I just know the English language, but please feel free to throw stones from your glass house.

"His weakness is[sp] Somalia simply emboldened Osama, and Osama is on record as stating this."

If you are going to start quoting Osama, he also said, "We believe that the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists on earth are the Americans."

You must believe that as well, RJ, or are you conveinently selective in using his quotes?

btw, when Just One Immature Teenager is your side of the arguement, it's likely that you are wrong.

Don't worry. Soon we will have a President who will be impeached for war crimes and deceiving the American people.

Cool. You know who's going to win in 2008? Fill us in.

Dave

"Bill Clinton might have come closer to having the chance of getting bin Laden than anyone else since but he did not take anywhere near the actions that those who followed him have taken to get the top terrorist."

You are so right. Clinton didn't attack a country that had nothing to do with terrorism or bin Ladin. Shoot him for actually thinking about the repurcussions first. Yea, that's a bad idea I guess, you know the thoughtful part.

Also the conclusion below is faulty and could use some re-thinking. The "key" missing from the second statement is "Al Qaeda" Errors like this is how people twist others words and meanings.

this..."there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration."

Does not equal this..."According to Clarke, no plan was passed from Clinton to Bush."

Jet...

I am glad to see that we at least agree on this point

International relations - Terrorists, Emasculated Europeans and Third World Thugs prefer Clintion over Bush 100%

...my opinion counts more than yours...nay...nay..na...nay...nayyyyy....
© 2006 JustOneMan

"I can see a time when you guys start beating people in the streets then loading gays, women's rights protesters and anyone you consider liberal into train cars en route to concentration camps."

Sounds much more like a left wing thing to me, except of course replace gays and feminists with 'anyone that doesn't agree with us politically'. Do some research on history and find out who the greatest mass murdering regimes of all time were and then get back to me.

Clinton is trying to rewrite history and rebuild his legacy as a war President instead his fate is sealed as the Whore President.....

Well there you go again Retard with the labeling. If it sounds like something you don't agree with you label it "left wing". I don't know where you are but I am in Alabama and the rhetoric here has reached ridiculous proportions.

Since you are so learned in history, why don't you tell me who the "greatest mass murdering regimes" were. Leave out the jack booted Nazis who I was referring to. List them for me since I obviously have such a difficult time understanding your advanced political knowledge.

Oh, and JustOne, if you say it over and over again that still doesn't make it true. I don't think it has anything to do with rewriting history. Perhaps you should concentrate on the truth. Let's go back to Regan and Bush no. 1 they supported Osama and his cronies in their fight against the Russians. They armed them and trained them in that fight. Where do you think all these weapons are coming from in Afghanistan. I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Be careful where you point your finger.

I would be very careful about how much I defend Bush II. You might have a lot of egg on your face when that next administration comes on board and uncovers all the things that have been hidden from view. Some things like the wiretaps have come to light but how much do we not know about. What level of torture has the US used on these prisoners? I am embarrassed that we have used any.

And finally, how many of you are English scholars? Roger seems to think that everyone should spell properly in the blog and comment world. I am sorry that we are such a disappointment. Perhaps you should concentrate on the spirit of the message then stick to the issues. I think it's pretty funny that a conservative would attack anyone's spelling and diction what with having George Bush, Dan Quayle and Trent Lott in your party.

#62 says:

No, I just know the English language

And then says, in the same comment:

arguement for argument.

Heh.

"And then says, in the same comment:"
- Clavos

Umm, did he say it, or did he write it?

Good call, emmy. You can't misspell speech.

God, I'm tired of this. Look, 9/11 was going to happen regardless of who was in power. If Bob Dole had won the election in 1996, 9/11 still would have happened, okay? If Al Gore had won the election in 2001, 9/11 still would have happened. And I doubt that the nature, scale, and casualty count from it would have deviated even the slightest bit.

And for Christ's sake, the Sandy Berger argument is just silly at this point. The Bush Justice Department has gone on the record as saying that Berger only took copies of files (i.e., he didn't destroy any material that the Archives doesn't still have on record), and for that matter they know EXACTLY what he took and what it related to. So don't waste time and space with the "ooh, maybe that was in the material that Berger stole!" It wasn't, and that material is still available at the Archives anyway. Jesus.

I enjoyed watching Wallace get his ass handed to him. He could have spent another 5 minutes on the Global Whatever, but he tried to sandbag Bubba and then whined about it.

Some love him, and some hate him, yet Clinton's record is pretty conservative when it comes to law and order. And for that reason I believe what he says about OBL and his efforts to bring him to justice.

It's just too much for the "conservatives" to swallow.

Which is just one of the things they have in common with Miss Monica.

I personally credit Pres. Clinton for having the guts to go on Fox considering Fox's track record. You'd never see Bush volunteering to go on Real Time with Bill Maher.

Moderate Truth--Thanks for #59; reasonable people would agree there's a lot of truth to what you say and something to think about in your comments. Any intelligent conservative, liberal, or moderate is always willing to listen and learn, so just consider the source of any stupid remarks and thoughtless criticisms directed at your sensible words.

Perhaps that's because Bush actually has a job to do. Look, there's nothing wrong with thinking out possible repercussions to a missile strike, what the consequences will be, etc. But you have to do something, you can't just think all day. That's a decisiveness that Clinton never had. He worried about political after-shock rather than about defending this country, and his record proves that.

This isn't just a political debate, where conservatives just criticise democrats. It's about national security. Defending this country requires a clear-minded, decisive person that isn't afraid to do what has to be done.

People just aren't realizing this terror threat, and that's sad. It's been five years and nothing has happened so it must be fine. They will not stop until the world has converted to Islam. Check out their history. It's been the same thing for a thousand years. It won't change. You can't 'talk' to someone like Yousef, or bin Laden, or KSM, or any of them. That's why they are terrorists. They aren't national soldiers, they don't have a country to defend, they don't abide by the rules of war, they don't surrender under a flag, none of it.

There are no heads of state to negotiate with. Clinton never understood that. Law enforcement applies to criminals, not terrorists. This isn't some game, why can't the liberals realize this? This is for our lives. Instead, they allow Mahmoud Amahdinejad to speak at the U.N. and applaud at the end. It's like those dreamers that think they can become friends with a bear by being nice to them. We're not seeing clearly as a nation right now and it's dangerous.

bin Laden was certainly known in 97', and we did nothing about it. He declared war on us and we did nothing about it.

Ponder this quote for a bit:

"Al Qaeda desires death more than you desire life."

Yep, that's by (guess who) OBL. The way we are so wishy washy in this country right now, not sure about the terror threat, Bush is a party-killer, come on don't be so serious, let's have some fun...

Law enforcement applies to criminals, not terrorists.

Terrorists ARE criminals. Believe it or not, if terrorists operated inside the confines of the law, even Bush wouldn't go after them.

Connie said... "bin Laden was certainly known in 97', and we did nothing about it. He declared war on us and we did nothing about it."

Lobbing a few missiles over Pakistan's heads into Afghanistan wouldn't constitute doing nothing. We missed, but Clinton tired. More than either Bush did. He would've done a hell of a lot more if the REPUGLICAN congress didn't oppose every effort he made, and didn't claim that every effort he made toward bin Laden was to distract from Monica Lewinski.

Where's bin Laden? if Bush is soooooooo great? Getting Saddam was more important than getting the man directly responsible for 911????

Why has Bush allowed a yearly $5-9 BILLION opium/heroin poppy crop harvest to flourish in Afghanistan when it was non existant under the taliban?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

It'd be an interesting test to see if an answer doesn't come with a smart ass remark...

...but of course that's only my opinion
Jet

In tallying the 8 months the Bush administration had, one hould also factor in the difficulty Bush had in getting appointees through a Democratic Senate in 2000-2002.

Terri in #64 This IS a quote from Clarke. Perhaps you missed that.

...there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Clark SAID those words so do not tell me I twisted something. Check the quote.

I won't debate the connection between Iraq and AQ/OBL. No matter what evidence is shown the left continues with the "No Connection" mantra. Don't really care but do not insunuate I changed words when I write a direct quote.

Moderate Truth #59
You ultra guys are really starting to scare me. This constant stream of vitriol has to stop.

I wrote the piece pointing out the inconsistencies and laid blame across the government. Read the attacks here and tell me again who scares you...

Bush has had almost six years to find/capture/kill bin Laden... Where is he?

In tallying the 8 months the Bush administration had, one hould also factor in the difficulty Bush had in getting appointees through a Democratic Senate in 2000-2002.

The Democrats didn't take the Senate until May 26, 2001. That left three months and 16 days of a Democratic Senate before 9/11. I have yet to find anyone whose nomination was sent to the Senate before then, but was not confirmed. Could you be more specific please?

I enjoyed watching Wallace get his ass handed to him - Mike Siesel

What show were you watching I missed it...Clinton looked like the fool he is...this has done more to destroy his legacy than help it

Jet Real Time with Bill Maher? Maher is history theres no way you can claim that he has any journalistic credibility!

Mike Siesel that's easy to explain. JOM was watching Fox with only his right eye open... a common malady with Right Wingers.

JOM I see you're too chicken to answer $78?

JOM as usual you missed the point. Bill Maher is about as fair and balanced as Fox news, and the fact that Clinton had the balls to go on Fox anyway says a lot. Where as Bush would get a new ass ripped for him if he showed up on Real Time.

AT LEAST Maher has a credible Conservative on the panel every week to balance things out.

By the way Pat Buchanon showed up on Real Time and was very impressive there.

...but of course that's only my opinion
Jet

Whe are all the great left wing journalist comedians?

"Why has Bush allowed a yearly $5-9 BILLION opium/heroin poppy crop harvest to flourish in Afghanistan when it was non existant under the taliban?"

Thats easy we wouldnt want the heroin supply to dry up it would hurt the US economy....

So JOM and Big dog...

Quiz Question 1-Where's bin Laden? if Bush is soooooooo great? Getting Saddam was more important than getting the man directly responsible for 911???? With twice the army Clinton had, Bush has had almost 6 years to find him (the same as Clinton)...Hmmmmmmm???? No smartass remarks now (if that's possible), just answer the question

Quiz Question 2-Why has Bush allowed a yearly $5-9 BILLION opium/heroin poppy crop harvest to flourish in Afghanistan when it was nearly non existant under the taliban?

I said without any smart ass remarks... you failed... try again

Jet....your questins deserve and will not get a response ...its sad the left wing has sunk to these depths...accept the fact that Clinton is the past, two failed attempts were made to gather the support of the US populace.. and try and look for a new leader of your morally bankrupt party....

hey maybe ill start a new group...

www.jetmoveon.org

I said without any smart ass remarks... you failed... try again... skirting the question shows that I'm right.

"Jet....your questins deserve and will not get a response" Yes indeed they do deserve an answer, and of course I didn't expect you to be able to anwwer them.

Bush's war on drugs is a sham and a con game.
Bush's "homeland security" is a Joke
Bush has had equal if not more chances, intelligence reports and resources to get bin Laden than Clinton ever did, but he hasn't.

You can't deny facts...

I never expected you tol

All you can do is divert attention from the fact that you can't answer those two little questions.

I feel sorry for you

Jet....your questins deserve and will not get a response

I'm assuming that JOM meant "do not deserve and will not get a response." But even if he had put that, it would still have been the most pathetic attempt I've ever seen to avoid questions he couldn't answer.

And I don't mean pathetic in an insulting way. I mean it really is sad.

oh, he can answer the question.

It's the typical right-wing response to anything embarrasing they don't want to admit to...

OH Look over there!

Did I distract you enough for you to forget what you asked me?

Okay. Let me smirk and make a snide remark about something different, then nod my head like Fonzy and feel cool...

Did I distract you enough for you to forget what you asked me?

Oh, well then I'll get all high and mighty and judge you unworthy of an answer so that you'll get outraged and forget the question.

oh.... uh... well, uh.... then uh ... uh ...Oh I know!...that's classified information-I know because I just classified it!.., and I'm the president anyway, so I don't have to answer you if I don't want to....

so there

(:^p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And that's about the most intelligent response you'll get to good ole #87

...but of course that's only my opinion
Jet

The point is this is war. Terrorists are criminals bt definition of what they do, but it stops there. You can't just go after them after they've committed the crime; we aren't talking about robbing a back here. We're talking about thousands of people dead in terror attacks all over the whole. Pre-emtive action, so feared by liberals because of what the world will think of us, is sometimes necessary.

Clinton lobbed missiles, while informing the Pakistani goverment, and ISI people most likely informed bin Laden to get out of there. Of course, the ISI and rogue factions of the Pakistani government, as well as the radical and dangerous nature of the Taliban, seemed to be pretty much ignored for a long time. We dumped money at those guys and they were the wrong people. More incompetence from the people Clinton put in our government.

Hey, somebody even said in those years (paraphrasing) that "Hekamatyar isn't as bad you fear, and Massoud isn't as good as you hope."

Where does intelligence like that come from? Hekamatyar was NOT an ally, and instigated the slaughter that occured in Kabul in the 90's. We backed the wrong people in that country for years, and did anyone bother to do anything about it?

The opium industry would be non-existant (if it was, don't have the facts) because the Taliban would murder anyone who violated their extreme way of governance. Not to say drug production is right, it is abolutely wrong, but it certainly wouldn't be a compliment to the Taliban that it didn't exist in largesse during their rule.

Pre-emtive action, so feared by liberals because of what the world will think of us

Perhaps "liberals" fear what the world will think of us because that determines how the world acts towards us? You know, as in, wanting the world to think of us as the good guys, so they don't treat us like bad guys?

Saying it's bullshit doesn't count, you still haven't answered the questions... try again

Facts and figures?
I got tons...

Click Here

I bet you're too scared to get past the second paragraph

...but of course that's only my opinion
Jet

Bush can't stop the drug trade, just like he can't stop the drug trade in South America. Afghans have to stop the drug trade. They have a government now, they have a chance for a better life, they have to figure it out.

You can't worry about what France thinks of the U.S. to the point of inaction when action is what is necessary. We spent so much time sucking knee caps and very little time defending this country during Clinton's years as President. He reduced the size of the military, packed the CIA full of people who leak important information because they have a political agenda, etc.

Why do liberals think that doing everything the world says we should is the right thing? Just for the sake of world opinion. As if there wouldn't be terrorists had we not gone into Iraq, as if there wouldn't be people who hate the U.S. even if we did do everything the U.N. wants.

What's next, the surrender of U.S. troops for trial at the Haig? Are we supposed to do that for the sake of world opinion too? Corrupt Kofi thinks our soldiers did something wrong so he gets to put them in prison?

Why do liberals think that doing everything the world says we should is the right thing?

Well, you've certainly managed to use the word "liberal" to the point of meaninglessness on this thread.

As if there wouldn't be terrorists had we not gone into Iraq

Did anyone suggest that? Certainly many have suggested that al Qaeda wouldn't be in Iraq, if we hadn't gone into Iraq. Because they weren't.

Many have also said that there would be LESS terrorists had we not gone into Iraq. Including, as of this week, the entire US intelligence community.

In defense of Clinton, it can hardly be claimed he is trying "to rewrite history", unless, of course, one believes "Path to 9/11" is history.

Exculpating Bush because he is only as neglectful as Clinton is insufficient.

I use liberal because is connotates a certain way of thinking. It's a peace-at-any cost dogma, and it's dangerous for the well-being of this country. We can't just sit around wringing our hands worrying about what the international community thinks of us. Why should we spend more time worrying about our image with them than defending America?

By the way, what do you propose would help our image among people like bin Laden, Chavez, Amahdinejad, military in Sudan, terrorists everywhere, dictators? As if by being nice or negotiating would change the way they "act towards us."

The point is this is war. Terrorists are criminals bt definition of what they do, but it stops there. You can't just go after them after they've committed the crime; we aren't talking about robbing a back here. We're talking about thousands of people dead in terror attacks all over the whole. Pre-emtive action, so feared by liberals because of what the world will think of us, is sometimes necessary.

The point is this is war. Slippery bathtubs are criminals bt definition of what they do, but it stops there. You can't just go after them after they've committed the crime; we aren't talking about robbing a back here. We're talking about thousands of people dead in slippery bathtub attacks all over the whole. Pre-
emtive action, so feared by liberals because of what the world will think of us, is sometimes necessary. We cannot let France dictate how we fight slippery bathtub manufacturers.

I use liberal because is connotates a certain way of thinking. It's a peace-at-any cost dogma

If you say so. I always thought it had something to do with personal freedom...silly me.

We can't just sit around wringing our hands worrying about what the international community thinks of us. Why should we spend more time worrying about our image with them than defending America?

DAMN THE FRENCH. They cant force me into that slipery bathtub if it's the last thing I don't do.

By the way, what do you propose would help our image among people like bin Laden, Chavez, Amahdinejad, military in Sudan, terrorists everywhere, dictators? As if by being nice or negotiating would change the way they "act towards us."

I dont think Osama uses a bathtub, I think he's more of a rinse-in-a-mountain-stream kinda guy. So maybe we can reach a compromise and both agree to not use bathtubs at all. That's an effective way of subverting the slippery-bathtub movement, AND not offending Osama.

What's next, the surrender of U.S. troops for trial at the Haig?

Can I still say "I support the troops" if I start a society against the propagation of slippery-bathtubs?

Conservative-he had the perfect opportunity to stop billions going into bin Laden's pocket through opium and heroin trade and didn't and you know it you just won't own up to it. Those fields were managable when we invaded, but after we left prematurely they went from less than 500 acres in 2002 to over 625,000 acres this year. Bush failed to control them while he had the opportunity and YOU WON'T ADMIT IT. Right wingers never admit they're wrong, they just try to distract attention away from anything they can't argue with

PROVE ME WRONG-not because you self-righteously say so, but because you can back it up with facts and figures like I have in that link.

...but of course that's only my opinion
Jet

I use liberal because is connotates a certain way of thinking. It's a peace-at-any cost dogma

Odd...I consider myself a liberal, but I certainly don't support "peace at any cost." For example, I supported the war in Afghanistan. Which dovetails nicely into your next question.

what do you propose would help our image among people like bin Laden, Chavez, Amahdinejad, military in Sudan, terrorists everywhere, dictators?

In the case of bin Laden, he might have an image of America as someone to be afraid of if we, you know, devoted ample resources to finding him, instead of diverting those resources to Iraq and saying "I'm not too concerned about him" when asked about the search for him.

(Or, we could try the current Administration's approach of leaving bin Laden at large and Afghanistan still largely under the control of the Taliban while we went off half-cocked to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.)

Chavez? We could stop acting like he's a serious threat to the U.S. It only encourages him and it gives him this ridiculous idea that the things he says and does have some actual effect on us.

Ahmadinejad? We could actually fix the messes we've made in Afghanistan and Iraq, so he'd start thinking maybe we weren't just a bunch of fuck-ups in the Middle East.

Military in Sudan? How about if we ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE that there is a conflict going on in Darfur, rather than pass meaningless resolutions and introduce motions that get sent to committees to die?

Terrorists everywhere? Nothing. Nothing can be done to improve our image. We might want to accept the idea that fighting a War Against Terrorism--a very, very, very broad concept--is a war that is impossible to win because terrorism will always exist.

Dictators? Hmmm. Well, we might stop making alliances of convenience with them, either militarily (Iraq in the 1980s), financially (Saudi Arabia today), politically (Pakistan today), then suddenly getting shocked when those dictators we've made deals with turn out to not be such nice people.

The drug trade stopped under the Taliban because basically they killed anyone involved in it. Probably the only thing I will agree with them on. When we liberated the country from the Taliban, the war lords and locals starting growing the stuff again to make money. How can George Bush or anyone else stem a drug trade in another country when we can't do that in our own.

We could end all drug use if we killed our citizens for using it. We could end it if we jailed people forever for growing it or selling it. The fact is, we don't. It is not Bush's fault that we have a drug problem, we have had one for over 50 years. It is also not his fault that there is a drug trade in Afghanistan. I would personally have no problem if we agent oranged the stuff and that would kill the plants and the people growing it but I think the international community might not like that idea.

There are a lot of countries that produce drugs. Is Bush to blame for them? I also do not agree with the article that the poverty caused the people to turn to the poppy. They were just as poor before we invaded but they did not grow it because the Taliban would kill them. Would you have GWB kill them?

Jet,

I really feel sorry for you. Its obviouse that you really are hurting because your hero sealed his historical fate this weekend and you realize that know matter what you write cannot change that....

He will alway be remembered as the figure wagin liar that he is...

The only way we will ever stop the worldwide drug trade is by eliminating the market.

That will do it, guaranteed. No demand = no supply.

The question is: how harsh do we want to be in eliminating the demand?

How can George Bush or anyone else stem a drug trade in another country when we can't do that in our own.

We had the troops and overflights of Afghanistan, at the time of the invasion there were only a few fields in operation, If we'd irradicated them when they were few it would've been easy-very damned easy.

We could end all drug use if we killed our citizens for using it. We could end it if we jailed people forever for growing it or selling it. The fact is, we don't. It is not Bush's fault that we have a drug problem, we have had one for over 50 years. It is also not his fault that there is a drug trade in Afghanistan

If we'd stayed in Afghanistan and gotten bin Laden we would've wiped out those poppy fields. More right wing bullshit or should I say Bushit. Distract away from the fact that Bush didn't act on the problem when it was relatively small and easy to handle by trying to blame it on our drug habit here. You can distract but you haven't answered the fucking question, because you can't. IT WASN'T A HUGE PROBLEM WHEN WE WENT IN THAT WOULD NEED AGENT ORANGE... it is now, but it wasn't when Bush pulled out to get Saddam before getting bin Laden like he should've


Even more bullshit distraction
There are a lot of countries that produce drugs. Is Bush to blame for them? I also do not agree with the article that the poverty caused the people to turn to the poppy. They were just as poor before we invaded but they did not grow it because the Taliban would kill them. Would you have GWB kill them?

Bush isn't to blame for other countries, but he sure as hell could've kept Afghanistan from bringing in 6100 TONS of opium poppies this year if he'd had any control of the country and taken out the few fields there were in 2003 which financed buying more equipment, financed more seeds fertilizer and farm equipment for which those poor farmers have to pay back to the people that gave them the money for it... Bin Laden joined by the Taliban.

You're right GWB is helpless to do anything about it now because he ingored his opportunity to control it. It's not his fault for a worldwide drug problem, but that poppy harvest before Bush had heroin selling at $325 a gram, and so much was grown and processed in AFGHANISTAN after Bush that the price has dorped to only $78 a gram.

Keep ignoring the facts, of which you've given none to counter but your bullshit opinion...

JOM Bush will be remembered as the President that led us into a war BEFORE he had is facts straight, or possibly on an out and out lie about WMDs in any significant amounts at all.

Bush will be remembered as losing more lives in Iraq than were lost in 911 and never found bin Laden

Bush will go down in history as Halliburton's and the Oil industry's bought and paid for puppet.

Bush will go down in history as a man that took this country out of a balanced budget and into TRILIONS in debt.

Clinton will be remembered as getting a blowjob that he didn't admit to his wife about and lied.

Yeah, we can really be proud of Bush

you're right.

Now answer the questions, don't distract from them because you can't find any hard facts to back up your bullshit. I've used CNN, Time Magazine, The Washington Post, etc.

All you've got is Fox News and Jerry Falwell.

he sure as hell could've kept Afghanistan from bringing in 6100 TONS of opium poppies

And where is the heroin from all those poppies sold, Jet? Right here in the good old United States of Junkies.

Eliminate Afghanistan's crop and Burma will ramp up their production, eliminate Burma and Cambodia will fill the gap, etc.

We're the world's biggest drug market, and until that demand is eliminated, drugs will be produced somewhere in the world, because Americans demand it.

Start REALLY cracking down on the junkies and the problem will be gone in short order, at least in this country. It ain't gonna happen though, because too many people will raise a hue and cry about "cruel and unusual punishment", so we're never going to eliminate the problem.

Once more:

Supply meets demand.

If Americans demand drugs, the rest of the world will supply them

Oh that's a cute argument if they didn't do it someone else would've so it's not Bush's fault.

That's beautiful.

When everyone else was doing it without Afghanistan heroin was $325 a gram, with Afghanistan flooding the market heroin is at $75 a gram.

That means a lot more junkies can afford to stay on the shit because the price is cheaper.

As the President of the U.S. you don't stop alcoholism by doing something that'll blatently lower the price of booze!

Nice distraction though, but not an answer.

Bush is by far the best president we have had in some time. I don't care if stupid Iraki's die, as long as I am safe at nite. Sure Bush lied and sayd "mission acomplished" but he just lies to make American's safe. Just because Bush isn't that inteligent and can't speak without a speech wryter or telprompeter doesn't mean he can't fight a war. He graduated from yell for the love of god he is smart. I just want american's to be safe, and if he has to lie about his own dealings or make up stuff about other adminstrations than so be it.

What do you think we've been doing Clavos? The courts already deal out incredibly lengthy punishments for anything that sniffs of dealing. You could hand out 25-life for drug crimes and it would only dampen the trade.

Personally, I think 100,000 acre sessile fields are easier to spot than shady armed dealers that dont want to be found.

#114 was a joke right?

Oh that's a cute argument if they didn't do it someone else would've so it's not Bush's fault.

Learn to read more carefully, Jet. I never mentioned Bush, nor do I care who's fault it is; I'm addressing the fact that NOBODY in the US is capable of stopping the production of drugs unless the consumers are taken out of the market.

You can stop it in one place, but it'll start elsewhere.

I'm not advocating extermination of the junkies, but something along the lines of Singapore's treatment of both users and dealers ought to do the trick.

I'm not defending Bush; everything you say is true, but it won't stop the drug trade, other than in Afghanistan, and then only temporarily--even the Taliban was unable to stop it totally, and they're WAY more willing to be hardasses than pussy Americans.

Start caning drug users publicly on TV, and watch how quickly the whole thing will be resolved. But, we don't really WANT it resolved--too many junkies and cokehedas and potheads vote.

You totally missed the point, Jet.

That means a lot more junkies can afford to stay on the shit because the price is cheaper.

Demand is inelastic to price in the heroin trade--they're JUNKIES, ADDICTS. It DOESN'T MATTER how much it costs; they HAVE to have it. If they haven't got the money, they steal it.

I don't know if you've ever tried stealing heroine from an armed dealer Clavos, but I'd imagine it would be pretty hard.

The courts already deal out incredibly lengthy punishments for anything that sniffs of dealing. You could hand out 25-life for drug crimes and it would only dampen the trade.

You missed the point, too, PETI.

Jailing dealers DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE DEMAND.

We have to start severely punishing the USERS.

But, As I said, it ain't gonna happen.

Singapore does not have a drug problem--nor, for that matter, do most Muslim countries.

PETI, you're usually a lot smarter than that--they steal the freakin' money--not the damn dope!! You've led a sheltered life, haven't you?

Or as has happened to me TWICE in the last ten years, they burglarize a house and fence the goods. Both times my house was burgled, the perps were caught, and they were both junkies.

Quiz Question #1 on comment 87 Anyone... Anyone?

#120..EXACTLY. you bring up the answer yourself. If the price goes up, theft goes up, and the perp is caught.

Thanks Lee. I am at the grindstone for a while and you guys have hit another gear. Wow! Instead of oneupsmanship why doesn't someone offer some solutions. First though, you have to admit what we are doing now is not working. We cannot leave Iraq, we did not finish the job in Afgahnistan, we cannot allow Iran a nuclear weapon and North Korea only grows more deperate everyday.

I'll go first. Peace at any cost can also mean that we continue to send men and women into a situation that is untenable. We do not have enough forces in Iraq. We do not have enough forces in Afghanistan. We do not have enough forces to face Iran or Hamas/Hezbollah and the many dozens of other Israel threats. We do not have enough forces to keep North Korea in check while we put everyone in their place. And finally, isn't it about time we did something about Darfur? The Arabs are not going to stop killing innocent people without strong intervention.

That leaves us with only a few options. 1) Continue to leave our service people as bait to attract the terrorists and insurgents; killing thousands more of our personnel in the process. (Keep in mind that Viet Nam had a beginning and the real body counts didn't start rolling in until later.) 2) We can swallow our pride and approach our democratic friends (France, Germany, Spain, etc.) in the world with a new tack to work together to win the peace. The reason the first Gulf War was so successful is because it was an international effort. 3) We can re-institute the draft to make sure we have war fighters available to meet our many obligations. As the father of a son I don't like that option but it is a viable solution. Hell, I'm 43 and I'll go.

Only this time there are no easy deferments. If you are in college, too bad. You can go back when you get back. You should be near death or severely mentally impaired for a 4-F. What you don't want is the wealthy sons of political and influential families running for office years later after they ducked out on another war. I am interested to hear the comments of others.

Not usually, PETI. Look at the stats. In most cities more crime goes unpunished than punished.

Mine were just pretty stupid and left fingerprints behind in one case; the second was seen by my neighbors, who got a tag #.

But in any case, one of my perps got four years (because he had priors), the other, got two.

Both were sentenced for burglary, not for being junkies, so they were only temporarily removed from the market, and were not subjected to any punishment that would discourage them from using drugs.

And, since drugs are easier to get in prison than on the street, I'm sure they didn't even slow their drug use down, much less stop.

Jet...by revealing your sources CNN, Time Magazine, The Washington Post, etc. its obvious why you cannot see the truth...oh you forgot Comedy Centrral (Bill Maher) and Air America...


Please I think weve had enough

The Empire Strikes Back

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The "Fox News Sunday" show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views.

After Clinton got angry during the questioning, Wallace said Clinton aide Jay Carson tried to get his producer to stop the interview. Carson said he was concerned that time was running out and that little of the philanthropy efforts of the former president had been addressed.

At The Post, Rice also touched on hot spots around the globe:

On Iran: "There isn't a particularly good, direct way to neutralize the Iranian threat."
On Iraq: "You're never going to have a just Sunni-Shia reconciliation if you don't have a political system in which the interests of all can be represented - and that's what Iraq represents."
On Pakistan: "The future of Pakistan, as [President Pervez] Musharraf and his people fully understand, is to de-radicalize elements of the population."
On the Middle East conflict: "It would help to have a moderate force in the Palestinian territories and to have the beginnings of rapprochement with Israel and the rest of its neighbors."
On the Far East: "I would like to see an improvement in Japanese-China relations."
In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.
"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.

"I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way," Rice said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said," she added.

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too."

"I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse.

"It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't," she added.

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a "major educational reform" effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements.

With Post Wire Services

When is our current President going to admit that he also tried to get bin Laden and failed?

Mr. West, I can not see how you think that somehow accepting the fact that terrorism will always be in existence is the right thing. So we just sit back and let terrorists attack us? The whole idea of the Bush administration is to go after the terrorists before they can do that. It's the left's refusal to see that as anything more than an action line that blinds them to the real danger here.

We sat and let this thing fester for 8