Clinton and 9/11

The Republicans cared more about Clinton and his sex affair than 9/11. They have spent $63 million searching every inch of Clinton's dick while spending only $3 million investigating 9/11. Really shows misplaced priorities.

>>1
The real issue with Clinton is not his personal life, its what a shitty president he was. 

At least he was better than Bush.

yes

>>3
Lol, not really. Bush has been wasting tax money on Iraq war, but he's been too busy with war to really mess with internal affairs. Clinton however messed really badly with US itself.

Clinton's huge military efforts prepared America for Bush's wars, although this isn't very good when you think about it. Also, he initiated some good anti-terror programs that Bush (i.e. the neo-jacobins) ignored. His welfare reform, while still slightly effective if flawed, would have worked even better if it weren't for the republicans, who tried to poison it two times. I couldn't care less about the assault weapons ban, but I really didn't like his attacks on gays, women and the environment.

>>5
alienating us from the rest of the wourld community; biggest national deficit in history (from the largest surplus in history); an ever worsening and failing war on an 'ism let alone iraq specifically; unemployment rates (and the shit quality of the jobs that repalced the ones lost); massive outsourcing and the lack of control over it; tax breaks that effect the wealthy far more than the middle class, let alone the lower class; terrible, almost embarrissing responce to natural disasters (not just katrina, we had to pull teeth to get any realistic amount of recovery to the tsunami)   >   anything clinton did .


And yeah, clinton coulda been more on the ball when it came to things like osama when he was in power. but bush has that ball now, and he threw it out the fucking window two countires away into iraq.

>>1
what i dont understand is how they caught clinton on that event, which was meaningless, yet the democratic party can't get their shit together and charge him with the plethera of things we know he's fucked up on?

>>7 I support both the ide of tax cuts and the War on Bad, but not together and not the woeful iterations Bush has offered. The American right can't privatize, create a good type of laissez-faire state or treat Americans like Americans anymore, and I'm glad that democrats ostensibly stand in their way.

lol at retards thinking Osama did it.

Even the FBI knows he didn't do 9/11 check his wanted page. They only got him for the boming in was it 97? or 98?

But I'm sure Bush and his neocon buddies are more honest and trustworthy then the FBI rite?

>>6
Good anti-terror programs? Surely you're joking or you been turning to security fetishist? There are no good anti-terror programs. Well, except going to other countries and kicking "terrorist" ass, but sadly that costs money too.

>>10
yeah, except for the fact Osama admitted to doing it, and gave very specific reasons WHY.

And if we're talking about trustworthy intelligence, i donno if FBI is the last word on everything. much of the cherry picked information that got us to go to iraq was from the FBI and the CIA. all levels pretty much fucked up.

>>12
FBI is not really any intelligence service. It's just federal police. Personally I think they knew that there were no actual WMDs in Iraq. They just wanted oil and to remove Saddam. There's one big flaw in that theory though. Why they didn't plant out their WMDs and have soldier's find them? Such thing suggests that they did really honestly go after WMDs which I find quite an absurd move, even from Bush.

>>13

The FBI wouldn't ever plant WMD's, there's no need to.

WMD's was an excuse, nothing more. we knew he had some sort of weapons, and possibly some chemicals left over from other wars, but i highly doubt they seriously thought we'd find anything. they knew once we were in there, it wouldn't matter the rational,  wouldn't be leaving any time soon. they coulda said saddam was building a deathray, if it got us to go over there, there'd be no real need to explain why there wasn't one, they coulda found some parts of an oil refinery and spin it like they were deathray parts, it's all PR.

>>14
I didn't mean FBI, but CIA. They do that sort of things. I mean why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq and have soldiers found them? There would have been far less criticism if they had actually found WMDs rather than simply finding nothing.

>>15

cause it didn't matter, and people would have to be shut up. it's far easier to not find anything, and talk your way out of it and change the subject, than it is to get yourself out of being accused of planting the weapons.

sure, planting them would yeild quick and convenient results, but down the line, should it ever be exposed, shit would hit the fan like no ones business. not having any in the first place, or finding old and unusable weapons, is just enough 'proof' to feed the media and destract them long enough for something else to happen and reshift focus.

plus, now, however farfetched the excuse that those small stock piles of inertcyanid gas are, they're a better argument that there were WMD's at all rather than if we planted them ourselves.

when thinking up bullshit, it's better to go with vague reasoning and rational, than fake reasoning and rational. vague you can spin, fake you can't, at least not so far.

Yeah I've noticed that for all the paranoid criticism, the US government really doesn't like THAT MUCH.

er, lie

>>17


it's more spin than lies, i'll admit, but it's equally shadey.
if someone said you lied, and presented transcripted evidence of two contredictory things you said, all you gotta say is 'oh, well you can't prove i didn't know what i said wasn't true, so you can't prove that i lied'.

The only way we'd ever get bush in a lie, is finding evidence he was presented information that he later spoke to the contereary as if it were true. The thing is, not even this is bullet proof. if enough people present false information to bush, any relyable information he was given could be ignored, claiming the majority of the information was pointing to the wrong conclusion. so even if he was repeatedly informed there were absolutly no WMD's in iraq (which he was) he can say that he sided with the vast amount of cherry picked false intel that there were weapons.

It's the emporers new clothes, but backwards. if he gets though people to convince him of one thing, it automatically overshadows any other point of view, no matter how valid.

i have to hand it to the right for their mastering of double speak/think, it's not an easy thing to do.

Clinton cared more about his sex affair than 9/11. Misplaced priorities are the reality.

!SWEJ, WE

1-888-OOPS-JEW

NEVER JEW A JEW

Bob Filner started the next global disaster when he sexually harassed women as a Jew instead of being attacked by a Jew sexually! Pro-gay Republicans attack the politician for being a hetro-sexual male and announce a "total recall" vote to usurp the throne.

And then they spend a gorillion dollars on national defense and say it's because of national security.