We Felt Safe When Clinton Was President!

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 11:52pm

In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected President. I voted for him. He was a cad. Never, did I feel unsafe as an American!

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 11:59pm

He was crooked, crass and couldn't keep his little willy in his pants and I loved him.

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:09am

Didn't you feel safe because America hadn't been attacked yet? I mean, I would imagine that most people felt safe, prior to 11-September. With the possible exception of during Kennedy's term. Or, did you mean something else, entirely?

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:18am

Would 9/11 have happened on Clinton's watch? Hmmm....

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:26am

9/11 most likely would have happened on Clinton's watch. Though I despise Bush, I do not think that anyone in this country was prepared to prevent these attacks. They just were not in our psyche. Clarke by himself could not have prevented this.

But, at least I am confident that they would have read the damn memo about Bin Laden wanting to fly planes into buildings.

And, we would not be out on a mission trying to convert the Muslim world to Democracy. And, the Israel/Palestinian conflict would not have been left to simmer for four years, and . . .

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:30am

Well, almost all of the planning and coming to this country to train, etc., DID happen during the Clinton years. But, that could happen during anyone's watch. That's what a free country is all about. Or used to be about.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:39am

I would say with complete confidence that I would feel safer if Clinton was President because he is a brilliant man who holds the respect of the world--the exact opposite of Shrubya.

And let's do remember that the guys who bombed the World Trade in 93 are caught. Let's do remember that Bush ignored that memo. And sat forever and a day reading about a damned goat.

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:42am

brdlwyr: You felt safe huh?? Why, were you in a coma during his entire administration? Clinton was certain great on domestic policy, but has pretty clueless on foreign policy, and knew less when it came to terrorism.

Here is a list of terrorist attacks on American targets, which President Clinton did nothing about.

1993- World Trade Center, New York City, New York
Six people killed, 1000 injured

1995- Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
168 people killed, including 19 children, 800+ injured

1996- Khobar Towers military barracks, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
19 American soldiers killed, 327 injured

1998- U.S. Embassies, Nairobi, Kenya & Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
213 people killed, including 12 Americans, 4000 injured

1999 - Millennium terror plot foiled. Plan by Al Qaeda related groups to attack Los Angeles International Airport, the USS The Sullivans, and tourist sites in Jordan

2000- U.S.S. Cole, Docked at Aden, Yemen
17 Sailors killed, 39 injured

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:44am

Well if it's a contest:

3000 on 9/11 and 2000 in Iraq alone.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:48am

JoeP = RODNEYK

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:49am

I know it's not a terrorist attack, but: how many in New Orleans and surrounding areas, AFTER Hurricane Katrina hit?

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:55am

Jrb - read my other posts. We shouldn't feel safe under any of these idiots. Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Kerry ... all of them, have one thing in mind, power. They are not in public service because they love "the little people".

Some people here have difference of opinions. Thats fair. But some people (paljoey for example) want to celebrate because Bush's people are in deep $hit. Just like that jerk hannity did when Clinton was impeached.

We need to flush what's in DC and start over. their entrench way of doing business will never change, unless we make it change. That means getting angry when the President lies, or is his people lie (regardless what party is in power). We fight with each other, when we're not the bad guys.

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:57am

This is all Paljoey can do, when he can't answer simple questions.

[Jon]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 1:30am

1995 - Murraah Fed, Bldg. - Oklahoma City. They caught the guys who did it. They were convicted. What the hell else was Clinton supposed to do?

2000 American soldiers have died in Iraq. No one died because Clinton got a blow job.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 1:32am

The one major difference is that Clinton was in fact once one of us. He came from nothing.

He was flawed, and made mistakes. But, I felt that at least he had an inkling of what the common man and woman felt.

We can get angry, and we can try to make changes in the long term. But in the near term, we still have a country to run. And, the question in, who do you think will look out for those who can least protect themselves in the near term.

My answer, the Democrats.

Find a viable solution other than anarchy or revolution to the Democrats and I will listen. Until then, run for office and try to make a difference yourself. Work for change. If we do not try to work within this flawed system we have, then the only options are to give up, or to become an anarchist. Neither choice seems very attractive to me.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 1:58am

How can you dislike this fellow? He's so adorable!



I just Wikipedia'ed him; I haven't read "My Life," so I had no idea he's from a modest background and that his father died before he was born. Great man.

Updated On: 10/27/05 at 01:58 AM

[wickedwitchofthechest]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 2:02am

I would not classify myself as a Bush supporter, but still, you really can't blame him for Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, especially not solely. The levees should have been built up years ago, long before Bush's presidency, and I believe that's the job of the city and its officials, although I could be wrong on that score. And most of the decisions made by nearly everyone in power concerning the storm were beyond faulty.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 2:04am

But what you CAN blame Bush for is the FACT that this country was/is not? in any way, shape, or form ready to deal with a massive terror attack.

Posted: 10/27/05 at 2:42am

Jrb - Blame them all. They screwed up. Probably since 1972 when the Israel athletes were taken hostage, we've never dealt with terrorist properly. These people don't have the same value for human life that we do. Nearly ever President has had to put troops in harms way and I can't even imagine how that must make them feel, knowing that some are going to die.

But put it in perspective; tabacco products are to blame for more deaths in this country for just the month of October then the entire war; and yet we as a nation just accept that cigarettes should be allowed to be sold in this country; even though its causing massive death and illness among our fellow citizens. Oh, sure, we'll pass a few laws and not allow it in the work place and resturants...great...let's have some balls to do the right thing and say "that's it...Philip Morris, close your doors you are out of business". Absurd? maybe.

YouWantitWhen???? - No, anarchy is not the answer. But changing it seems impossible; the culture in DC is so bizarre. I think we have to change first. We need to decide on what we think is important as a society, then start to move that agenda forward.

Politicians need us to fight amongst our selves, so we are not fighting with them. They like to see extreme factions going at it. It gives them the chance to look more appealing to everyone else in the middle. Like I said before, these new Congressmen go into office thinking they are going to change the country, only to find out that the ol' boys club has a pecking order and you better get in line. They have a class system in the House, not just because of leadership positions, but based upon yur time there; just getting your office is a so-called lottery, but its not entirely the case. The better offices are swapped out first.

New Congressman are not allowed to sponsor new legislation that might be deemed high profile or even controversal; it must have co-author of high stature or it gets killed in committee.

The system is perverse. I can't stand them all.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 6:15am

Now you see why I say a pox on both parties & no longer vote. Screw the whole sorry lot of them. With the exception of what GWB did right after 9/11 & taxes, he has been a total flop. The alternatives were worse. Dammed if you do & Dammed if you don't

The political system is on par with the judicial system. The question is which is the bigger joke. It is a trick question

[zzannahk]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 6:28am

{~*' ignorance is bliss '*~}

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 10:00am

So Joe, we don't vote anyone one out?

If you get the Republicans out of the majorty, you change the discussion. Leadership of all of the committees change. Investigations can occur. None of this happens without first changing those controlling the discussion and agenda.

Granted you work for change, and that includes getting the muck like Ted Stevens out of government.

You still have not provided a near term alternative to voting out the Republicans if you cannot stand their policies.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 10:34am

I'm pretty sure the 1972 Munich debacle was mostly a German one, thanks. It doesn't make me happy to say it, but it's true.

Anyway, yeah, I'd feel safer with Clinton in office. When Americans abroad got attacked by Al Qaeda, you know what he did? He went after Al Qaeda. If he wasn't being hamstrung by the dip**** losers of the Republican Party and their moronic show trial over a blow job, I'm almost certain he would have done even more to move against that organization. But thanks to Ken Starr, whose unprofessionalism looks even worse now that we see the upstanding example of Fitzgerald, Clinton's attempts to move on Al Qaeda were dismissed as a case of "wag the dog."

Clinton isn't just book-smart; he has sense, and genuine respect for the international community. Even if 9/11 had happened on his watch, he would have used the post-attack sympathy to gather democratic nations together, not to alienate them with putrid displays of chest-pounding.

Am I saying it's totally out of the realm of possibility that Clinton would have screwed this up somehow? No. He did screw up in Rwanda, as he himself acknowledges. But I'd rather put my country in his hands than in those of Bush and his cabal of deluded neocons any time.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 10:41am

Clap clap clap clap.


Imagine what Clinton might have been able to do if every single move on his part was not characterized as a distraction to get attention away from Ken Starr? Every time he tried to use force, he was criticized as just trying to distract the American public. Imagine if Bush had to submit to the same scrutiny that Clinton did. Oh, to dream.

As Plum states, 9/11 might have happened with Clinton in office, but we would be going after those responsible for the damage, rather than creating generations that hate us as Bush has done.

In my opinion, Bush has almost guaranteed that another 9/11 will happen by creating thousands and thousands of Muslim men and women who are certain that we are evil, when such certainty was not there before.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 10:55am

Clinton would also have had the vision to use the post-9/11 outpouring of sympathy for the US to galvanize the nations of the world to rise up and fight terrorism together.

Instead, Bush squandered that sympathy--along with the budget surplus--and put unimaginable profits into the hands of the oil companies. Today's news reports show 89% profit increases for ConocoPhillips, 34% for BP and announcements coming today for Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron.

Who benefits from oil profits? Everyone in the Bush administration.

Who suffers? People online in South Florida, waiting on line for 4 hours and rationed to no more than $20 worth of gas--cash only.