Yet even after the bombing in Africa & the bombing of the Cole, Clinton DID NOTHING. Nothing to find out who was behind it, nothing to tell the Arab world we won't stand for it, HE DID NOTHING, which gave them the go ahead to hit the twin towers.
@SocietyIsToxic So what? That just shows that he had no reason, morally or legally, because he had not committed a crime against America. John O'neill barely knew about bin Laden. But after he started attacking us he did try to get him. He wasn't lying (and I'm not a Clinton fan).
Hot Potato? I understand where liberals disagree with Iraq, but the same can be said about the 90's, shouldn't we have focused on capturing Bin Laden rather than bombing Kosovo?
@JILampropoulos When he said these things the Cole and the Africa bombings had not happened yet. These events were in '96. The '93 Twin Towers attack had not been linked to him...and actually he was only an inspiration for that...and he only had plans. We found out later he was linked to things. But the first things of any substance were the Embassy bombings in Africa in '98, and the Cole in 2000.
You're thinking with hindsight, which they did not have at that time.
That's odd. Nowhere in this video did Clinton say he "did nothing about bin laden
All he said was the truth. He didn't take Bin laden after Sudan released him because he COULDN'T, as Bin Laden had not committed any terrorist acts against the US yet, and therefore could not be held by the US.
"...All he said was the truth. He didn't take Bin laden after Sudan released him because he COULDN'T, as Bin Laden had not committed any terrorist acts against the US yet, and therefore could not be held by the US...."
Clinton claims he had no legal basis with which he could have taken UBL but, remember, this is a man who had broken every law in the books including rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, and probably murder. Why, all of a sudden, did Clinton think he needed to 'toe the line'?
the situation Iraq is not considered "war." Our mission was accomplished as Bush boasted...we did it in 3 weeks...but what we are doing now is considered peace time operations...no different during the Cold War in Germany, and elsewhere.
Oh, really? It's not a war? I don't know what your definition of war is, but mine includes things like guns, bullets, bombs, death, maiming, and destruction, all of which describe Iraq.
It's still a war even if it's not two massive armies going at it with each other.
We're fighting a War On Terrorism, that's war we're fighting...we were experiencing the similar situations regarding terrorism in Japan and Germany in WWII...does that mean we were still at "war" with Germany and Japan? No. Don't forget, assuming you know your history, Vietnam and the Korean war (which technically not over), were actually considered "police actions" because no one declared war, therefore international sanctions and law were in full effect as opposed to if there was a war.
Of course, "police actions". That's a load of crap. They were wars. They just went under different names because it lessens the impact, and it's easier to decieve the people if you don't call them wars.
I agree with you about the deception part, however, if you don't declare war then there are hundreds of international laws that took place...whether you like it or not, that is the "technical" definition for something to be considered a war...American troops were not allowed to raise their flag in certain areas nor assassinate certain people nor attack certain areas, the American troops went crazy over situations like this. It was obvious the conflicts were for political reasons.
Clinton-Why don't we keep this affair my private matter and focus on more important things like fighting terrorism?
Republicans-No, we must focus all political attention on you getting consensual oral sex from an adult woman and it must eat up all the headlines and news air time instead of this unimportant terrorist issue.
Yeah, Clinton didn't take him because he couldn't. It was 1996. Bin Laden had not yet committed any terrorist acts against the US. If Clinton had taken Bin Laden, he could not have been charged with anything.
are you dumb? he was responsible for the car bomb under the world trade center in 93 and responsible for the building bomb in oklahoma in 95...combined killed over 50 americans i believe and hurt more then 1500...clinton had the chance to take bin laden into custody multiple times from 96-00...he just didnt do it
No, he was not repsonsibile for the 1993 WTC bombong. He was defintiely not responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. I don't know where you got that one from. After Sudan released Bin Laden he disappeared into Afghanistan. It didn't help that the Republican Congress opposed every anti-terror effort Clinton did make.
And speaking of the 1993 WTC bombing, at least Clinton made sure the people who did it were caught. Bush has yet to catch Bin Laden and has publicly stated he doesn't care about him. Only six months after 9/11 he said that. The video is here on Youtube. Clinton never said he didn't care about Bin laden.
No, he meant he didn't care. He needed to get the public to start focusing on his war of profit in Iraq. He didn't care about Osama becuase he had already served his purpose of making the public scared and ready to be lied into the war in Iraq. Also, Osama didn't have a massive oil supply to steal.
How is Bush profiting? Check any business magazine and see how much the profits and stock for Bush's corporate buddies have gone up since this war began.
do you have any stock in those companies? Bush by the way owns less than 20% of those companies, he does not hold significant influence in any of them nor his buddies... Hilary Clinton used to be on the board for Wal Mart, and still supports the company today, not to say that's a bad thing, but it looks exactly the same as Bush and Co. putting stock into these other companies, which he, again, holds no significant influence in the companies.
Bush just does what his corporate masters tell him to do. Then of course there's Cheney who was CEO of Hailburton who has definitely profited from this war.
I'm sorry dude, "corporate masters"? If you're a shareholder, the CEO tries to please you...not the other way around...About Cheney, name a president that hasn't done the same...please name one...I'm not saying what he does is right, but it's no different than what any other president has done...so why the sudden outcry against Bush...that's the media...stop listening to the news and maybe you'll hear more.
If you can't see throught this scam of a war you are so stupid I can't tell if it's more pathetic or sad. This war is about money and power. We would NOT be in Iraq right now if it didn't have that massive supply of oil to steal, or if Bush didn't have a personal vendetta against Saddam.
Again, it's not that I'm disagreeing with you, but you blame Bush as if this has been something new with presidencies...If you look at the reasons why we (NATO) went into Kosovo, and compare it to it's history, you're gonna find that we shouldn't have been there either...please read your history, and stop blaming Bush, he is a puppet, blame the government...whether you want to believe this or not, there is a shadow government at play here.
I didn't approve of Kosovo either. That was also a source of income for the war profiteers as well and got a ton of innocents killed, but Clinton knew when to end it, he didn't try to go it alone and had support from the rest of NATO, and didn't turn it into what Bush has turned Iraq into.
First off the Democrats turned the war into something that it is now...Bush won the war in Iraq, but the peace time operations are what we're apparently struggling with. Don't forget we are still in Kosovo, and there still is uprising and violence and terrorism going on there right now. But you don't hear about it, hardly, because it was propagated by the media to support a political cause. You may not have supported it, but where were you protesting it like you are this war?
Even if the Dems supported this war it would still be where it's at. The people of Iraq have been fighting with each other forever and have only ever been unified by force. It was foolish to think once the US came in they would just stop fighting and unite and accept a government being imposed on them.
No one expected that nor did Bush...and by the way Bush didn't fire all of his generals...no one said the "fighting" would stop, in fact they explained that we are gonna do what we can to halt a civil war... everyone knew that there would be a potential civil war...everyone. stop pretending as if he was not advised of this, or as if he didn't know...seriously, are you in his cabinet, or congress?
It wasn't the Dems that turned Iraq into what it is now. You forget how many Democrats supported Bush all the way in the beginning. It was Bush firing the generals who disagreed with him, not sending in enough troops, not having a plan for the violence among the ethnic groups, not having an exit strategy, and not sending the troops in properly equipped.
The most powerful military in the world... no exit plan? are you serious? bush explained very vehemently, this is not going to be easy and it will take a very long time...look how long it took for Germany, and Kosovo? Explain to me what the exit plan for those countries are...how did people think it would take for things to settle down there? People have this idea in their head, that everything things will happen very quickly, but Bush explained that it will not...what don't you understand?
"The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had
But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."
"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off."-Dick Cheney, 1994 interview
That was back in 1994...which again was a completely different situation. It's funny, if we would've taken out Saddam when we had a chance we wouldn't be in this mess today... funny how when people try to please others like you, just because it wasn't "peaceful" doesn't mean it was wrong to do...had we ended Saddam's reign of terror in the early 90's we wouldn't be having this argument... thanks for wasting everyone's time...
You honestly believe that the US would not have been in the same situation if we'd removed Saddam in 1991? The exact same thing would have happened, per Cheney's prediction.
We still would have been attacked on 9/11, but we would have had Iraq as a launching base...and we probably would have gone after Syria, or Iran...You don't seem to quite realize our positioning in Iraq, we can attack anyone from any direction that we want now that we are in Iraq...it's called a military strategy, others would say it's a chess move.
Are you even thinking about what you are writing? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason these people blow up our embassies and rammed planes into our buildings is because our leaders shared your line of thinking?
How would YOU feel if another country came here and started forcing us to do things a certain way? If they did to us what our government has done in the Middle East? I imagine you'd be pretty pissed.
don't hand me this "how would you feel" bullshit...These are the same people that cried when we left Iraq in 91. So when we're there building schools and parks trying to get their country back into order, we're doing a damn good job...You may also have forgotten that we're fighting outside terrorists, Hezbollah, and Syrians and Saddam supporters, not regular Iraq citizens, or people who really live there. They are foreign terrorists, not Iraqi, for that's not how they ever fought before...
Yeah, SOME people were saying we should have stayed in Iraq in 1991. They were wrong then just as the current war supporters are wrong now.
Oh, so we shouldn't take anyone's feelings into account? We should just say "to hell with what everybody else thinks. We're gonna do whatever we feel like."?
It's not bullshit. It's actually a very importtant thing to consider.
It was calling it bullshit that led to people ramming planes into our buidlings.
Putting our noses into peoples business having that be the reasons why people hate us, is an accurate statement on your part, if you weren't so blinded by being angry at Bush, or me, you'd realize that I completely agree with you about that, hence the reason why I keep saying that our war in Iraq is NOT NEW...historically, Kosovo, Bosnia, Grenada, Vietnam....but if you agree about this, then where were you protesting Kosovo? That's what I'm talking about....everyone only goes by the media.
The reason I wasn't protesting Kosovo is because I was pretty young at the time and didn't really understand it, though when I learned about it later on I thought it was a bad idea.
Then you should be protesting the American government not Bush because you're soon gonna realize that it doesn't matter who the president is, because he is not in charge... I dont like our government because although I have supported this war, I am finding through much reading and research that our government always has alterior motives for everything... I don't know what the motive would be for Iraq, and don't say oil, cause it's not, but it is something else, just like Kosovo, probably control
I'm not just angry with Bush. I'm just mentioning him because he's the figurehead in all this. I'm angry with the other people who supported and still support the war, including the Democrats who did.
No, it's not just oil, although that is a big part. There's plenty of other people who profit from war, like the arms industry. Look on Youtube for Dwight Eisenhower's speech about it.
Partial response to above oil comment:Do a search for NON-ENERGY CRISIS. It's from several years ago & details current situations. Also research the FedReserve. Apparently the banks control everything-even the president(?!). It's sickening really. Especially 'freedom' of the press. So many problems.. so few real solutions.
This "backlash" is bad, doubt, but even Bush had said from the very beginning, that after the war in Iraq, maintaining peace is NOT going to be easy and that the road is very long and treacherous...just look at Germany, and Japan, it took Japan 10 years to settle down, and Germany 50 years because of the Soviets...in Iraq, it will take a long time because everyone wants that land like Iran, which was an enemy of Iraq, and Syria...it's a hard road to clear...
Wow, sir, you really need to learn your history, yes there were people blowing themselves up, and sniping and shooting and blowing American soldiers up in Japan, and Germany...there were a lot of attacks like that...plus, rebuilding nations like Japan and Germany we did not know truly how to rebuild...we used old fashioned techniques which were the only ways we knew how....please read you history, very inaccurate statement on your part...
I know my history. I said during the occupation, the post war occupation, not during the war.
I'm well aware of what Japanese and German troops did in battle. They weren't doing those things after they surrendered and the US was rebuilding their countries.
By the way it's not people like me, it's the people who crave and love power...they intend to hurt American and foreign people. If you do your history, which i'm sure you haven't, you'll notice that each president since FDR has gotten rid of some right of ours, plus gotten us into stupid wars/conflicts, Vietnam, Grenada, Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran (although only financed by the US, for the Iraqis)...War on Terrorism would not have occurred had we not been in everyone's business, it's not Bush.
I'm well aware that it was the presidents before Bush. That's my whole point. These people are super pissed at the US for meddling in their countries and doing stupid things to them for the past sixty years.
After a few decades there's going to be some retaliation.
Everyone had a plan for how we were to fight the war, and create a new government, it was said we'd be there no less than 10 years. It is the Dems who have voted for all of his policies as well...we only needed 130,000 to take over Iraq, as was proven, peace time ops, there was a troop increase which has also worked as well. The troops are equiped now at least, I only go by how the media is not complaining about it, like they did when they were ill equipped. Seems to be taken care of as of now
"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily end up seeing parts of Iraq fly off."-Dick Cheney, 1994 interview
"It's a quagmire. If you go that far, and try to take over Iraq."
None of your points support your view...in fact they support mine...you have quote from 1994, quotes stating that we have lost very few casualties, again in support of me...you "quagmire" statement was made in 1994, which has no bearing on todays current War on Terrorism. Thanks for googling though to prove yourself an idiot, and myself right.
And we're still in Kosovo...and we're still in Germany, and we're still in Iraq... yet are you saying that we have not won any of these wars? Peace time operations are different than the actual war... where did you get your quote from?
When we have an exit strategy for Kosovo, then please educate me on how we should exit Iraq...you may not know this but we have been losing Allied soldiers over there every year since our interference upon the country back in 1999, or whatever the year was when we bombed them. It was the peace time operations that we lost the most soldiers...not the actual war itself. We apparently won only by bombing, which no soldiers were lost, except after the "war."
by the way we didn't go it alone in Iraq... Clinton knew when to end it? What? when did it end? You do know we're still over there right now trying to keep the peace right? Wait since you didn't read it in the news paper that means nothing is going on right now, that means it over, right? Please read a book or something? We're still losing American and allied forces in Kosovo...we supported the wrong side as well...
You do realize that Bush that Bush averages a gross income of $747,000, including investment income, a year right? Hardly a major profit in stock with Haliburton, and whatever other companies he has an interest in....Bush made more before he was president. the profits are exaggerated on your end their bud.
That's true, Osama financed his millions through opium, he didn't need oil. Osama wasn't the person who committed the acts of 9/11, allegedly, we caught that guy already... Osama is a whole different issue for Pakistan is involved, and there is a major political storm going on over there, unless we invade Pakistan, we won't be getting Osama any time soon. Our hands are tied in politics in that situation. Just to let you know Yosef had Iraqi passports when he bomb the wtc in 93.
So don't tell me that Iraq has nothing to do with this War On Terrorism...you may want to learn your history a little more...Saddam even tried to Bush senior assassinated in 93. Saddam had known terrorist ties, I can actually go on all day...however, there are alterior motives for the US going into Iraq, I'll give you that because we haven't invaded Iran or Syria like we should have, then it would've been a true war. It's an underground government at play, make no mistake...
Wow, so because Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad that justifies going in and causing the whole country to collaps on itself and start a civil war among the different groups?
Even if Saddam had ties to terrorists this war has greatly increased the terrorist threat, not lessened it.
Saddam supported suicide bombers in Palestine, though there seems to be a lot more suicide bombings going on since the invasion.
Funny we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11...more terrorists created? Prove it...how are terrorists, hate and anger, any different than what it was during the 70's, 80's, and 90's...please explain yourself, because the way I see it, is we haven't been attacked, yet...and you're afraid that since the terrorists hate us more, we should stop this war? You mean there would be no more terrorism if we quit? What world are you from? What psychology books have you been reading?
Oh, yes, I love that argument. "We haven't been attacked since 9/11." WRONG. Yes, we have. I don't know what your definition of "attack" is, but mine includes 4000 dead US troops and 30000 wounded, with the numbers going up every day.
No, terrorism wouldn't cease, but if the US government would STOP meddling in the affairs of the Middle East there would be a lot less.
I'm sorry that's not an attack on US soil, or embassies...those are military altercations involving terrorists...this is a war you know...the war right now is in the Middle East...please don't over exaggerate the loss of American lives in Iraq for we've averaged 5,600 losses a year in Vietnam...and over 16,000 in Korea in the 50's...our troops haven't lost many, I've even lost a friend over there, but that's war unfortunately...it was predicted to be a lot worse by about 40,000 lives. Puhlease.
People who jusitfy Iraq by saying "we haven't lost that many" are the most heartless. You act like just because it's less the lives were worth less too. Tell that to the families of the killed. Would you still say the same if you lost family to this war? Would you just shrug and say "Oh, well, we've lost a lot more in other wars."?
Heartless? Ha!!! It's assholes like you that predicted that we'd lose 35,000, but when people like me, who say thank God we didn't lose nearly close to that amount, I'm considered heartless...yes you exaggerate a truth to fit your own political schemes.
Actually, I predicted it would be a lot less than what it is now.
I foolishly supported this war when it began. I actually believed it was about protecting America and bringing freedom to the peopel of Iraq. I believed the bullshit lies that led to it. I refused to see facts when they were right in front of my face, much like you now.
First off no you didn't, you have no basis to predict such a thing...There are casualties in war, and it's a shame to lose one soldier...but to say after 7 years of combat that you predicted less than 3000 casualties as well as 30,000 wounded is utter bullshit... you're stating that just to try to make your point...please be honest in this discussion...don't exaggerate...
No, I really did. I Also, it's only been five years in Iraq, not seven. Plus, what is an "acceptable" number of deaths to you? It may be "low" to you, but it's everything to loved ones of those killed.
No you really didn't dream that one... and you're right about "it's everything to loved ones" I have not ever disagreed with you about that? Just because you get punched in the face, does that mean you stop fighting? No. It was explained very distinctly that we are going to lose men and women, it is unprecedented however, that we have lost so little as well as wounded, compared what was predicted originally. You say things could be better, I say things could've been a lot worse.
And of course you forget the 30,000+ wounded in this war of lies. I guess they don't count. As long they just lose some limbs, but they're still alive it's not a real loss.
Again, just to try to prove yourself right you propagate bullshit just to make yourself sound right..."they're still alive it's not a real loss." First I never said that, and two is that your only argument...so please don't put words into my mouth...that's a typical liberal move...next you'll be saying I don't like oxygen because I don't believe in the bullshit about global warming...you're a terrible arguer.
I'm just tired of hearing that this war "isn't that bad" just becaus fewer have died than in other wars.
4000 have died in Iraq? That's not a lot. 58000 died in Vietnam. Only 58000 died in Vietnam? That's not a lot 400,000 died in WWII? Only 400,000 died in WWII? That's not a lot. 600,000 died in the Civil War.
If you're gonna give me statistics, here's some for you...5,800 avg of American deaths in Vietnam...over 100,000 thousand deaths in WWII, and the civil war, over 17,000 deaths avg in the Korean War avg. a year...we've been in this War On Terror for almost 7 years, not five, Iraq is five years, but that is also part of the War On Terrorism...if you don't believe me, then what do you say about the allies invading Iran in WWII? They were considered nuetral yet we invaded...it's all part of it.
It isn't that bad...it's funny that you bring up your statistics and if you notice this current war is not even yet close to the TENS of Thousands...thanks for continuously supporting my argument...
Justr because the 1993 WTC bombing planner was Iraqi doesn't mean Saddam was supporting him.
Speaking of Osama, Bush said only six months after 9/11 that he didn't care about him anymore. The video's here on Youtube. Not to mention Bush sent barely any troops in on the intial invasion, and there's still only a small percentage of them there compared to how many are in iraq.
You may want to piece together your information about the WTC bombing, that was such a stupid comment on your part. Small percentage of troops are working wonders over there in Iraq right now remember we've only, sadly, lost 3500 troops...which is a far cry from the initial 31000 that was predicted just for the invasion...we're a pretty fuckin powerful military...
Well actually Bush did catch the alleged perpetrator of 9/11 as well as a Saddam Hussein, his sons, Lybian dictator defect from his nuclear program...The WTC bomber of 93' was man named Yosef, who was caught with Iraqi passports...more terrorism occurred under Clinton than Bush twa 800, 427, Oklahoma City, bombing of American Embassys in Africa, and the USS Cole...Clinton did nothing but bomb a medicine factory in Afghaniston, and threw a couple of grenades into Iraq. Asshole.
Did nothing? Actually, super genius man, double check your history. Clinton attempted to do quite a bit to combat terrorism and he was fought EVERY step of the way by the Republicans.
Every time Clinton tried to do something about terrorism, get an anti-terror plan passed, or get anti-terror legislation passed the Republicans fought it.
Yes, lots of attacks did occur Clinton? Why? Because for some odd reason the Republicans kept fighting him on counter-terrorism even as attack after attack occurred.
As for Operation infinite Reach, I admit it was weak, despite missing Bin Laden by thirty minutes, so why didn't the Republicans tell him to do more? They didn't say it was weak then. They said he shouldn't have done it all. They were more concerned about a blowjob.
Listen Scotty, you believe what you want to believe, but I think you're goin to find that all of the presidents play for the same, team and each have done something to discredit the US and it's people...Clinton did actually do a lot of good things, but so has Bush, however Clinton has done a lot of terrible things to this country, but so has Bush... Do you believe in the underground government?
I never said Clinton was a saint. He had his share of corruption. My argument has been about his actions on terrorism. Clinton wasn't perfect, but he didn't turn the whole word against the US, or turn Iraq into a warzone with all the different ethnic groups at each other's throats.
He didn't turn Iraq into a warzone...correct...he did however, turn Kosovo into a warzone...before you say there was ethnic genocide, tell me where there wasn't ethnic genocide in Iraq? Plus, do you know the history of Kosovo? 9/11 was planned, as documented, well before Bush, meaning the whole world has always been against the US...Please name me a time after WWII when the world "loved" the US?
Please, Bosnia was a warzone long before Clinton went in. I'm not talking about the countries that already dislike the US, genius. I'm talking about our allies, the countries who at supported the US before, and who are now very pissed off at the US.
I'm sorry France doesn't constitute our true ally for they have planned to bomb our allies, Israel, in 1982...by nuclear weapon also...they've also been funneling money to help provide Saddam with certain key finances...the reason why France and Russia and China are angry with the US is because Saddam owed them billions, and the US invading that country threw whatever debt they had out the window...please its all over money and power, like you said, and that goes for the US as well.
If someone owed you a ton of money and someone else killed them and you never got that money, I imagine you'd be a little upset.
So France wanted to attack Israel. You think the US hasn't changed allies or enemies from time to time? The Iranian was once one of America's best friends, as was Saddam Hussein.
Also, it's NOT just France. Tons of countries were angry at the US government deciding to invade Iraq.
Iran was never our friend, nor Iraq, political allies maybe, but never our "allies". A lot of countries hated the US before Bush, hence the 9/11 attacks, even though it was under Bush's presidency the attack occurred, but it was planned since 1996. So we've always had terrorism and attacks on our country, as well as enemies...all that's happening is that it's a good political time for our, already known, enemies to fully express it, it's called propaganda...again, it's over power.
It's interesting how the same people who say Clinton didn't do enough to stop terrorism or Bin laden were the same ones who opposed all of his anti-terror efforts and opposed all anti-terror legislation he tried to get passed.
Sine, Bill Clinton:let Bin Laden and his holy warriors freelly go out from Bosnia and Kosovo,G.W.Bush is incouraging Albanian terrorist to take over Sebian Holy land Kosovo and Metohia, I have filling, that Bin Laden,instead benig terrorist,he is working for the....
what "bombshell admission"? that he didn't hold a person accountable for crimes that he had not yet commited? isn't that just about exactly what america was founded with the purpose of preventing?
None of the current presidential cantidates will be soft on terror, this is just a rediculous idea. To continue useing the same tactics we are using at present will be utterly disasterous. What we have seen so far as disasterous can get much much worse. How much worse? WWIII worse. Which would ammount to millions, or even billions dead. It's hard to imagine how we could more effectively bungle the War on Terror.
Dems / Liberals are week when it comes to taking out the enemy. It not a secret, So when Hillary gets in prepare for the end of the U.S. (just look at the History on how the Dem's handle evil)
Where does this concept even come from. Because some dumbass on air said it makes it true? A whole group of people don't all make the same mistakes. Stop grouping people together. People are individuals. Personally I am hopeig that Ron Paul gets elected. Of course the fact that he is being massivly sensored by big buissness probably means he won't. It frightens me just how rigged our elections really are.
The truth of the matter is that Bush has accomplished the impossible. Alquida(sp) is more powerful now then when he started his damn war. We have given them more reason's then ever to fight us. Meaning more people then ever before will fight us. Even doctors (who are supposed to be guardians of life). Do you think the eviliest(sp) people in history thought of themselves as evil? What the nazi's did, they thought they were doing good.
This is a war of idea's and ideals ,in that ring, stupidity will lose the day. What we are doing isn't a whole lot different then forcing ones finger into a chinese finger trap. You can't defeat an idea by killing people. Just look at christianty.
If you voted for Bush in the last election, please, don't vote, you don't have the common sense to make an intelligent decision. Bush will, don't doubt it, go down in history as the worse president ever. If this keeps up, terroists will have large enough forces to do horrifying damage.
I suspect that like Bush, many of the presidential cantidates for the possition of president are half wits and fools. If another of these idiots are elected, there is an increasing chance that our country will completely collapse. We are already well on the way. Anyone who thinks it can't happen, think again.
As it is right now, the moronic masses of this country have managed to elect a man who has empowered our enemys as no other could. We are in a far worse position now then we were before we went into the middle east. (more above)
This is just none sense. Since when did we start racking people over the coals for what happened long ago in the past? For those that say any of these guys are soft on terror consider this. (Read above)
Of course this is Clinton. Clintons lack of response to bin ladens slaughter of US citizens in African Embassies, slaughter of US sailors on the Cole,slaughter of US citizens in Black Hawk Down led directly to 911. It didnt start with Clinton. Reagan cut and ran from terrorists in Lebanon. Bush did nothing when Iran kidnapped British Sailors recently. this lack of response or action emboldens our enemy. They dont hate us because we attack them,they hate us and want to kill us because we
Interesting. Can you play the clip where Bush told the media he "is not even concerned about Bin Laden anymore" AFTER the 9/11 attacks? as well as Ronald Reagan selling Bin Laden weapons to fight the Russians in the early 80's. Why are people too ignorant to realize that is how Bin Laden became so powerful--WAY before the Clinton years.
In 1998, charges against Bin Laden were dropped by a NY federal grand jury. If Sudan had actually handed OBL to the U.S. he likely would have been acquitted of any crime. Although the 93 WTC bomber had been to Afghanistan camps run by Al Qaeda, Yousef seems to have acted independently. In fact, he would have destroyed the towers if only he had better funding. The U.S. decided it was better to let OBL go to Afghanistan and hopefully get the Saudis to assasinate him.
It's time to wake up! History tells us how human beings are and how many of them still are today: Greedy, selfish etc. as soon as they gain power and influence. One just needs to do some research about the CIA history and their indluence and not just believe every word of media, and puppets (presidents,chancellors etc.).
you are a retard. its obvious from your evidnce that clinton made it claer he had no rights to hold him. Have you ever seen someone go to jail for thinking about murder. You confirmed you are an ignorant idiot for taking time to compile something that highlights your stupidity. Have a good day IDIOT.
Hi, Im not a north american and I have been reading comments on you tube for a long time, I am impressed with how much anger and sometimes hate you guys treat each other, you are brothers!!!!
I have also notice it between south americans (I am south american)
You see, it's not Americans, or South Americans, or Asians, but people are people. Flesh is flesh, blood is blood. There is no such thing as races, we're all human, so we all hate each other, it's just human nature. We will never be without wars for even one moment throughout the world.
There are races in the world, no one can deny that. We all share one thing in common, we are human beings.
"we are all humans so we hate each other" Is that true? can you really proof that that is absolutley true? It is true for a few. Not for all. If you wach CNN and think this is "My World Today" then sure you think war is all there is.
What did you expect him to do if we had no reason to hold him?? Bush is the one who ignored him and went after oil in Iraq instead. Big whoop on this one.
Fuck you, assholes and war lovers!!! Do you really think that arrest or kill osama would change anything? The cells were operating, the attacks would happen, with or without osama. When are you stupid republicans gonna learn that killing, arresting and attacking will never end the problem? Saddam will die, but there will be no peace in Iraq. Pablo Escobar was shot by CIA a decade ago, and today the drug dealers control the half of colombian territory. Think, fellas. It´s the economy, stupid!!!
Fuck you, assholes and war lovers!!! Do you really think that arrest or kill osama will change anything? The cells were operating, the attacks would happen, with or without osama. When are you stupid republicans gonna learn that killing, arresting and attacking will never end the problem. Saddam will die, but there will be no peace in Iraq. Pablo escobar was shot by CIA a decade ago, and today the drug dealers control the half of colombian territory. Think, fellas. It´s the economy, stupid!!!
"fuck you, assholes and war lovers" "Stupid republicans" internet tough guy i see, anyway, you seem to make a good point about Pablo Escobar i found that interesting. but this anger and name calling Wow!!! i lov how you represent the Democrats....next time you make a comment either calm down or GROW UP !!!
Sorry about my bad words. I was just angry with replubicans trying to response Bill Clinton for the things that happen in their government. The Clinton´s years, in my opinion, were the most peacefull i have ever seem. If you wan to talk more about it, email me. And about the internet tough guy comment... wrong aswer. I am a Jiu-Jitsu state champion, tough anywere, anytime. But only with communists and conservative people who try to lie to me.
What do you mean by peaceful. Ignoring major issues so there is no confrontation? So you think since we fought in Somalia, Bosnia, and yes Iraq in 98, and Kosovo, that his presidency was peaceful? Its funny, I wonder how your comments would be if GW were to say those things that Clinton said in this video. Oh and lets' not forget Waco. WTC flight 427, 800, Yemen, US Embassies. I can go on and on, BUT apparently you think that his presidency was peaceful.
Its funny about the double standards you guys have. There is proof that Clinton could have Bin Laden killed but didn't take the opportunity. Bush is THE FIRST one to stand up to these asshole terrorists. It's also funny, Clinton bailed out of every conflict, except for Kosovo. Yet the people we killed there were no protests.
I think we could have gotten Osama Bin Laden when he was born took him out then when he was crawling. the key is "Commited NO Crime against America" at that time...funny how that part didn't catch your eye to busy concentrating on your point, manipulate the evidence. Bailed out on every conflict except Kosovo? STupid idiot go fucking read!
It's funny you haven't contradicted anything that I've said...plus, he was related to the WTC bombing in 93...yeah sure he hasn't committed a crime. Not to mention the US embassies in Africa...Plus, it's true cockboy that Clinton did bail out on every potential conflict except Kosovo...What other conflict did he complete dumbshit? So why don't you go read you stupid fuck!
Dude, I am just a brazillian guy who reads independent newspapers. And I am not gonna loose my time with this post anymore. In Brazil we say that the worst blindman is the one who doesn't want to see.
Tell you what, elect another republican, keep on killing the planet with polution, keep on causing trouble in the mideast and keep on proving us that you guys have no conditions to be the head of our civilization. I feel sorry because I used to believe that America was ruled by principles, but today i know is by money.
Really, we're the cleanest country in the world despite what the liberals say...mideast was already in turmoil before Bush was in office, please read your history about that. I do agree with you however, that today is about money...but it's not just the US, it's even your country, and every other major country in the world...no one, could ever contradict that, because it is the truth, however, it is lead by the US, I'll give you that.
Your president just went to Iraq for oil, and to give money for his sponsors of the war industry. Now he is lost. If the alies leave, Iraq wll became a powerful alied of Iran. USA invaded Iraq without proving that the mass destruction weapons exist. In Iran there are clear proves of nuclear weapons and your great presidente does nothing.
Its not over oil. It's a strategic move...study chess and you'll see that if we were to invade Iran, we have that country completely surrounded, as well as we control the waters...except for a small part. But we right now, because of the bullshit thats going on within our government...the dems, and libs wont let the president make a move, they challenge everything single thing he does and blames everything on him...Bush won't invade.
Now your president comes to Brazil to beg us teach you how to make ethanol, to destroy Hugo Chávez(a real comunist motherfucker) and be no dependent of the oil that you know will end someday. Hope we can make it. Sorry about the bad word again, but I only have those words for Chávez.
I don't think we're begging, but I think, economically it is hard to introduce hydrogen fuel, because thousands upon thousands of jobs will be lost, in the immediate realm, if we were to switch to hydrogen right away...running of oil, don't worry, the world has enough supply in general, but we need more efficient fuel.
Just look at the video of the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Palestinian self-government (1993), U.S. President Bill Clinton, facilitator of the agreement, shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasir 'Arafat. It speaks for more than a thousand words.
That Declaration has obviously nothing...look at what the Palestinians have accomplished since then, it goes without saying. Arafat, was an evil man, no different than Chavez...Clinton, you have to understand, modeled for people, but was dirty behind the camera...make no mistake, however, that all of the presidents have been since Roosevelt.
In my opinion, the Iraq invasion made the war in Iraq made the hate and anti-ocidental feelings grow up in the mideast. The result was the election of Hamas and Hezbollah for the Parlaments of Palestine and Lebanon, and the nuclear era of Iran. Israel is in real trouble.
Israel is in real touble I completely agree with you about that. The election of Hamas and Hezbollah, etc is not the result of the US, it's just an excuse...those factions have been at war with Israel for thousands of years. Iran has been trying to gain nuclear capabilities since the 50's. None of this is actually new, it just seems that way because our own media hates Bush, and consevatives in general. They're the true enemies of our country.
I am not a hypocrite to say just leave Iraq to be peace in the world. I think you must stay there and make that a strong democratic/capitalist country before leaving. And I think Iran must be punished like Cuba is until today, or even be bombed like Servia was.
I do agree with you completely about that...However, I don't see us attacking Iran anytime soon, just because I don't think we have a president that is able to withstand the criticism...everyone in our government pussy foots around. They each have their own agendas, and its not for the people, that is the truth.
Just understand that my point is: The 9/11 was an isolated act of Al Qaeda Cells, and arresting or killing Osama would not change anything. So, do not blame Bill Clinton for that. He only went to wars with the UN authorization, and in his government the hate was smaller and terrorists did not used to win elections.
The hate wasn't smaller it was just quiet, Clinton pandered to them. I don't blame Clinton for the terrorism, those people have always hated us which is fine. Clinton tried a different approach by ignoring it, but he bailed out on every potential threat. Bush also went into these wars under UN authorization. In my opinion we should, nor anyone, ever need to have UN opinion.
But, after all, I respect your opinion and even agree with some points. Thanks for give me some informations I did not have. I am also thinking that maybe Rudy Giuliani can be a good president. Now we are talking like gentlemen.
We are talking like gentleman, you seem like a pretty cool guy...I don't really like any of the candidates except Rudy, or McCain, I will never support anyone who says or sides with the idea that our military lost the war. They, to me, they are enemies of the state, and they show...So you won't see me support Clinton...especially since shes for gun control. I'm afraid of our government.
OMG, you tell me to go read... obviously if you did read, your fucking illiterate. Guess everything is about opinions with you, facts don't get through into your head. Perhaps a picture book would do. There's no disproving with you, I can't convince someone who doesn't want to listen to reason. Go ahead keep your opinions but just know that the majority of people think you're a complete idiot.
That's funny because you call me an idiot, yet you also said that I'm illiterate, which would mean that I can't type or read for that matter. Go ahead and you support your evil abortion, and your evil gay marriage...do whatever you'd like as long as it supports your lord and saviour Bill Clinton. Fucking Faggot.
Get it through your thick skull you can't read...you can't even convey your thoughts without sounding like a fucking bigot. Evil... yeah people like you are the first to point the finger but are lazy shit fucks that do absolutely do nothing. So drink your beer, use gods words to condemn those you hate... while those who actually give a shit try and tackle real problems to the best of their ability, oh yeah but that's not even good enough for you.
Hind sight is always 20/20. Clinton did not have a crystal ball to know what was going to happen on 9/11.Unfortunately we can't go after everyone who wants to hurt us.If we did it would make us no better than them.
Yet even after the bombing in Africa & the bombing of the Cole, Clinton DID NOTHING. Nothing to find out who was behind it, nothing to tell the Arab world we won't stand for it, HE DID NOTHING, which gave them the go ahead to hit the twin towers.
kathleenmarion 8 months ago
This is an insignificant posting. He hadn't been indicted at this point, so we couldn't grab him. You should spend time on things which matter.
muchadoaboutnoting 9 months ago
He clearly says here "I did not bring him here"
later he ties to say "I tried to get Bin Laden"
The man is a full time LIAR
SocietyIsToxic 3 years ago 2
@SocietyIsToxic So what? That just shows that he had no reason, morally or legally, because he had not committed a crime against America. John O'neill barely knew about bin Laden. But after he started attacking us he did try to get him. He wasn't lying (and I'm not a Clinton fan).
muchadoaboutnoting 9 months ago
WTC was attacked in '93...
LOL
SocietyIsToxic 3 years ago
The money was redesigned under Clinton and it showed the 9/11 attacks in the 90's while Clinton was still president.
His Hollywood buddies had lots of foreknowledge too since it was in several movies beforehand. And they all overnighted at the whitehouse.
illuminati card game '95 shows 9/11
The Lone Gunmen pilot , beforehand.
Simpson's 9/11, beforehand.
Sandy Burglar covered it up
Jamie Gorelick (doesn't pay her taxes) 9/11 commission let Sandy Burglar go.
SocietyIsToxic 3 years ago
lookup:
I Pledge
Obama worship
Obama Hitler Youth
Rahm Emannuel mandatory conscription
Kissinger Obama new world order
Obama & the beast limo
SocietyIsToxic 3 years ago
Hot Potato? I understand where liberals disagree with Iraq, but the same can be said about the 90's, shouldn't we have focused on capturing Bin Laden rather than bombing Kosovo?
JILampropoulos 3 years ago
@JILampropoulos When he said these things the Cole and the Africa bombings had not happened yet. These events were in '96. The '93 Twin Towers attack had not been linked to him...and actually he was only an inspiration for that...and he only had plans. We found out later he was linked to things. But the first things of any substance were the Embassy bombings in Africa in '98, and the Cole in 2000.
You're thinking with hindsight, which they did not have at that time.
muchadoaboutnoting 9 months ago
1998
Bill Clinton-Priority; terrorism and Bin Laden
Republican Congress-Priority; the fact that Cinton had gotten a few blowjobs
Scotty7617 3 years ago
well said.....
jayfly83 3 years ago
That's odd. Nowhere in this video did Clinton say he "did nothing about bin laden
All he said was the truth. He didn't take Bin laden after Sudan released him because he COULDN'T, as Bin Laden had not committed any terrorist acts against the US yet, and therefore could not be held by the US.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
"...All he said was the truth. He didn't take Bin laden after Sudan released him because he COULDN'T, as Bin Laden had not committed any terrorist acts against the US yet, and therefore could not be held by the US...."
Clinton claims he had no legal basis with which he could have taken UBL but, remember, this is a man who had broken every law in the books including rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, and probably murder. Why, all of a sudden, did Clinton think he needed to 'toe the line'?
timin770 3 years ago
"[On Iraq}It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
-Donald Rumsfeld
"The success will be fairly easy."
-John McCain
"I believe that we can an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."
-John McCain
Scotty7617 3 years ago
In which we did all of those...so your points actually support me...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Overwhelming victory and success? What about the current situation in Iraq fits those terms?
Scotty7617 3 years ago
the situation Iraq is not considered "war." Our mission was accomplished as Bush boasted...we did it in 3 weeks...but what we are doing now is considered peace time operations...no different during the Cold War in Germany, and elsewhere.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Oh, really? It's not a war? I don't know what your definition of war is, but mine includes things like guns, bullets, bombs, death, maiming, and destruction, all of which describe Iraq.
It's still a war even if it's not two massive armies going at it with each other.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
We're fighting a War On Terrorism, that's war we're fighting...we were experiencing the similar situations regarding terrorism in Japan and Germany in WWII...does that mean we were still at "war" with Germany and Japan? No. Don't forget, assuming you know your history, Vietnam and the Korean war (which technically not over), were actually considered "police actions" because no one declared war, therefore international sanctions and law were in full effect as opposed to if there was a war.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Of course, "police actions". That's a load of crap. They were wars. They just went under different names because it lessens the impact, and it's easier to decieve the people if you don't call them wars.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
I agree with you about the deception part, however, if you don't declare war then there are hundreds of international laws that took place...whether you like it or not, that is the "technical" definition for something to be considered a war...American troops were not allowed to raise their flag in certain areas nor assassinate certain people nor attack certain areas, the American troops went crazy over situations like this. It was obvious the conflicts were for political reasons.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Well, thank God Bush caught Bin Laden! Oh, wait.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
During the Monica Lewinsky scandal;
Clinton-Why don't we keep this affair my private matter and focus on more important things like fighting terrorism?
Republicans-No, we must focus all political attention on you getting consensual oral sex from an adult woman and it must eat up all the headlines and news air time instead of this unimportant terrorist issue.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
Yeah, Clinton didn't take him because he couldn't. It was 1996. Bin Laden had not yet committed any terrorist acts against the US. If Clinton had taken Bin Laden, he could not have been charged with anything.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
are you dumb? he was responsible for the car bomb under the world trade center in 93 and responsible for the building bomb in oklahoma in 95...combined killed over 50 americans i believe and hurt more then 1500...clinton had the chance to take bin laden into custody multiple times from 96-00...he just didnt do it
schaeffer817 4 years ago
No, he was not repsonsibile for the 1993 WTC bombong. He was defintiely not responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. I don't know where you got that one from. After Sudan released Bin Laden he disappeared into Afghanistan. It didn't help that the Republican Congress opposed every anti-terror effort Clinton did make.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
And speaking of the 1993 WTC bombing, at least Clinton made sure the people who did it were caught. Bush has yet to catch Bin Laden and has publicly stated he doesn't care about him. Only six months after 9/11 he said that. The video is here on Youtube. Clinton never said he didn't care about Bin laden.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
what he meabt by not caring was that he was as good as dead
eagle8290 4 years ago
No, he meant he didn't care. He needed to get the public to start focusing on his war of profit in Iraq. He didn't care about Osama becuase he had already served his purpose of making the public scared and ready to be lied into the war in Iraq. Also, Osama didn't have a massive oil supply to steal.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
How is Bush profiting of this war in Iraq? Please tell me...please.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
How is Bush profiting? Check any business magazine and see how much the profits and stock for Bush's corporate buddies have gone up since this war began.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
do you have any stock in those companies? Bush by the way owns less than 20% of those companies, he does not hold significant influence in any of them nor his buddies... Hilary Clinton used to be on the board for Wal Mart, and still supports the company today, not to say that's a bad thing, but it looks exactly the same as Bush and Co. putting stock into these other companies, which he, again, holds no significant influence in the companies.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Bush just does what his corporate masters tell him to do. Then of course there's Cheney who was CEO of Hailburton who has definitely profited from this war.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
I'm sorry dude, "corporate masters"? If you're a shareholder, the CEO tries to please you...not the other way around...About Cheney, name a president that hasn't done the same...please name one...I'm not saying what he does is right, but it's no different than what any other president has done...so why the sudden outcry against Bush...that's the media...stop listening to the news and maybe you'll hear more.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
If you can't see throught this scam of a war you are so stupid I can't tell if it's more pathetic or sad. This war is about money and power. We would NOT be in Iraq right now if it didn't have that massive supply of oil to steal, or if Bush didn't have a personal vendetta against Saddam.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Again, it's not that I'm disagreeing with you, but you blame Bush as if this has been something new with presidencies...If you look at the reasons why we (NATO) went into Kosovo, and compare it to it's history, you're gonna find that we shouldn't have been there either...please read your history, and stop blaming Bush, he is a puppet, blame the government...whether you want to believe this or not, there is a shadow government at play here.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
I didn't approve of Kosovo either. That was also a source of income for the war profiteers as well and got a ton of innocents killed, but Clinton knew when to end it, he didn't try to go it alone and had support from the rest of NATO, and didn't turn it into what Bush has turned Iraq into.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
First off the Democrats turned the war into something that it is now...Bush won the war in Iraq, but the peace time operations are what we're apparently struggling with. Don't forget we are still in Kosovo, and there still is uprising and violence and terrorism going on there right now. But you don't hear about it, hardly, because it was propagated by the media to support a political cause. You may not have supported it, but where were you protesting it like you are this war?
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Even if the Dems supported this war it would still be where it's at. The people of Iraq have been fighting with each other forever and have only ever been unified by force. It was foolish to think once the US came in they would just stop fighting and unite and accept a government being imposed on them.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
No one expected that nor did Bush...and by the way Bush didn't fire all of his generals...no one said the "fighting" would stop, in fact they explained that we are gonna do what we can to halt a civil war... everyone knew that there would be a potential civil war...everyone. stop pretending as if he was not advised of this, or as if he didn't know...seriously, are you in his cabinet, or congress?
ImBatman49 3 years ago
It wasn't the Dems that turned Iraq into what it is now. You forget how many Democrats supported Bush all the way in the beginning. It was Bush firing the generals who disagreed with him, not sending in enough troops, not having a plan for the violence among the ethnic groups, not having an exit strategy, and not sending the troops in properly equipped.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
The most powerful military in the world... no exit plan? are you serious? bush explained very vehemently, this is not going to be easy and it will take a very long time...look how long it took for Germany, and Kosovo? Explain to me what the exit plan for those countries are...how did people think it would take for things to settle down there? People have this idea in their head, that everything things will happen very quickly, but Bush explained that it will not...what don't you understand?
ImBatman49 3 years ago
"[Iraq} It could last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months."
-Donald Rumsfeld
"The succes will be overwhelmingly easy."
-John McCain
"I believe we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."
-John McCain
Scotty7617 3 years ago
"The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had
But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."
-Cheney
Scotty7617 3 years ago
"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off."-Dick Cheney, 1994 interview
Scotty7617 3 years ago
"It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq." Dick Cheney, same interview
Scotty7617 3 years ago
That was back in 1994...which again was a completely different situation. It's funny, if we would've taken out Saddam when we had a chance we wouldn't be in this mess today... funny how when people try to please others like you, just because it wasn't "peaceful" doesn't mean it was wrong to do...had we ended Saddam's reign of terror in the early 90's we wouldn't be having this argument... thanks for wasting everyone's time...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
You honestly believe that the US would not have been in the same situation if we'd removed Saddam in 1991? The exact same thing would have happened, per Cheney's prediction.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
We still would have been attacked on 9/11, but we would have had Iraq as a launching base...and we probably would have gone after Syria, or Iran...You don't seem to quite realize our positioning in Iraq, we can attack anyone from any direction that we want now that we are in Iraq...it's called a military strategy, others would say it's a chess move.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Are you even thinking about what you are writing? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason these people blow up our embassies and rammed planes into our buildings is because our leaders shared your line of thinking?
How would YOU feel if another country came here and started forcing us to do things a certain way? If they did to us what our government has done in the Middle East? I imagine you'd be pretty pissed.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
don't hand me this "how would you feel" bullshit...These are the same people that cried when we left Iraq in 91. So when we're there building schools and parks trying to get their country back into order, we're doing a damn good job...You may also have forgotten that we're fighting outside terrorists, Hezbollah, and Syrians and Saddam supporters, not regular Iraq citizens, or people who really live there. They are foreign terrorists, not Iraqi, for that's not how they ever fought before...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Yeah, SOME people were saying we should have stayed in Iraq in 1991. They were wrong then just as the current war supporters are wrong now.
Oh, so we shouldn't take anyone's feelings into account? We should just say "to hell with what everybody else thinks. We're gonna do whatever we feel like."?
It's not bullshit. It's actually a very importtant thing to consider.
It was calling it bullshit that led to people ramming planes into our buidlings.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Putting our noses into peoples business having that be the reasons why people hate us, is an accurate statement on your part, if you weren't so blinded by being angry at Bush, or me, you'd realize that I completely agree with you about that, hence the reason why I keep saying that our war in Iraq is NOT NEW...historically, Kosovo, Bosnia, Grenada, Vietnam....but if you agree about this, then where were you protesting Kosovo? That's what I'm talking about....everyone only goes by the media.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
The reason I wasn't protesting Kosovo is because I was pretty young at the time and didn't really understand it, though when I learned about it later on I thought it was a bad idea.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Then you should be protesting the American government not Bush because you're soon gonna realize that it doesn't matter who the president is, because he is not in charge... I dont like our government because although I have supported this war, I am finding through much reading and research that our government always has alterior motives for everything... I don't know what the motive would be for Iraq, and don't say oil, cause it's not, but it is something else, just like Kosovo, probably control
ImBatman49 3 years ago
I'm not just angry with Bush. I'm just mentioning him because he's the figurehead in all this. I'm angry with the other people who supported and still support the war, including the Democrats who did.
No, it's not just oil, although that is a big part. There's plenty of other people who profit from war, like the arms industry. Look on Youtube for Dwight Eisenhower's speech about it.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Partial response to above oil comment:Do a search for NON-ENERGY CRISIS. It's from several years ago & details current situations. Also research the FedReserve. Apparently the banks control everything-even the president(?!). It's sickening really. Especially 'freedom' of the press. So many problems.. so few real solutions.
lordcliffton 3 years ago
The US government can NOT do whatever the hell it feels like without fear of backlash.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
This "backlash" is bad, doubt, but even Bush had said from the very beginning, that after the war in Iraq, maintaining peace is NOT going to be easy and that the road is very long and treacherous...just look at Germany, and Japan, it took Japan 10 years to settle down, and Germany 50 years because of the Soviets...in Iraq, it will take a long time because everyone wants that land like Iran, which was an enemy of Iraq, and Syria...it's a hard road to clear...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
How do you not see the difference between Japan and Germany and Iraq?
US troops weren't being shot and blown up on a daily basis by Germans and Japanese during our occupations there.
We actally had a clear straegy for rebuilding the countries as well as timelines.
We didn't have to worry about violence between different ethnic groups.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Wow, sir, you really need to learn your history, yes there were people blowing themselves up, and sniping and shooting and blowing American soldiers up in Japan, and Germany...there were a lot of attacks like that...plus, rebuilding nations like Japan and Germany we did not know truly how to rebuild...we used old fashioned techniques which were the only ways we knew how....please read you history, very inaccurate statement on your part...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
I know my history. I said during the occupation, the post war occupation, not during the war.
I'm well aware of what Japanese and German troops did in battle. They weren't doing those things after they surrendered and the US was rebuilding their countries.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
By the way it's not people like me, it's the people who crave and love power...they intend to hurt American and foreign people. If you do your history, which i'm sure you haven't, you'll notice that each president since FDR has gotten rid of some right of ours, plus gotten us into stupid wars/conflicts, Vietnam, Grenada, Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran (although only financed by the US, for the Iraqis)...War on Terrorism would not have occurred had we not been in everyone's business, it's not Bush.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
I'm well aware that it was the presidents before Bush. That's my whole point. These people are super pissed at the US for meddling in their countries and doing stupid things to them for the past sixty years.
After a few decades there's going to be some retaliation.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Everyone had a plan for how we were to fight the war, and create a new government, it was said we'd be there no less than 10 years. It is the Dems who have voted for all of his policies as well...we only needed 130,000 to take over Iraq, as was proven, peace time ops, there was a troop increase which has also worked as well. The troops are equiped now at least, I only go by how the media is not complaining about it, like they did when they were ill equipped. Seems to be taken care of as of now
ImBatman49 3 years ago
"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily end up seeing parts of Iraq fly off."-Dick Cheney, 1994 interview
"It's a quagmire. If you go that far, and try to take over Iraq."
-Dick Cheney, same interview
Scotty7617 3 years ago
None of your points support your view...in fact they support mine...you have quote from 1994, quotes stating that we have lost very few casualties, again in support of me...you "quagmire" statement was made in 1994, which has no bearing on todays current War on Terrorism. Thanks for googling though to prove yourself an idiot, and myself right.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
I keep seeing that argument. Yes, the world may have chnaged since 9/11, but did Cheney's prediction?
Scotty7617 3 years ago
No. That was a different situation back then...that was a terrible argument on your part.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
How is that a terrible argument? Cheney's prediction still came true. Even after 9/11 invading Iraq still caused a quagmire.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
I don't even think you know what that means... it's not a quagmire.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Yes. These are different circumstances and issues. It possibly could have been true back then, but nor today.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-George W. Bush, 1999, regarding Bill Clinton about Kosovo
Scotty7617 3 years ago
And we're still in Kosovo...and we're still in Germany, and we're still in Iraq... yet are you saying that we have not won any of these wars? Peace time operations are different than the actual war... where did you get your quote from?
ImBatman49 3 years ago
I said before I dont think Kosovo was a good idea.
Question, how many US troops and German civilians are being shot and blown up by roadside bombs every day?
There's a few thousand websites with that quote on it. Bush was telling the truth.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
But if you want to know the source of the quote it's the Houston Chronicles.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
When we have an exit strategy for Kosovo, then please educate me on how we should exit Iraq...you may not know this but we have been losing Allied soldiers over there every year since our interference upon the country back in 1999, or whatever the year was when we bombed them. It was the peace time operations that we lost the most soldiers...not the actual war itself. We apparently won only by bombing, which no soldiers were lost, except after the "war."
ImBatman49 3 years ago
by the way we didn't go it alone in Iraq... Clinton knew when to end it? What? when did it end? You do know we're still over there right now trying to keep the peace right? Wait since you didn't read it in the news paper that means nothing is going on right now, that means it over, right? Please read a book or something? We're still losing American and allied forces in Kosovo...we supported the wrong side as well...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
You do realize that Bush that Bush averages a gross income of $747,000, including investment income, a year right? Hardly a major profit in stock with Haliburton, and whatever other companies he has an interest in....Bush made more before he was president. the profits are exaggerated on your end their bud.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
That's true, Osama financed his millions through opium, he didn't need oil. Osama wasn't the person who committed the acts of 9/11, allegedly, we caught that guy already... Osama is a whole different issue for Pakistan is involved, and there is a major political storm going on over there, unless we invade Pakistan, we won't be getting Osama any time soon. Our hands are tied in politics in that situation. Just to let you know Yosef had Iraqi passports when he bomb the wtc in 93.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
So don't tell me that Iraq has nothing to do with this War On Terrorism...you may want to learn your history a little more...Saddam even tried to Bush senior assassinated in 93. Saddam had known terrorist ties, I can actually go on all day...however, there are alterior motives for the US going into Iraq, I'll give you that because we haven't invaded Iran or Syria like we should have, then it would've been a true war. It's an underground government at play, make no mistake...
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Wow, so because Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad that justifies going in and causing the whole country to collaps on itself and start a civil war among the different groups?
Even if Saddam had ties to terrorists this war has greatly increased the terrorist threat, not lessened it.
Saddam supported suicide bombers in Palestine, though there seems to be a lot more suicide bombings going on since the invasion.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Funny we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11...more terrorists created? Prove it...how are terrorists, hate and anger, any different than what it was during the 70's, 80's, and 90's...please explain yourself, because the way I see it, is we haven't been attacked, yet...and you're afraid that since the terrorists hate us more, we should stop this war? You mean there would be no more terrorism if we quit? What world are you from? What psychology books have you been reading?
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Oh, yes, I love that argument. "We haven't been attacked since 9/11." WRONG. Yes, we have. I don't know what your definition of "attack" is, but mine includes 4000 dead US troops and 30000 wounded, with the numbers going up every day.
No, terrorism wouldn't cease, but if the US government would STOP meddling in the affairs of the Middle East there would be a lot less.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
I'm sorry that's not an attack on US soil, or embassies...those are military altercations involving terrorists...this is a war you know...the war right now is in the Middle East...please don't over exaggerate the loss of American lives in Iraq for we've averaged 5,600 losses a year in Vietnam...and over 16,000 in Korea in the 50's...our troops haven't lost many, I've even lost a friend over there, but that's war unfortunately...it was predicted to be a lot worse by about 40,000 lives. Puhlease.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
People who jusitfy Iraq by saying "we haven't lost that many" are the most heartless. You act like just because it's less the lives were worth less too. Tell that to the families of the killed. Would you still say the same if you lost family to this war? Would you just shrug and say "Oh, well, we've lost a lot more in other wars."?
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Heartless? Ha!!! It's assholes like you that predicted that we'd lose 35,000, but when people like me, who say thank God we didn't lose nearly close to that amount, I'm considered heartless...yes you exaggerate a truth to fit your own political schemes.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Actually, I predicted it would be a lot less than what it is now.
I foolishly supported this war when it began. I actually believed it was about protecting America and bringing freedom to the peopel of Iraq. I believed the bullshit lies that led to it. I refused to see facts when they were right in front of my face, much like you now.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
First off no you didn't, you have no basis to predict such a thing...There are casualties in war, and it's a shame to lose one soldier...but to say after 7 years of combat that you predicted less than 3000 casualties as well as 30,000 wounded is utter bullshit... you're stating that just to try to make your point...please be honest in this discussion...don't exaggerate...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
No, I really did. I Also, it's only been five years in Iraq, not seven. Plus, what is an "acceptable" number of deaths to you? It may be "low" to you, but it's everything to loved ones of those killed.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
No you really didn't dream that one... and you're right about "it's everything to loved ones" I have not ever disagreed with you about that? Just because you get punched in the face, does that mean you stop fighting? No. It was explained very distinctly that we are going to lose men and women, it is unprecedented however, that we have lost so little as well as wounded, compared what was predicted originally. You say things could be better, I say things could've been a lot worse.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
And of course you forget the 30,000+ wounded in this war of lies. I guess they don't count. As long they just lose some limbs, but they're still alive it's not a real loss.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Again, just to try to prove yourself right you propagate bullshit just to make yourself sound right..."they're still alive it's not a real loss." First I never said that, and two is that your only argument...so please don't put words into my mouth...that's a typical liberal move...next you'll be saying I don't like oxygen because I don't believe in the bullshit about global warming...you're a terrible arguer.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
I'm just tired of hearing that this war "isn't that bad" just becaus fewer have died than in other wars.
4000 have died in Iraq? That's not a lot. 58000 died in Vietnam. Only 58000 died in Vietnam? That's not a lot 400,000 died in WWII? Only 400,000 died in WWII? That's not a lot. 600,000 died in the Civil War.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
If you're gonna give me statistics, here's some for you...5,800 avg of American deaths in Vietnam...over 100,000 thousand deaths in WWII, and the civil war, over 17,000 deaths avg in the Korean War avg. a year...we've been in this War On Terror for almost 7 years, not five, Iraq is five years, but that is also part of the War On Terrorism...if you don't believe me, then what do you say about the allies invading Iran in WWII? They were considered nuetral yet we invaded...it's all part of it.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
It isn't that bad...it's funny that you bring up your statistics and if you notice this current war is not even yet close to the TENS of Thousands...thanks for continuously supporting my argument...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Justr because the 1993 WTC bombing planner was Iraqi doesn't mean Saddam was supporting him.
Speaking of Osama, Bush said only six months after 9/11 that he didn't care about him anymore. The video's here on Youtube. Not to mention Bush sent barely any troops in on the intial invasion, and there's still only a small percentage of them there compared to how many are in iraq.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
You may want to piece together your information about the WTC bombing, that was such a stupid comment on your part. Small percentage of troops are working wonders over there in Iraq right now remember we've only, sadly, lost 3500 troops...which is a far cry from the initial 31000 that was predicted just for the invasion...we're a pretty fuckin powerful military...
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Well actually Bush did catch the alleged perpetrator of 9/11 as well as a Saddam Hussein, his sons, Lybian dictator defect from his nuclear program...The WTC bomber of 93' was man named Yosef, who was caught with Iraqi passports...more terrorism occurred under Clinton than Bush twa 800, 427, Oklahoma City, bombing of American Embassys in Africa, and the USS Cole...Clinton did nothing but bomb a medicine factory in Afghaniston, and threw a couple of grenades into Iraq. Asshole.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Did nothing? Actually, super genius man, double check your history. Clinton attempted to do quite a bit to combat terrorism and he was fought EVERY step of the way by the Republicans.
Every time Clinton tried to do something about terrorism, get an anti-terror plan passed, or get anti-terror legislation passed the Republicans fought it.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
Yes, lots of attacks did occur Clinton? Why? Because for some odd reason the Republicans kept fighting him on counter-terrorism even as attack after attack occurred.
As for Operation infinite Reach, I admit it was weak, despite missing Bin Laden by thirty minutes, so why didn't the Republicans tell him to do more? They didn't say it was weak then. They said he shouldn't have done it all. They were more concerned about a blowjob.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
Listen Scotty, you believe what you want to believe, but I think you're goin to find that all of the presidents play for the same, team and each have done something to discredit the US and it's people...Clinton did actually do a lot of good things, but so has Bush, however Clinton has done a lot of terrible things to this country, but so has Bush... Do you believe in the underground government?
ImBatman49 4 years ago
I never said Clinton was a saint. He had his share of corruption. My argument has been about his actions on terrorism. Clinton wasn't perfect, but he didn't turn the whole word against the US, or turn Iraq into a warzone with all the different ethnic groups at each other's throats.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
He didn't turn Iraq into a warzone...correct...he did however, turn Kosovo into a warzone...before you say there was ethnic genocide, tell me where there wasn't ethnic genocide in Iraq? Plus, do you know the history of Kosovo? 9/11 was planned, as documented, well before Bush, meaning the whole world has always been against the US...Please name me a time after WWII when the world "loved" the US?
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Please, Bosnia was a warzone long before Clinton went in. I'm not talking about the countries that already dislike the US, genius. I'm talking about our allies, the countries who at supported the US before, and who are now very pissed off at the US.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
I'm sorry France doesn't constitute our true ally for they have planned to bomb our allies, Israel, in 1982...by nuclear weapon also...they've also been funneling money to help provide Saddam with certain key finances...the reason why France and Russia and China are angry with the US is because Saddam owed them billions, and the US invading that country threw whatever debt they had out the window...please its all over money and power, like you said, and that goes for the US as well.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
If someone owed you a ton of money and someone else killed them and you never got that money, I imagine you'd be a little upset.
So France wanted to attack Israel. You think the US hasn't changed allies or enemies from time to time? The Iranian was once one of America's best friends, as was Saddam Hussein.
Also, it's NOT just France. Tons of countries were angry at the US government deciding to invade Iraq.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
Iran was never our friend, nor Iraq, political allies maybe, but never our "allies". A lot of countries hated the US before Bush, hence the 9/11 attacks, even though it was under Bush's presidency the attack occurred, but it was planned since 1996. So we've always had terrorism and attacks on our country, as well as enemies...all that's happening is that it's a good political time for our, already known, enemies to fully express it, it's called propaganda...again, it's over power.
ImBatman49 3 years ago
Terrorist attacks occurred well before Clintons blow job....
ImBatman49 3 years ago
It's interesting how the same people who say Clinton didn't do enough to stop terrorism or Bin laden were the same ones who opposed all of his anti-terror efforts and opposed all anti-terror legislation he tried to get passed.
Scotty7617 4 years ago
Sine, Bill Clinton:let Bin Laden and his holy warriors freelly go out from Bosnia and Kosovo,G.W.Bush is incouraging Albanian terrorist to take over Sebian Holy land Kosovo and Metohia, I have filling, that Bin Laden,instead benig terrorist,he is working for the....
stevan1934 4 years ago
what "bombshell admission"? that he didn't hold a person accountable for crimes that he had not yet commited? isn't that just about exactly what america was founded with the purpose of preventing?
Jmartin2683 4 years ago
check out video on George W. Bush going after Bin Laden. Hilarioius!
gelinabacicommercial 4 years ago
What search words are needed to find it?
Skorian007 4 years ago
None of the current presidential cantidates will be soft on terror, this is just a rediculous idea. To continue useing the same tactics we are using at present will be utterly disasterous. What we have seen so far as disasterous can get much much worse. How much worse? WWIII worse. Which would ammount to millions, or even billions dead. It's hard to imagine how we could more effectively bungle the War on Terror.
Skorian007 4 years ago
Dems / Liberals are week when it comes to taking out the enemy. It not a secret, So when Hillary gets in prepare for the end of the U.S. (just look at the History on how the Dem's handle evil)
DoctorWho1968 4 years ago
Where does this concept even come from. Because some dumbass on air said it makes it true? A whole group of people don't all make the same mistakes. Stop grouping people together. People are individuals. Personally I am hopeig that Ron Paul gets elected. Of course the fact that he is being massivly sensored by big buissness probably means he won't. It frightens me just how rigged our elections really are.
Skorian007 4 years ago
The truth of the matter is that Bush has accomplished the impossible. Alquida(sp) is more powerful now then when he started his damn war. We have given them more reason's then ever to fight us. Meaning more people then ever before will fight us. Even doctors (who are supposed to be guardians of life). Do you think the eviliest(sp) people in history thought of themselves as evil? What the nazi's did, they thought they were doing good.
Skorian007 4 years ago
This is a war of idea's and ideals ,in that ring, stupidity will lose the day. What we are doing isn't a whole lot different then forcing ones finger into a chinese finger trap. You can't defeat an idea by killing people. Just look at christianty.
Skorian007 4 years ago
If you voted for Bush in the last election, please, don't vote, you don't have the common sense to make an intelligent decision. Bush will, don't doubt it, go down in history as the worse president ever. If this keeps up, terroists will have large enough forces to do horrifying damage.
Skorian007 4 years ago
I suspect that like Bush, many of the presidential cantidates for the possition of president are half wits and fools. If another of these idiots are elected, there is an increasing chance that our country will completely collapse. We are already well on the way. Anyone who thinks it can't happen, think again.
Skorian007 4 years ago
As it is right now, the moronic masses of this country have managed to elect a man who has empowered our enemys as no other could. We are in a far worse position now then we were before we went into the middle east. (more above)
Skorian007 4 years ago
This is just none sense. Since when did we start racking people over the coals for what happened long ago in the past? For those that say any of these guys are soft on terror consider this. (Read above)
Skorian007 4 years ago
Sorry I need video, pictures, some kid of better proof of your point! Put in your search engine Hillary Clinton Helps Children! You'll find a bunch!
jcjcd 4 years ago
Of course this is Clinton. Clintons lack of response to bin ladens slaughter of US citizens in African Embassies, slaughter of US sailors on the Cole,slaughter of US citizens in Black Hawk Down led directly to 911. It didnt start with Clinton. Reagan cut and ran from terrorists in Lebanon. Bush did nothing when Iran kidnapped British Sailors recently. this lack of response or action emboldens our enemy. They dont hate us because we attack them,they hate us and want to kill us because we
ytb333 4 years ago
Interesting. Can you play the clip where Bush told the media he "is not even concerned about Bin Laden anymore" AFTER the 9/11 attacks? as well as Ronald Reagan selling Bin Laden weapons to fight the Russians in the early 80's. Why are people too ignorant to realize that is how Bin Laden became so powerful--WAY before the Clinton years.
skylarportland 4 years ago
I've listened so carefully but this does not sound like Clinton speaking. Is it?
gocar62 4 years ago
In 1998, charges against Bin Laden were dropped by a NY federal grand jury. If Sudan had actually handed OBL to the U.S. he likely would have been acquitted of any crime. Although the 93 WTC bomber had been to Afghanistan camps run by Al Qaeda, Yousef seems to have acted independently. In fact, he would have destroyed the towers if only he had better funding. The U.S. decided it was better to let OBL go to Afghanistan and hopefully get the Saudis to assasinate him.
mujinnokoya 4 years ago
People like Ghandi, Mandela, Daleilama and a couple of others give hope for a better century but unfortunately people forget about them too soon!!
emilbo 5 years ago
It's time to wake up! History tells us how human beings are and how many of them still are today: Greedy, selfish etc. as soon as they gain power and influence. One just needs to do some research about the CIA history and their indluence and not just believe every word of media, and puppets (presidents,chancellors etc.).
emilbo 5 years ago
you are a retard. its obvious from your evidnce that clinton made it claer he had no rights to hold him. Have you ever seen someone go to jail for thinking about murder. You confirmed you are an ignorant idiot for taking time to compile something that highlights your stupidity. Have a good day IDIOT.
bazooka62 5 years ago
You idiot, what part of "at the time" dont u understand? Gotta go, Rosanne Barr grabbed her crotch on a baseball mound.
Urbanz1975 5 years ago
Hi, Im not a north american and I have been reading comments on you tube for a long time, I am impressed with how much anger and sometimes hate you guys treat each other, you are brothers!!!!
I have also notice it between south americans (I am south american)
war will end when we end it first inside.
cheers!
Santisantiago 5 years ago
You see, it's not Americans, or South Americans, or Asians, but people are people. Flesh is flesh, blood is blood. There is no such thing as races, we're all human, so we all hate each other, it's just human nature. We will never be without wars for even one moment throughout the world.
FlawdaBway 5 years ago
There are races in the world, no one can deny that. We all share one thing in common, we are human beings.
"we are all humans so we hate each other" Is that true? can you really proof that that is absolutley true? It is true for a few. Not for all. If you wach CNN and think this is "My World Today" then sure you think war is all there is.
hate = ignorance.
you hate when you dont know any better.
Santisantiago 5 years ago
retard. if we listen to your reasoning, we'd jail everybody we think will commit a crime in the future.
quixotic115 5 years ago
What did you expect him to do if we had no reason to hold him?? Bush is the one who ignored him and went after oil in Iraq instead. Big whoop on this one.
omasbabies 5 years ago
Fuck you, assholes and war lovers!!! Do you really think that arrest or kill osama would change anything? The cells were operating, the attacks would happen, with or without osama. When are you stupid republicans gonna learn that killing, arresting and attacking will never end the problem? Saddam will die, but there will be no peace in Iraq. Pablo Escobar was shot by CIA a decade ago, and today the drug dealers control the half of colombian territory. Think, fellas. It´s the economy, stupid!!!
alexandregiaretta 5 years ago
Fuck you, assholes and war lovers!!! Do you really think that arrest or kill osama will change anything? The cells were operating, the attacks would happen, with or without osama. When are you stupid republicans gonna learn that killing, arresting and attacking will never end the problem. Saddam will die, but there will be no peace in Iraq. Pablo escobar was shot by CIA a decade ago, and today the drug dealers control the half of colombian territory. Think, fellas. It´s the economy, stupid!!!
alexandregiaretta 5 years ago
"fuck you, assholes and war lovers" "Stupid republicans" internet tough guy i see, anyway, you seem to make a good point about Pablo Escobar i found that interesting. but this anger and name calling Wow!!! i lov how you represent the Democrats....next time you make a comment either calm down or GROW UP !!!
k7k1p 5 years ago
Sorry about my bad words. I was just angry with replubicans trying to response Bill Clinton for the things that happen in their government. The Clinton´s years, in my opinion, were the most peacefull i have ever seem. If you wan to talk more about it, email me. And about the internet tough guy comment... wrong aswer. I am a Jiu-Jitsu state champion, tough anywere, anytime. But only with communists and conservative people who try to lie to me.
alexandregiaretta 5 years ago
Its funny, your comment about jiu-jitsu has no relevance on whether you're a tough guy or in this forum.
ImBatman49 5 years ago
What do you mean by peaceful. Ignoring major issues so there is no confrontation? So you think since we fought in Somalia, Bosnia, and yes Iraq in 98, and Kosovo, that his presidency was peaceful? Its funny, I wonder how your comments would be if GW were to say those things that Clinton said in this video. Oh and lets' not forget Waco. WTC flight 427, 800, Yemen, US Embassies. I can go on and on, BUT apparently you think that his presidency was peaceful.
ImBatman49 5 years ago
Its funny about the double standards you guys have. There is proof that Clinton could have Bin Laden killed but didn't take the opportunity. Bush is THE FIRST one to stand up to these asshole terrorists. It's also funny, Clinton bailed out of every conflict, except for Kosovo. Yet the people we killed there were no protests.
ImBatman49 5 years ago
Actually Bin Laden was hired by the CIA. The leader of the CIA at the time was George Bush Sr.
richardhalsted1984 5 years ago
so...we were at war with the communists, soviet union at the time...what's your point.
ImBatman49 5 years ago
I think we could have gotten Osama Bin Laden when he was born took him out then when he was crawling. the key is "Commited NO Crime against America" at that time...funny how that part didn't catch your eye to busy concentrating on your point, manipulate the evidence. Bailed out on every conflict except Kosovo? STupid idiot go fucking read!
whatever500200 5 years ago
It's funny you haven't contradicted anything that I've said...plus, he was related to the WTC bombing in 93...yeah sure he hasn't committed a crime. Not to mention the US embassies in Africa...Plus, it's true cockboy that Clinton did bail out on every potential conflict except Kosovo...What other conflict did he complete dumbshit? So why don't you go read you stupid fuck!
ImBatman49 5 years ago
Dude, I am just a brazillian guy who reads independent newspapers. And I am not gonna loose my time with this post anymore. In Brazil we say that the worst blindman is the one who doesn't want to see.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
that's a Bible proverb
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Tell you what, elect another republican, keep on killing the planet with polution, keep on causing trouble in the mideast and keep on proving us that you guys have no conditions to be the head of our civilization. I feel sorry because I used to believe that America was ruled by principles, but today i know is by money.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
Really, we're the cleanest country in the world despite what the liberals say...mideast was already in turmoil before Bush was in office, please read your history about that. I do agree with you however, that today is about money...but it's not just the US, it's even your country, and every other major country in the world...no one, could ever contradict that, because it is the truth, however, it is lead by the US, I'll give you that.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Your president just went to Iraq for oil, and to give money for his sponsors of the war industry. Now he is lost. If the alies leave, Iraq wll became a powerful alied of Iran. USA invaded Iraq without proving that the mass destruction weapons exist. In Iran there are clear proves of nuclear weapons and your great presidente does nothing.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
Its not over oil. It's a strategic move...study chess and you'll see that if we were to invade Iran, we have that country completely surrounded, as well as we control the waters...except for a small part. But we right now, because of the bullshit thats going on within our government...the dems, and libs wont let the president make a move, they challenge everything single thing he does and blames everything on him...Bush won't invade.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Now your president comes to Brazil to beg us teach you how to make ethanol, to destroy Hugo Chávez(a real comunist motherfucker) and be no dependent of the oil that you know will end someday. Hope we can make it. Sorry about the bad word again, but I only have those words for Chávez.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
I don't think we're begging, but I think, economically it is hard to introduce hydrogen fuel, because thousands upon thousands of jobs will be lost, in the immediate realm, if we were to switch to hydrogen right away...running of oil, don't worry, the world has enough supply in general, but we need more efficient fuel.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Just look at the video of the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Palestinian self-government (1993), U.S. President Bill Clinton, facilitator of the agreement, shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasir 'Arafat. It speaks for more than a thousand words.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
That Declaration has obviously nothing...look at what the Palestinians have accomplished since then, it goes without saying. Arafat, was an evil man, no different than Chavez...Clinton, you have to understand, modeled for people, but was dirty behind the camera...make no mistake, however, that all of the presidents have been since Roosevelt.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
In my opinion, the Iraq invasion made the war in Iraq made the hate and anti-ocidental feelings grow up in the mideast. The result was the election of Hamas and Hezbollah for the Parlaments of Palestine and Lebanon, and the nuclear era of Iran. Israel is in real trouble.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
Israel is in real touble I completely agree with you about that. The election of Hamas and Hezbollah, etc is not the result of the US, it's just an excuse...those factions have been at war with Israel for thousands of years. Iran has been trying to gain nuclear capabilities since the 50's. None of this is actually new, it just seems that way because our own media hates Bush, and consevatives in general. They're the true enemies of our country.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
I am not a hypocrite to say just leave Iraq to be peace in the world. I think you must stay there and make that a strong democratic/capitalist country before leaving. And I think Iran must be punished like Cuba is until today, or even be bombed like Servia was.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
I do agree with you completely about that...However, I don't see us attacking Iran anytime soon, just because I don't think we have a president that is able to withstand the criticism...everyone in our government pussy foots around. They each have their own agendas, and its not for the people, that is the truth.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Just understand that my point is: The 9/11 was an isolated act of Al Qaeda Cells, and arresting or killing Osama would not change anything. So, do not blame Bill Clinton for that. He only went to wars with the UN authorization, and in his government the hate was smaller and terrorists did not used to win elections.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
The hate wasn't smaller it was just quiet, Clinton pandered to them. I don't blame Clinton for the terrorism, those people have always hated us which is fine. Clinton tried a different approach by ignoring it, but he bailed out on every potential threat. Bush also went into these wars under UN authorization. In my opinion we should, nor anyone, ever need to have UN opinion.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
But, after all, I respect your opinion and even agree with some points. Thanks for give me some informations I did not have. I am also thinking that maybe Rudy Giuliani can be a good president. Now we are talking like gentlemen.
alexandregiaretta 4 years ago
We are talking like gentleman, you seem like a pretty cool guy...I don't really like any of the candidates except Rudy, or McCain, I will never support anyone who says or sides with the idea that our military lost the war. They, to me, they are enemies of the state, and they show...So you won't see me support Clinton...especially since shes for gun control. I'm afraid of our government.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
OMG, you tell me to go read... obviously if you did read, your fucking illiterate. Guess everything is about opinions with you, facts don't get through into your head. Perhaps a picture book would do. There's no disproving with you, I can't convince someone who doesn't want to listen to reason. Go ahead keep your opinions but just know that the majority of people think you're a complete idiot.
whatever500200 4 years ago
That's funny because you call me an idiot, yet you also said that I'm illiterate, which would mean that I can't type or read for that matter. Go ahead and you support your evil abortion, and your evil gay marriage...do whatever you'd like as long as it supports your lord and saviour Bill Clinton. Fucking Faggot.
ImBatman49 4 years ago
Get it through your thick skull you can't read...you can't even convey your thoughts without sounding like a fucking bigot. Evil... yeah people like you are the first to point the finger but are lazy shit fucks that do absolutely do nothing. So drink your beer, use gods words to condemn those you hate... while those who actually give a shit try and tackle real problems to the best of their ability, oh yeah but that's not even good enough for you.
whatever500200 3 years ago
Silly conservative morons...
Caseytheninja 5 years ago
Hind sight is always 20/20. Clinton did not have a crystal ball to know what was going to happen on 9/11.Unfortunately we can't go after everyone who wants to hurt us.If we did it would make us no better than them.
wowdink 5 years ago