Bill Clinton

[Seanij]

Bill Clinton is like the best guyy ever, unlike his wife, she's a bitch.
Haha, getting caught having sex in the white house, gives him a couple points with me >_>

[Cybersist]

That is random.......

[Foos]

Bill Clinton sucks.

PS. Hillary Clinton sucks even more. Edited January 4, 2008 by Foos

[ams]

Bill Clinton sucks.

PS. Hillary Clinton sucks even more.

but never the less the Clinton years were the best...Unemployment at the lowest, education up, national debt all time lowest ever, economy booming..Things were great back then, you have to give it up he did do a good job...and had time for some lonely interns on the side LOL

[Bulldog_916]

Somebody had to do Monica, cuz god knows I wouldnt have.

He did a damn good job as president, and did the best job for national security that their has been since Vietnam. Granted he cut military spending, but those were isolated programs. Overall the military was still in very good shape. That's obvious with the fast reaction in Afghanistan. They didnt have to build up at all before the strike.

The economy was amazing, times were good. But now.....is.....well......now, not much more I can say about it.

[gaia.plateau]

He was party to overthrowing a democratically elected President because he didn't support the privatization of water in Haiti by American corporate giants that would have led to the deaths of thousands of his people, and the economic ruin of his country. The despotic and effectively single-party government they replaced Jean Bertrand Aristide with has run the country even further into the ground, exponentially increasing rates of infant mortality and illiteracy.

His administration also spear-headed the illegal invasion of Kosovo, which violated all 7 tenets of the Just War doctrine of military intervention, and caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.

Now despite all of that, I still think he was the second best US president of the 20th century, after Eisenhower.

[Seanij]

Yes, it was random, I was feeling random >_>

[Scheetz]

Bill Clinton is like the best guyy ever, unlike his wife, she's a bitch.
Haha, getting caught having sex in the white house, gives him a couple points with me >_>

LOL, does news travel that slow to Malta that 8 years after the President has left office you hear about the scandal?

Somebody had to do Monica, cuz god knows I wouldnt have.

He did a damn good job as president, and did the best job for national security that their has been since Vietnam. Granted he cut military spending, but those were isolated programs. Overall the military was still in very good shape. That's obvious with the fast reaction in Afghanistan. They didnt have to build up at all before the strike.

The economy was amazing, times were good. But now.....is.....well......now, not much more I can say about it.

Bill did not do anything when he was in office. The economy was already doing well, he did nothing to effect it. People believe he did a good job as President because they fail to see nothing occurred during his Presidency. There was no 9/11 when Bill was in office. You can say he is an amazing President if a 9/11 type occurred during his office as well. Then you would be comparing two like Presidents and their actions. Right now you are comparing bananas to watermelons.

[gaia.plateau]

There was no 9/11 when Bill was in office. You can say he is an amazing President if a 9/11 type occurred during his office as well. Then you would be comparing two like Presidents and their actions. Right now you are comparing bananas to watermelons.

No major attacks happened during Bill Clinton's presidency because he took security measures... when Bush took office, the C administration handed over to them hundreds of intelligence documents to carry on his anti-terrorism strategies, and the Bush administration threw them out the window. One of them was basically "Osama Bin Laden is a major threat. He might try something with airplanes, so yeah, get your shit together".

Refer to my previous post for my feelings on Clinton, on the whole I disagree with most of his policies, but saying that he was a bad president because he stopped bad things from happening, instead of letting them happen in order to prove his quality and then escalate them into even worse things... is ridiculous.

[mathuv]

why do u post useless crap in the serious discussion forum? You know us maltese hate all american presidents *starts a riot*

[TheScotsman]

security measures... when Bush took office, the C administration handed over to them hundreds of intelligence documents to carry on his anti-terrorism strategies, and the Bush administration threw them out the window. One of them was basically "Osama Bin Laden is a major threat. He might try something with airplanes, so yeah, get your shit together".

What snow drift have you had your head stuck in?
Embassies bombed in Tanzania, and Kenya

World Trade Center bombed (first time)

Khobar towers bombed

US Military personnel bombed in Saudi Arabia

USS Cole attacked.

(while billy-boy promised to "hunt down" the guilty, and make them face justice.
Clinton himself admits missing good chances to off OBL 3 times!)


Just what DID he do?
Ya, good guy, if he actually DID what he promised, there would still be 2 nice tall buildings in and 3K+ citizens still alive in NYC.
Instead he forces the Rambouillet Accords, and provokes war in Serbia
Authorized bombing of Serbian targets determined to be of Civilian origin BEFORE they were bombed (not mistakes)

Somalia, and the "humanitarian" mission that resulted in losses, and no goals achieved as a result of improper support. (a bit like Carter's debacle in the desert)

He blew-up an aspirin plant with Tomahawks (again, determined to be of Civilian nature before the attack was launched)

HE PARDONED 12 terrorists, and let the buggers out of jail! (they fire-bombed a tavern in NY.) Why didn't I think of that? It sounds like the PERFECT way to stop a terrorist attack!

Bubba is a complete joke, but he is good at baffling the uninformed with BS.

[gaia.plateau]

security measures... when Bush took office, the C administration handed over to them hundreds of intelligence documents to carry on his anti-terrorism strategies, and the Bush administration threw them out the window. One of them was basically "Osama Bin Laden is a major threat. He might try something with airplanes, so yeah, get your shit together".

What snow drift have you had your head stuck in?
Embassies bombed in Tanzania, and Kenya

World Trade Center bombed (first time)

Khobar towers bombed

US Military personnel bombed in Saudi Arabia

USS Cole attacked.

Ya, good guy, if he actually DID what he promised, there would still be 2 nice tall buildings in and 3K+ citizens still alive in NYC.
Instead he forces the Rambouillet Accords, and provokes war in Serbia
Authorized bombing of Serbian targets determined to be of Civilian origin BEFORE they were bombed (not mistakes)

Somalia, and the "humanitarian" mission that resulted in losses, and no goals achieved as a result of improper support. (a bit like Carter's debacle in the desert)

He blew-up an aspirin plant with Tomahawks (again, determined to be of Civilian nature before the attack was launched)

HE PARDONED 12 terrorists, and let the buggers out of jail! (they fire-bombed a tavern in NY.) Why didn't I think of that? It sounds like the PERFECT way to stop a terrorist attack!

Bubba is a complete joke, but he is good at baffling the uninformed with BS.

on the whole I disagree with most of his policies...

He was party to overthrowing a democratically elected President because he didn't support the privatization of water in Haiti by American corporate giants that would have led to the deaths of thousands of his people, and the economic ruin of his country. The despotic and effectively single-party government they replaced Jean Bertrand Aristide with has run the country even further into the ground, exponentially increasing rates of infant mortality and illiteracy.

His administration also spear-headed the illegal invasion of Kosovo, which violated all 7 tenets of the Just War doctrine of military intervention, and caused the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The 1993 WTC bombing killed 6 people... teapots kill more people than that in a week. I was considering bringing this up in rebuttal to Scheetz's post, but didn't because people forgot about it a week after it happened.

(while billy-boy promised to "hunt down" the guilty, and make them face justice.
Clinton himself admits missing good chances to off OBL 3 times!)


Just what DID he do?

Why would he off him? OBL has been an ally and employee of the US for decades. Rumsfeld armed him and gave him the influence he needed to propagate radical Islamism, and Reagan rearmed him and doubled that influence. The Bush family has been close friends with Bin Laden's relatives for two-dozen years.

Clinton strengthened international ties and commmanded a responsible and appropriate role in the UN... made tremendous strides in reestablishing ties with Russia, and was a master at diplomacy, facilitating to a significant degree their move to democracy. He implemented the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, integrating gays and lesbians into the military.

He was supportive at Rio, and had good reasons for not ratifying Kyoto (China and India weren't on the Bill, Australia refrained from ratifying for the same reason). He crafted and implemented NAFTA, which was basically a masterpiece of foreign policy that convinced the Canadian and Mexican governments to agree to being anally raped by the US economy every weekend, and to do it with a smile on their faces. He balanced the budget and increased the surplus substantially.

It should also be noted that he left the office with a public approval rating of 65%, higher than any other president since before the Cold War, and that was despite the biggest personal scandal that a President has ever been involved in. So apparently your countrymen don't care much about the bombing of foreign US embassies and stationed soldiers

So no, Bubba's not perfect ~ Can you name a better US president in the past 100 years, apart from Eisenhower?

I don't know if I mentioned it, but I consider Truman to be the worst, followed by Reagan, followed by Bush.

[Canon]

forgot the OK city bombings while bill was in office..

[Texico]

If you want to get technical, and you disapprove of the Vietnam War, then you can't really be behind Eisenhower 100%. His policies in Asia almost directly caused the Vietnam War. Don't get me wrong, I love Ike. I love Mike (the H-bomb associated with his presidency). But I still like FDR as a president. Yes, he may have allowed Pearl Harbor to happen if you believe in the conspiracy theories, but it was mostly due to botched intelligence handling. Also, he never meant for Social Security to continue after the war. It was ONLY meant to help out with the Great Depression. I can't give him majority credit for dealing with the depression though. That has to go to the industrialization effort to gear up for the war. I like FDR, and I like Theodore Roosevelt. The Great White Fleet was a good way to keep America isolationist at the time and to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.

--Edit--

I'd also like to add that Osama Bin Laden truly has no real reason to hate the West. If it weren't for the United States then Afghanistan would have been under Soviet rule until its eventual collapse (if that collapse were to happen. Afghanistan played a role in propagating the Soviet collapse). I truely believe that the Islamic extremists are utilizing centuries of foreign occupation to focus a general hostility agains the West (and America specifically) only as a way to keep power for themselves. If you look at the Middle East you would notice that all of the totalitarian regimes since its modern inception in 1922 have been anti-Western Civilization. When we come in to aid them in fighting off an expansionist Soviet regime and then lobby with Saudi Arabia to allow us to build military bases we become the new Imperialist power. The United States was never considered to be Imperialist in the Middle East (by the greater population of the Earth) until the current Bush administration. The powers that be in congress and and at the presidency merely recognized the volatile nature of the Middle East and wanted to keep a military presence close at hand in case something catastrophic were to happen. The western world also has quite a bit invested in Israel, but it is largely a foregone conclusion that Israel no longer needs troop support but war materiel.

Oh, and in response to any retaliations about supposed US Imperialism in relation to Korea and Vietnam: Those were not Imperialistic wars. We were at war with Communism. Yes, the leaders put into position in China and Vietnam were US sympathizers and quite possibly puppet leaders. However, there were no plans to claim the countries as US protectorates once those governments were fully in place. The plan was the same plan as seen in Korea. It didn't work with China because Mao was a war hero. It didn't work in Vietnam because of the bad press and because the generals were fighting a general "WWII style" war. By the numbers we should have won Vietnam; we just didn't know how to fight a guerilla war at the time. Edited January 18, 2008 by Texico

[mackiain]

I always have said I want Clinton to move to Canada and become Prime Minister. That would be amazing.

[jayson]

I always have said I want Clinton to move to Canada and become Prime Minister. That would be amazing.

Good. Please make him and his ilk leave this country.

Anyone remember Janet Reno and the whole Waco thing?

[mdl]

I agree with Scheetz. I wouldn't solely credit Clinton for the booming economy. With the new internet starting to take off it was pretty much a sure thing that stock prices would rise, people would have more money to spend, and output would increase. Consumers, and expectations play a HUGE role in the economy equation. Crediting Clinton for a booming economy is like saying Bush is the cause of the many recent housing market loan defaults.

[clibinarius]

Vietnam and Korea not imperialist wars?

Look...I'm a borderline imperialist so this isn't condemnation of the wars: but we entered countries to insure friendly governments survived through military command. In the case of Korea, we also opened it up to large portions of American business, as we intended to do in Vietnam. Anyone who thinks this isn't imperialistic really needs a reality check and has a large case of the denial that our education system and left-wingers impose upon us. If you don't believe the US is an empire, ask a native...This isn't anti-American because I support that country with all my heart. But Manifest Destiny is a code word for conquer-anyone with a brain knows this. Furthermore, a friendly government already is a protectorate if it doesn't have the support of the people, as South Vietnam didn't. We still have military bases in Korea. So I ask, how isn't it a protectorate? Similar government + similar economy + shared goods + military bases = ?...and the US "Special Relationship" with Korea has been extremely good for South Korea (Hence why I support it, despite it being very imperialistic by nearly every definition). "Special Relationship" by the way is a code word for "Protectorate."

Now what is imperialism aside from installing friendly and in some cases like minded governments? And the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to protect that communist government; that was as imperialistic as anything we did. And bin Laden going to another country to prop up a government (Sudan, Afghanistan)? That's imperialist too!

I mean you honestly think that the US isn't an Empire? How many Europeans through the years have wanted Democracy? They've consistently overthrown it at every chance possible unless someone (AKA: British or Americans) have militarily occupied the continent! You do have Democracy minded people in Europe, sure, but that's generally not the goal of political extremists in Europe (as Democracy is foreign) when ideals of the racial state (National Fronts, now add in some dispossessed Arab Nationalists, Turkish Nationalists as well) or economic equality (Socialists, Communists) are. The idea that Europe would be a democracy when America pulls out its troops-yes, we have a ton of troops in Europe-is absolute lunacy. In aborted neo-Nazi coups in Belgium its been demonstrated that their highest goals are to purge the place of US military bases, because who do you think would prevent them from taking power and "upholding" democracy? And remember how quickly the democracies were thrown apart during WWII? Maybe only 10-20% collaborated (Funny, that's about the same margin supporting national fronts) but with military backing, they got a lot of power, and most people (unless targets of the regimes) went on their day to day lives, and maybe 10-20% resisted.

Imperialism happens all around you. Unless you mean annexation. That's a little different. Three cheers for the commonwealth! Edited January 22, 2008 by clibinarius

[gaia.plateau]

I chagrin to split hairs, clib... but Korea/Vietnam/30-odd other military actions by America since WW2... were technically neo-imperalist, not imperialist

There's arguably a very big difference. Edited January 22, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[r1v3th3ad]

"I'd also like to add that Osama Bin Laden truly has no real reason to hate the West."

Yes he does...Israel. The U.S. backs this country with so much money. The Middle East wants that land.

[gaia.plateau]

"I'd also like to add that Osama Bin Laden truly has no real reason to hate the West."

Yes he does...Israel. The U.S. backs this country with so much money. The Middle East wants that land.

Ha, I didn't even see that quote originally. How ridiculous.

Firstly... I don't believe Bin Laden does hate the West. He's simply representative of the most extreme and radical Muslims who are fighting back against decades of economic and cultural oppression. 9/11 may not have been directly provoked, but it was self-defense nonetheless.

Though I don't necessarily agree with this sentiment, I believe that Muslims are well-within the realm of rational thought when they perceive that Islam is under attack by the West, both as a culture and as a civilization.

[r1v3th3ad]

"I'd also like to add that Osama Bin Laden truly has no real reason to hate the West."

Yes he does...Israel. The U.S. backs this country with so much money. The Middle East wants that land.

Ha, I didn't even see that quote originally. How ridiculous.

Firstly... I don't believe Bin Laden does hate the West. He's simply representative of the most extreme and radical Muslims who are fighting back against decades of economic and cultural oppression. 9/11 may not have been directly provoked, but it was self-defense nonetheless.

Though I don't necessarily agree with this sentiment, I believe that Muslims are well-within the realm of rational thought when they perceive that Islam is under attack by the West, both as a culture and as a civilization.

agreed

[TheScotsman]

I always have said I want Clinton to move to Canada and become Prime Minister. That would be amazing.

Would raise the collective IQ of both nations!
You are welcome to bubba, I'll buy the airline ticket

[Scalliwag]

I read some comments and have a hard time believing that some people pop off some of the most stupid and baseless remarks. When did CLinton leave office? January 2001. When did Bush take office? January 2001. When did the towers fall? September 2001. Exactly how is that Clinton's fault? If like some here want to argue that OBL should have been such a high priority for Clinton then why was he not for Bush?
Exactly what did Bush do to try and prevent any attacks against us? Did he launch any attacks in Afghanistan against Al Queda prior to 911? No.
Also, Reagan was directly responsible for not preventing the bombings that killed 220 Marines in their barracks in Lebanon as well as selling arms to a terrorist nation (Iran) But somehow Clinton is the do-nothing boogieman here?
I think some people here get their history and their information from Rush Limpdick. At some point you have to realize he is a hypocritical dopehead that is as wrong about those faults as he is hos politics. At least he gets paid for his stupidity.
So my comments are not directed at everyone. But if you read something above that looks like it could have came from Limpdick then you know exactly the ones that set me off.
If you voted for GW and don't regret it may be a clue as well. Quit blaming Clinton for everything today and pretend like he did not leave us in better shape. Then again if someone could grasp a clue I wouldn't have anything to respond to I guess?
The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 helped turn things around. Not one republican vote by the way. The country was in a recession when we fired the first Bush and elected Clinton. I don't care for Hillary but compared to anyone in the republican party she would get my vote.We know what repubs do and that is screw shit up and leave it for others to fix.

[Texico]

I’m going to renege on one thing, and that is that I should have put “the United States” instead of “the West”.



If you know that I can’t change your opinion, please stop reading right here. Know, however, that you also will not be able to change my opinion on the matter.



The United States is a specter to the Middle East. Using Israel as a reason to hate the United States is patent bullshit spewed forth by their versions of Rush Limbaugh. The Middle East really only has itself to blame for the situation that it is in right now.



Arguing that the target of radical Islamic terrorism should be the United States is just ludicrous. Nations tend to ally themselves with other friendly nations. It is a fact that we are allied with Great Britain and have been ever since the outset of WWI at the latest. The League of Nations forced Great Britain to create Israel in principle. The United States was NOT a member of the League of Nations. Granted, Great Britain did not create Israel as an independent state; Israel did that part for herself. So now we have Israel as the sole target of Islamic aggression, unless the terrorists would wish to attack the states which were a part of the former League of Nations.



The fact that we, The United States of America, support Israel is because having a friendly state in the region is beneficial to the rest of the Western world. The only reason we NEED a friendly state in the region is because the Arab states traditionally are against outsiders of any form. The Ottoman Empire, actually ruled by Turks and not Arabs, held an isolationist view until several key members of the government’s inner workings began to conspire in order to make gains in the Balkans and in the Caucasus. Previous to this, all of Europe had been taking advantage of the lack of political skill and military might of the Empire. The lack of political affluence in the Ottoman Empire was practically a mandate of its own government. Because of the Arabs’ and Turks’ unwillingness to learn the languages of the European countries with which the Empire was now in regular diplomatic contact with, the job of translating, and thus knowing fully that which is being discussed, was given to Greek Christians. The three influential institutions in the Empire were also able to successfully oppose the updating and rearmament of the Empire’s military until late in the 19^th Century.



Going back further, one would find that the Janissaries, the military elite of the Ottoman Empire and the original source of opposition to updating and westernizing the military, are Christian children from the Caucasus. They were kidnapped by the Ottoman military and then raised as Muslims in military boarding schools. After being trained as the nation’s military elite, these Janissaries enjoyed great power in their new positions. They were one of the three groups which opposed the caliphate in the ideas of modernization of the Ottoman Empire. The other two groups were the derebeys, local leaders around the country which gained power through the decentralization of the Ottoman government, and the ulama, which were the Muslim holy leaders around the country. So, as a result of these three groups’ resisting the modernization wishes of the caliphate, the Empire lags greatly behind the Western World in terms of production, military, population, and diplomacy. So, continued to this point in history, the Middle East can fairly lay the blame for the current situation on the Janissaries, the derebeys, and the ulama.



The farther back we go, we begin to come to the Crusades of the first half of the second millennium AD. This is the only point where one can unequivocally lay the blame on Western Europe without first needing to credit the Middle East for allowing it to happen. Apathy never created dominant states. The Sultanate in control of the holy lands of the Christians freely allowed them to journey to Jerusalem and other areas within its control. It was merely the greed of European monarchs which sparked the Crusades to the Holy Land. At this point, however, one can also freely recognize that the Muslims were invaders in their own right.



And now we come to the foundation of Islam. Islam, as a religion, was spread by violent groups of warrior-nomads which carried out a jihad against their pagan neighbors. The pagan towns and Bedouin tribes which stood in their way were either outright killed or laid siege to until they converted. In this fashion Islam swept through the Middle East, and eventually was to pose the greatest threat to Byzantine rule from Constantinople. The swift and violent spread of Islam after Muhammad’s death can be credited as the first instance of a rift between the nation of Islam and the rest of the world. Arguably, the Eastern Roman Empire treated its subjects in the Middle East just as would have the ancient Roman Empire with any of its fully incorporated peoples of conquered lands.



I’m tired, and I have class at 9am, so I’m going to stop writing for the time being. I will most likely add bits and pieces as they come to me and put them wherever they best fit.



If you took the time to read this, I thank you. Edited January 23, 2008 by Texico