Clinton Anger Unleashed

Clinton's statement about Bush having a whole 8 months to go after Bin Laden was pretty humorous, considering his own record.

KalEl76 said:

No, it's the federal government's fault. Most people in the military could care less what sexual orientation you are, as long as you perform your duties in an honorable manner.

Click to expand...

I should have clarified, it is indeed the people in charge of the military.

Inconel said:

Clinton's statement about Bush having a whole 8 months to go after Bin Laden was pretty humorous, considering his own record.

Click to expand...

What makes it so humorous? He went after Bin Laden during his whole presidency whether you want to say he did a good job or not is irrelevant, he went after Bin Laden. Bush didn't even look into terrorism until 9/11. Clinton had briefings on terrorism every week, Bush didn't even start looking at terrorism until September of 2001.

Here's a full transcript for those of us who actually like to read: http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview

So that is the big "loathe the military letter" I kept hearing about? That's it? That is what all this commotion is about? Heaven forbid should someone be displeased with an organization that want to force him to fight a war he was opposed. It was the draft that drove his displeasure.

Vylo said:

So that is the big "loathe the military letter" I kept hearing about? That's it? That is what all this commotion is about? Heaven forbid should someone be displeased with an organization that want to force him to fight a war he was opposed. It was the draft that drove his displeasure.

Click to expand...

Interesting however that the letter was written as part of his draft avoidance and we never heard the Democrats complain about him not serving nor did we ever hear then call him a chickenhawk. How very strange.

SummerMadness said:

Here's a full transcript for those of us who actually like to read: http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview

Click to expand...

What a temper. It sounds like he had two goals in the interview. Preserve his owm fragile legacy promote Richard Clarke's book. Good link.

MachZer0 said:

What a temper. It sounds like he had two goals in the interview. Preserve his owm fragile legacy promote Richard Clarke's book. Good link.

Click to expand...

I think he also had a pretty clear goal of pointing out the Republican hypocracy of flip flopping on their stance on Clintons actions while he was in office to now. They claimed he was too obsessed with Bin Laden and Bush ignored the threat when he took office.

It became clear on 9/11 that the Bush administration dropped the ball on Bin Laden to focus on their priority of Iraq.

Bin Laden - still at large.
Iraq - still a mess

I don't think Clinton needs to worry too much about his legacy. It will shine compared to Bush.

notto said:

I think he also had a pretty clear goal of pointing out the Republican hypocracy of flip flopping on their stance on Clintons actions while he was in office to now. They claimed he was too obsessed with Bin Laden and Bush ignored the threat when he took office.

It became clear on 9/11 that the Bush administration dropped the ball on Bin Laden to focus on their priority of Iraq.

Bin Laden - still at large.
Iraq - still a mess

I don't think Clinton needs to worry too much about his legacy. It will shine compared to Bush.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't recall Clinton being accused by REpublicans of being obsessed with bin Laden. Maybe they did. Maybe you could refresh my memory.

I do recall him claiming himself, post predidency, to be obssessed. So if Republicans did accuse him of that, they were right. And for being so obssessed, he sure did a lousy job, especially after he turned down that offer from Sudan.

MachZer0 said:

Interesting however that the letter was written as part of his draft avoidance and we never heard the Democrats complain about him not serving nor did we ever hear then call him a chickenhawk. How very strange.

Click to expand...

The term chickenhawk refers to someone that advocates war but refuses to participate themselves, like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.... All got deferments like Clinton, but all advocated Vietnam and war in iraq, in fact, all but Bush tried for years to get Clinton to invade Iraq. All the while refusing to serve themselves.

I'm quite sure you will fail to see the difference.

ElvisFan42 said:

The term chickenhawk refers to someone that advocates war but refuses to participate themselves, like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld.... All got deferments like Clinton, but all advocated Vietnam and war in iraq, in fact, all but Bush tried for years to get Clinton to invade Iraq. All the while refusing to serve themselves.

I'm quite sure you will fail to see the difference.

Click to expand...

So the wars that Clinton advocated, while not serving himself, just don't count?

MachZer0 said:

So the wars that Clinton advocated, while not serving himself, just don't count?

Click to expand...

Like I predicted....

One more time, slowly, Bush, Cheney, etc., all advocated the Vietnam War, but refused to serve, Clinton was against Vietnam. What wars did Clinton advocate by the way?

ElvisFan42 said:

Like I predicted....

One more time, slowly, Bush, Cheney, etc., all advocated the Vietnam War, but refused to serve, Clinton was against Vietnam. What wars did Clinton advocate by the way?

Click to expand...

The ones over which he presided.

MachZer0 said:

The ones over which he presided.

Click to expand...

So anything that happened while he presided he advocated?

Voegelin said:

Hillary might be provoking these outbursts too. If he had made a credible attempt to stop Al Qaeda she would have a far easier time running in 2008. His inactions reenforced all the beliefs about Democrat weakness on National Security which denied the party the presidency in election after election.

Click to expand...

The only problem is, Bill Clinton DID go after Bin Laden more than any president in history, including W. pre-9/11 or his father during that entire administration.

And Voege, trust me, you would be mortally afraid of a solidified Democratic party, which is partly why many conservatives such as yourselves convey such deep fear of Hillary Clinton. The perceived weakness of our party is due largely to the corporate media and the lack of support from us the constituents. But history has proven that the latter is easily capable of changing.

Clinton could have cared less about the military, or any other combat situation. He led a quagmire in Somalia, blew up a Chinese Embassy by "accident", and bombed Iraq as well. Somehow though, people think Clinton is a savior or a good President because he was a friend to blacks, though none were ever put in a post in his administration.

Clinton just mad because he refused to do anything after the American embassies being blown up on his watch and the U.S.S. Cole.

KalEl76 said:

Clinton could have cared less about the military, or any other combat situation.

Click to expand...

Right, that's why he helped scale down the most powerful military on the planet. Oh and that helped to finally balance our budget.

He led a quagmire in Somalia,

Click to expand...

And when that thing tanked, you know what he did with our troops? He got 'em outta there. None of this stay-the-course silliness; we bailed when we had to.

blew up a Chinese Embassy by "accident",

Click to expand...

I think Bush is a far, far better expert at hitting multiple innocent targets.

and bombed Iraq as well.

Click to expand...

Right back at you. See above.

Somehow though, people think Clinton is a savior or a good President because he was a friend to blacks, though none were ever put in a post in his administration.

Click to expand...

Yeah, considering that of all the presidents we've had in the last quarter century, he's made the most advances in civil rights, he's been involved in the fewest full-scale, American-led wars, and he had one of the most effective economic policies, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call him a savior.

Clinton just mad because he refused to do anything after the American embassies being blown up on his watch and the U.S.S. Cole.

Click to expand...

Because the Republican congress wouldn't let him. Do your homework--Clinton wanted to expand powers to stop terrorism, but the Republicans fought him tooth and nail.

KalEl76 said:

Clinton could have cared less about the military, or any other combat situation. He led a quagmire in Somalia, blew up a Chinese Embassy by "accident", and bombed Iraq as well. Somehow though, people think Clinton is a savior or a good President because he was a friend to blacks, though none were ever put in a post in his administration.

Clinton just mad because he refused to do anything after the American embassies being blown up on his watch and the U.S.S. Cole.

Click to expand...

You forget that information regarding the Cole and embassies was passed on to Bush, who also specifically decided to also do nothing.

That settles it, I am voting for Hillary Clinton for the next President.