Clinton: Gitmo Horror Could Spark Muslim Brutality [Archive]

View Full Version : Clinton: Gitmo Horror Could Spark Muslim Brutality

dwasson

06-20-2005, 07:56 AM

CBT

06-20-2005, 09:49 AM

GITMO's a nice place. Hot, but a nice place, nice beaches. I don't know what those darn terrorist are complaining about...:flamer:

PJR

06-20-2005, 10:22 AM

"insurgents in Iraq may resort to killing Iraqis, and could even begin attacking U.S. troops"

Wow he's quite the sage. Tomorrow he'll be telling us that gas prices may exceed the $2 a gallon mark!!

MainEngDwarf

06-20-2005, 12:59 PM

I liked Gitmo when I was there. Good diving. My question for mr Clinton is." And that's different from normal, How?"

Rob1559

06-20-2005, 06:33 PM

Booo F'n Wooooo!!
The standard liberal democratic line of whining. Does everyone remember how "tough" Clinton was on terrorism? What a tool!!

BruteForce

06-20-2005, 07:01 PM

It was posted on the MM.net. Must be true. Or not. Maybe.

glassman99

06-20-2005, 07:59 PM

Gitmo is cooler than Iraq. The "detainees" at this facility are eating better than OUR troups. These basterds want to annilate us. Clinton should keep his mouth shut. This thread is doomed.

DEFYANT

06-20-2005, 08:37 PM

67435animal

06-21-2005, 02:03 AM

Bill Clinton had a chance to do something about the terrorists during his 8 years. How many times were we attacked under his watch? What did he do about it?

Part of the blame for 9/11 rests on Clinton.

Amen, in his eight years, Slick did NOTHING, NADA, ZERO. How much is "part"? How about 98%?

jerrym3

06-21-2005, 06:04 AM

Mike M

06-21-2005, 07:15 AM

It warms my heart to see so many other members express the same contempt towards Clinton as I do. How his wife could possibly be in line for presidency boggles my mind.

CBT

06-21-2005, 08:09 AM

It was rumored that he had a clear shot at Bin Laden, but was afraid to do it because he was already in hot water with the whole Monica thing, and he couldn't take the chance on more negative publicity.
Here is a real short version of the closest we came to taking him out: There was a C-130 on the landing strip where Bin Laden was supposed to be having a 'meeting in the mountains' with whoever at one of his camps. Anyway, the "people" that were going to go in guns a-blazin radioed back 'hey there's a C-130 here, who's is it?', because not every country has a C-130 laying around, and it clearly wasn't ours. So, turns out it belonged to a Saudi Prince, the mission was aborted, and we didn't embarass anyone who might have accidentley been innocently camping next to a terrorists when he was taken out. Or so I've heard...

67435animal

06-21-2005, 08:18 AM

It warms my heart to see so many other members express the same contempt towards Clinton as I do. How his wife could possibly be in line for presidency boggles my mind.

One thing Hillary would do, if she were nominated, is bring out a record vote on both sides. I think the Dems would be surprised by the overwhelming numbers who voted Republican, tearing the term mainstream away from them.

duhtroll

06-21-2005, 08:42 AM

Give me a break, guys.

You can't blame any one person for 9/11.

As far as Clinton goes -

Who is responsible for that military that swept through Afghanistan in record time? You know. Afghanistan - the place the Soviets never could conquer we mowed down in weeks. Of course, we were no longer funding the Afghanis anymore . . ..

All with Clinton's military. Check the dates - Afghanistan began 11/01. Bush didn't sign his first military budget until when?

You guys *really* need to get your facts straight. Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is a cop-out, plain and simple. To some extent, so is placing the blame on Bush, though he has the disadvantage of being CIC at the time and therefore has to answer for it. We were attacked a few times under Reagan too, so I guess he's partially to blame for 9/11?

Did any of you actually read the 9/11 commission report?

You know, the 9/11 commission, the one Bush opposed?

Knock Clinton all you want. Just do it with accurate information, please.

The story about "we coulda had Bin Laden and Clinton screwed it up" is bogus. Look it up for yourselves and stop simply listening to what Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity have to say.

-A

DEFYANT

06-21-2005, 05:20 PM

I am not a fan of Bush or Clinton. But the plot to blow up the WTC was clear in 1993. They knew who was behind it then.

There is enough blame to go around. Including the media. Perhaps if they left Clintons blow job and Monicas dress out of the spot light, he would have had time to do his job instead of defend it.

Planning the WTC began around the reign of Bush #1. There is enough blame to go around.

Shora

06-21-2005, 08:40 PM

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com /><o:p><st1:City><st1:place><o:p>Under Clinton's watch-WTC attack in 1993, Embassy bombings, and let us not forget the USS Cole.</o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[img] /><st1:place>ffice:smarttagslaceName><st1:City><st1:place>Clinton</st1:place></st1:City> not only failed to “prevent” these terrorist attacks but he also failed to respond to the attacks like an American President should have. Please do not blame Bush #1 for not “preventing” the supposed “planning” on future attacks since they occur everyday single day not matter who the President is. Allow us to be honest and say that preventing every supposed planning would be impossible.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

Please do not get me wrong. I liked <st1:City><st1:place>Clinton</st1:place></st1:City> very much and I hate everything about Bush #2 except when it comes to fighting terrorism. He is the right man with the right staff (yes I mean staff) at the right time.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

[font=Times New Roman]Note: this is my personal opinion and I respect the opinions of all who take the time to share it with me (us) even if I do not agree with them.<o:p></o:p>

shannon corkill

06-21-2005, 10:08 PM

We were attacked a few times under Reagan too, so I guess he's partially to blame for 9/11?

LOOK WHAT REAGAN DID and what Clinton DIDN'T DO

1984 terrorists attacked the Marine Barrack at Beruit. Reagan had carrier air wings do strikes on terrorist cells..The USS New Jersey shelled the hell out of Beruit with her 16 inch guns

1986 terrorists attacked a disco in Germany killing US citizens and Lybia was found at fault, Reagan had several airstikes-5 seperate strikes to be accurate. We even took out Qaddafi's kids play house in his compound.

http://www.af.mil/history/spotlight.asp?storyID=12300745 8

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/el_dorado_canyon.htm

1993 First attack on WTC What did Clinton do about it--Nothing

1995 Attack in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. What did Clinton do about it--Nothing

1996 What did he do about Dhahran Saudi Arabia?----NOTHING

1998 What did Clinton do after the 2 seperate bombings on US embassey's in Africa---NOTHING
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/08/wbom08.html

2000 What did he do about the USS Cole? ---NOTHING

9/11/2001 Bush and staff develop and execute OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM- What would Clinton had done---NOTHING like OEF

I guess what I am getting at is Reagan And Bush took major action. After we smacked Qaddafi's residence, he became very quiet ......
Clinton just destroyed our own military...I remember going from shooting 1000 rounds of ammo a quarter in 1991 to shooting 50 rds a year in 1994.
I did OEF, and I am glad Bush was and is our President...

You guys who LOVE Clinton must get some good crack..........

duhtroll

06-22-2005, 01:07 PM

Nothing?

Again, facts are incorrect. We had to endure months of media complaining that Clinton was sending missiles and bombs to other countries as a diversion to keep people from talking about the whole Lewinsky thing.

So obviously he did something.

And again I point out to you that OEF was carried out with CLINTON'S military. Bush had nothing to do with building or financing it since he didn't sign a budget until 2002.

Complain all you like but either Clinton maintained a decent military or Rumsfeld is a f***ing genius. I think we know the latter is completely untrue from how he has handled Iraq.

Clinton ain't my favorite guy either, (I voted for his opponents) but he deserves credit for doing a decent job on this one.

This is like someone saying that the 1993 WTC bombing was Bush Sr's fault, since Clinton was only around a few weeks. See how dumb that sounds?

Speaking of Bushes, Dubya didn't call a single meeting on terrorism in the 9 months prior to 9/11. He did however take a month's vacation. Seems if it was that important to him he would have done something prior to 9/11, especially given all the warnings we had according to the 9/11 report.

Let's assume for a moment that Clinton WAS soft on terrorism (despite the bombings and missile strikes he carried out). Is killing the terrorists going to stop the attacks?

Do you really think there will not always be a terrorist cell somewhere waiting for their chance?

9/11 was only a matter of time. No matter how secure we get or think we are, someone will find a way to kill more of us again someday.

Placing blame on one person is pointless.

-A

shannon corkill

06-22-2005, 05:00 PM

First off Bush was the President when OEF occurred....i.e.. The military was under his command and he utilized it correctly...Clinton WOULD NOT have done the same.
Tell me what he did after the USS COLE?
The military action Clinton did, you refer to, is Operation Desert Fox and that dealt with Iraq...and he didn't even push for that.
His Tomahawk retaliation shots are clearly not the same as a Carrier Air strike .....i.e. Clinton didn't do anything -NO resolve
If you think a president really goes on vacation as perceived in a Mike Moore movie, you are lacking common sense...take a good look at who travels with the president...it's no vacation.
I am not saying its Clintons fault,.. He just made us a more passive target, and others perceived the US without resolve due HIS LACK of ACTIONS ...
People knew after Reagan fought back not to mess with us and things got quiet...
People noticed Clinton really wouldn't fight back started and continued to mess with us and things got bloody...
People knew after Bush fought back not to mess with us again and things are getting quiet...
There will always be some idiot out there going to do some terrible act but if they know you will be willing to show up in his country riding a pale horse, there will be HELL to pain..... that's called a DETERRENT
REAGAN knew this and so did others
The Bush's knew this and so did others
Clinton---whatever.

Shaft333

06-22-2005, 06:56 PM

Politics and Religion... I don't think no matter what the arguments are, nobody is going to convince someone that thinks differently.

duhtroll

06-22-2005, 06:58 PM

I heard BC speak about this in an interview.

Starting operations and then handing them to his successor is not generally good practice. (though it seems GW will be doing this) It also could have theoretically cost Gore the election if Clinton had left a mess for his successor to clean up. (I know that's not necessarily the right choice but you and I both know every single politician makes choices based upon their own best interests from time to time.)

In order to deal with the situation but not start something during transition of the CIC, specific plans were drawn up and handed to GWB

. . .who promptly ignored them.

The USS Cole was bombed on October 12, 2000. The election took place 3 weeks later. If Clinton is guilty of not acting on the bombing of the USS Cole, then so is our current CIC. If it was such a tragedy that nothing was done, it should have been corrected by our so-called "anti-terror" President.

You might as well blame Al Gore for dragging out the election, for that might have also eliminated the chance for our response. But I haven't heard you mention his name yet.

As for GW's "time off", GW also called it a vacation - so I guess he doesn't know what a vacation is, either. I saw several pictures of him relaxing, and I'm not talking about Farenheit 9/11.

If you're going to continue to place blame, you have to blame all of the Presidents and not limit yourself to just one you don't like. All of them had attacks occur under their watch. Deterrents didn't seem to help much. The facts show that they have all had their problems in dealing with terrorists.

-A

duhtroll

06-22-2005, 07:01 PM

Or superchargers.

Or oil.

Etc..

Politics and Religion... I don't think no matter what the arguments are, nobody is going to convince someone that thinks differently.

CBT

06-22-2005, 07:03 PM

Clinton is a turd, and so's her husband.

hitchhiker

06-22-2005, 10:08 PM

Clinton is now a former President.

:D

67435animal

06-22-2005, 10:38 PM

Clinton is now a former President.

:D

Amen and hallelujah!!

David Morton

06-23-2005, 02:39 AM

All this is part of the show so most folks will think their vote matters and that there is a difference between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Both men have followed the orders of the real rulers of the world.

I refuse to be blind. The International Industrial Corporate Structure runs the world. Weapons, Energy, Raw Materials, Food, Banking. They may argue with one another on style, but they are agreed on one major point...

"We the People" is a bad idea. So they give us this show for us to argue over so we can think we have a say in what happens. We don't. Just keep yer head down, and try not to draw too much attention, so they don't find an excuse to put you in Gitmo.

Have a happy! :D

Shaft333

06-23-2005, 05:30 AM

Or superchargers.

Or oil.

Etc..
Yeah, but that's because I haven't told everyone the truth about both subjects. And since I'm always right, there would be no arguing with me. Someday I'll share the facts of supercharging and oil... and all will be enlightened. :D

dwasson

06-23-2005, 06:22 AM

Ya know .... this is a rough place for satire.

shannon corkill

06-23-2005, 11:11 AM

Man this thread has become deep.

BruteForce

06-23-2005, 04:09 PM

Hip waders deep.

chicago_cop

06-23-2005, 07:05 PM

(2005-06-20) -- Former President Bill Clinton today said that if the scandal-plagued terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo Bay isn't "cleaned up or closed down" then insurgents in Iraq may resort to killing Iraqis, and could even begin attacking U.S. troops.

"If the United States gets a reputation in the Muslim world of mistreating terrorist prisoners," said Mr. Clinton, "It could unleash what sociologists call 'the righteous brutality of the oppressed' among the normally-peaceful followers of Islam."

The former president said the backlash could include, "bombings, kidnappings and even beheadings. That's the kind of future we may face unless we atone for the sins of Gitmo."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is one of our rights. I have never been to Gitmo, and would hate to think that someone who would do their best to kill evey American was being mistreated. I was told that the average weight gain of the prisoners was 5-7lbs. I am sorry but unless there is an eye witness that tells me he saw mistreatment of prisoners how does anyone know. The press is supposed to report the facts. I personally have caught them in many lies. Our country is not perfect, be we care more for the rights of others than they care for us. Maybe that's the way It should be. I have a friend that Lives in Paris. He told me that 60 per cent of the French people support Pres. Bush, and the war. At least he Did Something. According to an Arab person that has moved to the US. He believed that the Arab world will always Hate us no matter what we do. They understand only one thing. Strength and Resolve to follow through, and do what we said. MHO

hitchhiker

06-23-2005, 09:28 PM

Clinton is still a former President.

:D

Lou

06-24-2005, 08:41 AM

Who really cares what this pervert says?????:censor:

(2005-06-20) -- Former President Bill Clinton today said that if the scandal-plagued terrorist detention facility at Guantánamo Bay isn't "cleaned up or closed down" then insurgents in Iraq may resort to killing Iraqis, and could even begin attacking U.S. troops.

"If the United States gets a reputation in the Muslim world of mistreating terrorist prisoners," said Mr. Clinton, "It could unleash what sociologists call 'the righteous brutality of the oppressed' among the normally-peaceful followers of Islam."

The former president said the backlash could include, "bombings, kidnappings and even beheadings. That's the kind of future we may face unless we atone for the sins of Gitmo."

Two Hawks

06-24-2005, 11:29 AM

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is one of our rights. I have never been to Gitmo, and would hate to think that someone who would do their best to kill evey American was being mistreated. I was told that the average weight gain of the prisoners was 5-7lbs. I am sorry but unless there is an eye witness that tells me he saw mistreatment of prisoners how does anyone know. The press is supposed to report the facts. I personally have caught them in many lies. Our country is not perfect, be we care more for the rights of others than they care for us. Maybe that's the way It should be. I have a friend that Lives in Paris. He told me that 60 per cent of the French people support Pres. Bush, and the war. At least he Did Something. According to an Arab person that has moved to the US. He believed that the Arab world will always Hate us no matter what we do. They understand only one thing. Strength and Resolve to follow through, and do what we said. MHO:2thumbs: Well said, Sir. :2thumbs:

It's a shame that every one in this country hasn't been personally given the insight that you were given by that Arab person ("...hate us no matter what we do. They understand only one thing. Strength and Resolve to follow through, and do what we said."). The key to securing yourself against your enemy is to "know your enemy".
It scares me to know that there are so many people in this country that still don't get it.

Here's an article devoted to knowing our enemy and ourselves.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040627.shtml

67435animal

06-24-2005, 11:45 AM

:2thumbs: Well said, Sir. :2thumbs:

It scares me to know that there are so many people in this country that still don't get it.

It is highly likely that this large mass of people who do not get it are in the minority; so, as long as we continue to turn out more voters, we won't have to worry as much.

duhtroll

06-24-2005, 12:14 PM

I'm not commenting on whether or not there has been torture, etc. at Gitmo, because I don't know.

However, if there IS such mistreatment going on there, then we are no better than those we seek to defeat.

It is certainly possible to "get it" with regard to knowing one's enemy, and yet disagree on how they should be handled.

It isn't a black and white issue.

BTW I like the reference to Ollie North. What's he doing nowadays again?

Oh yeah, FOX News. :rolleyes:

-A

Mike M

06-24-2005, 06:42 PM

Clinton is still a former President.

:D

He is a former and present scumbag.

hitchhiker

06-24-2005, 07:10 PM

oldekid

06-24-2005, 08:48 PM

I didn't really like Clinton either, but it is amusing to see all the people bashing Clinton and jumping up and down, while the current regime sells our country out from underneath us.

H E L L O...

Head in Sand = Forclosure

:DI'm not very active when it comes to politics. Because of that, I feel that I am not biased towards the left or right. I have never been much of a joiner. I am an individual, and don't like to have a large group of people determine how I think.

With that being said, I would like to know how it is that we can blame an ex president for everything that is currently happening in this country.

We elected Mr. Bush to the highest office in our land. Many people on this site do not want to let him assume this role. They still want to blame Bill Clinton for all of the wrong that is going on today.

President Bush went to many lengths to convince the world that Saddam had WMD. We supported him, and allowed him to put our young soldier's lives at risk for the sake of what became false information. Even after the truth came out, Mr. Bush still demanded that we show strength and resolve. . . and that we stay the course.

I am tired of waking up every morning, turning on the news, and hearing that 3 or 5, or 10 soldiers died today. I have to ask. . . . why? The country of Iraq didn't attack the twin towers. They didn't have WMD like Bush said they did. What are our soldiers dying for? I support them, I admire them, but damn it. . . . I don't want them to die for reasons other than a worth while cause.

Mr. Bush has put us in a war that will not be over soon. When it is over, our country will not have gained a thing. We will have lost many lives. . . . in my opinion. . . . unnecessarily. We have lost the world wide admiration that we once had. We have become not the big brother, but the tyrant.

Say what you want. I'm just tired of the Clinton bashing, and I wish you guys would just look at who's in charge. . . . not who used to be in charge. Put the blame where it belongs.

Remember, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm not on the left or the right, a liberal or a conservative. I'm an American. I love my country and our forces that protect it. We need to look at what we are asking our young soldiers, sailors, and marines to do. They just shouldn't keep dying.

Bill Clinton didn't put us in this situation. He also wasn't our best president.

Mr George W. Bush is our president, our commander in chief, and . . . . . . . the man to blame.

BruteForce

06-24-2005, 10:47 PM

Well said oldekid. Rep points sent your way. :up:

Mike M

06-24-2005, 11:15 PM

God bless Bush!
After 9/11 I was so happy he was the president.

David Morton

06-26-2005, 10:12 PM

God bless Bush!
After 9/11 I was so happy he was the president.After 9/11 I was asking myself "How could he have let this happen?" and then "Why does he not take responsibility for this disaster and apologize to us for letting this happen on his watch? The least he could do was hold somebody responsible for the failure of our Air National Guard to do it's duty! We've had plans to protect us from this very thing for years, and yet it still happened. Who was asleep at the switch?" Then they lied to us and said they never had the slightest idea a terrorist would blow himself up using an airplane as a missile.

And the media and the democrats told us the same lies. That's when I knew it was really "1984" and the "war" was just another part of the show Big Brother puts on for our continued loyalty to a morally bankrupt and thoroughly corrupted system of government.

You people only think you live in a democracy.