If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
wrote: You didn't provide a source. Too embarrassed to reveal the ultra-left paranoid kook website you heard that one from? True enough. Here you go, you illiterate baboon: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/21/wag.the.dog/ If you do a web search for "Clinton" "wag the dog" on Google you get 52,500 hits. A number of those refer to the press conference in which William Cohen was asked if the airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan were a wag the dog tactic. Arlen Specter went on television and said that Clinton may have had more on his mind than national security when he ordered the airstrikes. My favorite conservative webpage on the topic quotes the Washington Times: The Washington Times (12/18/98, p. 1) reports "The White House orchestrated a plan to provoke Saddam Hussein into defying United Nations weapons inspectors so President Clinton could justify air strikes, former and current government officials charge. and Robert Novak: "As whenever a president pulls the trigger, Clinton's top national security advisers supported him. But majors and lieutenant colonels at the Pentagon, whose staff work undergirds any military intervention, are, in the words of a senior officer, 200 percent opposed. They disagree fundamentally. They know the attack on Iraq was planned long before Butler's report and consider it politically motivated." and then there was Trent Lott: The New York Times (12/18/98, p. A20) reported that "Under criticism from both parties, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, backed away from his charge that the strikes were linked to impeachment. After overnight reflection, he said, I am satisfied this was a military decision.... and then there's everybody's conservative favorite, WorldNetDaily: Maybe it seems like old news not worth revisiting. But the more I see Bill Clinton congratulating himself over his "military victory" in Kosovo, the more it reminds me that this entire operation began as little more than a diversion from his latest political scandal. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=14770 I know exactly what I wrote. Clearly you haven't one single clue, but it's adorable the way you stamp on the floor and insist you're a reel smart guy anyway. Better than 250% response rate - wow! -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Melinda Shore wrote: In article .com, wrote: You didn't provide a source. Too embarrassed to reveal the ultra-left paranoid kook website you heard that one from? True enough. Here you go, you illiterate baboon: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/21/wag.the.dog/ More name calling. I know when I've got you on the ropes. Here's what you wrote: Actually, Clinton wanted to attack bin Laden's training camp but his hands were tied by Congressional Republicans who were accusing him of "wag the dog" tactics in order to distract the country from the all-important impeachment hearings. Duh. That worked out really well, didn't it? "wag the dog"?? Your excuse for him is a lame one. He had no problem launching missiles at the aspirin factory. If you do a web search for "Clinton" "wag the dog" on Google you get 52,500 hits. Which is irrelevant... A number of those refer to the press conference in which William Cohen was asked if the airstrikes in Sudan and Afghanistan were a wag the dog tactic. Arlen Specter went on television and said that Clinton may have had more on his mind than national security when he ordered the airstrikes. That still doesn't explain why Clinton didn't defend the country against the numerous terrorists attacks on us during his administration. Furthermore, if he was such a great leader (as you assert), then why was he afraid of the little old republicans charges (that turned out to be true) that he was distracting from his affairs w/ a girl young enough to be his daughter? It still didn't stop him from attacking the aspirin factory! He had no problem doing it then, but he had problems w/ the republicans the rest of the time? A true leader is going to press foward regardless of the consequenes if he/she feels it is the right thing to do. The bottom line is that Clinton was weak on national defense. America's enemies saw this and continued to attack us. Yet you bemoan that fact that we are no longer "at peace". I submit that it is Clinton's refusal to strike back at our (America's) enemies (he was good at doing it to his domestic enemies, by the way) that brought us to where we are now. I know exactly what I wrote. Clearly you haven't one single clue, but it's adorable the way you stamp on the floor and insist you're a reel smart guy anyway. Better than 250% response rate - wow! -- It's the website you used. Now when I use it, it's "wrong"? You're a hypocrite. Care to explain away the numerous attacks on America and American interests that Clinton ignored? I didn't think so. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Melinda Shore wrote: In article .com, wrote: Which is irrelevant... To the contrary. You didn't know that people in your own party were accusing Clinton of "wag the dog" tactics when he wanted to get tough with terrorists and with Iraq, and you said that you thought I got my information off an extreme left-wing site. No, that's wrong. Whatever gave you that idea? If Clinton really wanted "to get tough" w/ terrorists, why didn't he? Because HE WAS A WEAK LEADER!! That's why. Everybody at the time thought it was wag the dog and, of course, it was. Clinton had no problem launching missiles to distract from his sex scandals. He still didn't respond to all the other instances of terrorism that were committed against the U.S. PRIOR to his sex scandals being made public. The 1st WTC bombing was in '93. That's just one example. Of course there are more. I provided citations to CNN and to extreme right-wing sites, as well as to DOD press conferences where reporters were asking the Secretary of Defense about "Wag the Dog" and the airstrikes Clinton ordered. So not only is it not irrelevant, it's immediately responsive to your question. That's not what I meant by irrelevant. Perhaps you aren't as smart as you think you are. Oh, and you're wrong again. If you consider the websites that are "on the right" that you listed as "extreme" (what is w/ you leftists always characterizing anything you don't agree with as extreme??) then you must think CNN is an extreme left wing web site as well. I suppose it's a waste of time trying to explain to you what "irrelevant" means. That still doesn't explain why Clinton didn't defend the country against the numerous terrorists attacks on us during his administration. There weren't "numerous" attacks, and when he did try to respond, Republicans complained about his motives being purely political. Oh, that's baloney and you know it. He TURNED DOWN OBL THREE TIMES!! I've made the references to just some of the NUMEROUS attacks that you want to ignore. And don't give me this stuff about the poor widdle president tried to respond, but the big, mean rascaly republicans wouldn't "let" him. That's the spin from a political hack, which is what you're turning out to be. Now, I'm not particularly thrilled with his response, either, but I tend to blame partisan Republicans for sucking the country into a stupid-ass impeachment (GEE, THINK THERE JUST *MIGHT* HAVE BEEN A BETTER USE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S TIME AND MONEY?) and Clinton for not having the backbone to tell you cretins to go to hell. You can't lie under oath and get away w/ it. If he didn't lie under oath, he wouldn't have been impeached. What Clinton DID do was tell the American people who elected him to "go to hell". Nice try, though. It's the website you used. Now when I use it, it's "wrong"? You're a hypocrite. It's not wrong, and I didn't say it's wrong. I said that you're a moron and that you haven't got the foggiest idea how to read data or write about them. That is to say, the data are right and what you wrote about those data was wrong. You'll never get off the loading dock if you can't do better with understanding what you read, so go back and take a look at what you actually wrote, not what you think you wrote. Melinda, I simply made reference to a poll off the site that you referenced. Nothing more, nothing less. You're reading waaay too much into it and spinning all the while. Nice try with the Clinton distractions (and Clinton, bad as he was, still did a far better job as president than Bush). -- I've already made a compelling case to anyone who is intellectually honest that Clinton was NOT a better president. That's mostly subjective anyhow. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
wrote: Which is irrelevant... To the contrary. You didn't know that people in your own party were accusing Clinton of "wag the dog" tactics when he wanted to get tough with terrorists and with Iraq, and you said that you thought I got my information off an extreme left-wing site. No, that's wrong. Whatever gave you that idea? I dunno. It might have been .com You know, stuff you wrote. Oh, wait. I see the problem. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
absolutely amazing | Diana | Dog behavior | 0 | September 2nd 04 12:25 PM |
absolutely amazing | Diana | Dog behavior | 0 | September 2nd 04 12:25 PM |
absolutely amazing | Diana | Dog behavior | 0 | September 2nd 04 12:25 PM |
The Garbage Dumper Caught In The Act!!! | Leah | Dog behavior | 0 | August 11th 03 04:10 PM |