Political history being re wrote as we watch

[Full-Auto]

"Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem..."

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

Your false case means nothing. Clinton did a far better job at protecting the homeland while preserving civil liberties than Bush. You are merely a neo-con whose time is over for good.

Do you get tired of being owned?

Is your baby monitor still hooked up to the white house? Did you ass wipes finally decide its OK for the FBI and CIA to communicate?

 

[Katzndogz]

It's like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was totally forgotten! Had Clinton did something about that beside treat it as a random criminal act, we would never have had 2001.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

All I asked was for ONE simple link stemming from the United Nations saying President Bush has violated international law. It has become quite obvious from your responses, no such document from the UN exists, else a simple "link" of accusation from the UN would be no problem for you. I don't care for your ask yourself left wing blog opinions, only that you provide me with actual "written document facts".

It's very simple, everyone on this thread can follow this: Either you can provide these links to written document facts coming from the United Nations, or you can't.

You can forget that. Jake and Boo have no understanding of what information is and how it is used to clear up the truth

Jake knows he can't provide proof, only his "views" regarding President Bush's violations with the United Nations along with the view of: 'See! They hate Bush overseas, he must have violated International Law!' . . . . He fought against MUSLIUM extremeists, is it really any huge ghastly supprise that countries in the Mid East, and those sympathetic to the Muslium people would hate him? I mean come on, Really?

Oh, apparently Jake seems to think he can set the "goal posts" with his hatred views of President Bush, but when you ask him to back up his statement with a little document of proof and it's: 'Hey! Hey! You can't do that!"

Boo at least can provide Documentation, I credited Boo for that and I have looked at what was suppled thus far. However, to say President Clinton was aggresively fighting to prevent terrorist attacks from killing more US troops? No. I worked with a Special Ops unit after 1994, and was in Italy when the barracks was hit by a terrorist vehicle bomb, no response (other than heightened check points) ever resulted from the incident. It's quite sad really.

 

[Full-Auto]

All I asked was for ONE simple link stemming from the United Nations saying President Bush has violated international law. It has become quite obvious from your responses, no such document from the UN exists, else a simple "link" of accusation from the UN would be no problem for you. I don't care for your ask yourself left wing blog opinions, only that you provide me with actual "written document facts".

It's very simple, everyone on this thread can follow this: Either you can provide these links to written document facts coming from the United Nations, or you can't.

You can forget that. Jake and Boo have no understanding of what information is and how it is used to clear up the truth

Jake knows he can't provide proof, only his "views" regarding President Bush's violations with the United Nations along with the view of: 'See! They hate Bush overseas, he must have violated International Law!' . . . . He fought against MUSLIUM extremeists, is it really any huge ghastly supprise that countries in the Mid East, and those sympathetic to the Muslium people would hate him? I mean come on, Really?

Oh, apparently Jake seems to think he can set the "goal posts" with his hatred of President Bush, but when you ask him to back up his statement with a little document of proof and it's: 'Hey! Hey! You can't do that!"

Boo at least can provide Documentation, I credit her for that and I have looked at what she has suppled thus far. However, to say President Clinton was aggresively fighting to prevent terrorist attacks from killing more US troops? No. I worked with a Special Ops unit after 1994, and was in Italy when the barracks was hit by a terrorist vehicle bomb, no response (other than heightened check points) ever resulted from the incident. It's quite sad really.

Jake is becoming extremely unbalanced and incoherent. Just saying..............

 

[JakeStarkey]

What the neocon losers have problems with is that the UN does not try war criminals, The Hague does. The Hague will arrest when it can do so for everyone's safety. Once the arrests are made, then the indictments will be drawn up.

That is why the bushies don't travel.

 

[JRK]

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

Your false case means nothing. Clinton did a far better job at protecting the homeland while preserving civil liberties than Bush. You are merely a neo-con whose time is over for good.

Do you get tired of being owned?

Is your baby monitor still hooked up to the white house? Did you ass wipes finally decide its OK for the FBI and CIA to communicate?

These 2 Boo and Jake take this stuff way personal. There is no logic in there reasoning. The also fail to admit that when the terrorist trained to fly those jets, Clinton was the president. I do not blame any-one but the highly motivated, and crazy 19 terrorist who carried out the mission.
But the logic of who kept us safe according to Jake is in-correct

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your false case means nothing. Clinton did a far better job at protecting the homeland while preserving civil liberties than Bush. You are merely a neo-con whose time is over for good.

Do you get tired of being owned?

Is your baby monitor still hooked up to the white house? Did you ass wipes finally decide its OK for the FBI and CIA to communicate?

These 2 Boo and Jake take this stuff way personal. There is no logic in there reasoning. The also fail to admit that when the terrorist trained to fly those jets, Clinton was the president. I do not blame any-one but the highly motivated, and crazy 19 terrorist who carried out the mission.
But the logic of who kept us safe according to Jake is in-correct

The rightwing progressive neo-con imperialists like you JRK get nowhere denying the truth.

All know that you lie, and that the bushies days of freedom will come to an end eventually.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You don't set the goal posts, podjo. The UN did not give the USA the resolution it wanted, so the USA invaded in an offensive, aggressive war anyway. That is a violation of international law.

You don't like it? You don't matter. And you know that the Bushies don't travel overseas because they won't becoming back.

Hating Bush because he fought muslium terrorist extremists does not PROVE your argument. You continue to only provide "opinion" without the basis of fact to back it up. If facts weren't so illusive for you, you would have been able to find some to defend your arguement. All you have given me is the same old "opinion" that I hear from the left through blogs or commentaries, as all unsupported statements are.

I deny what you do, hate.

My fact are clear, and the Bushies don't travel.

End of story.

I supplied facts through links and have provided documentation, you can't.

I don't hate Clinton, I simply don't agree with the arguement the Clinton Administration aggressively fought to prevent further terrorist attacks from happening, he didn't. The attacks that happened throughout his watch, USS Cole being the last failed attempt to bring the United States' guard up, prove that.

End of story.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What the neocon losers have problems with is that the UN does not try war criminals, The Hague does. The Hague will arrest when it can do so for everyone's safety. Once the arrests are made, then the indictments will be drawn up.

That is why the bushies don't travel.

I never made that suggestion that the UN gives trials to war criminals, only provide proof through documentation or a link, that President Bush violated international law by attacking Iraq. Apparently, through your avoidance to provide what I have been asking, there is only the left's view of Bush as a war criminal . . . and nothing more.

 

[JRK]

Do you get tired of being owned?

Is your baby monitor still hooked up to the white house? Did you ass wipes finally decide its OK for the FBI and CIA to communicate?

These 2 Boo and Jake take this stuff way personal. There is no logic in there reasoning. The also fail to admit that when the terrorist trained to fly those jets, Clinton was the president. I do not blame any-one but the highly motivated, and crazy 19 terrorist who carried out the mission.
But the logic of who kept us safe according to Jake is in-correct

The rightwing progressive neo-con imperialists like you JRK get nowhere denying the truth.

All know that you lie, and that the bushies days of freedom will come to an end eventually.

Shack back in the day I would ask Jake point out one of my lies so i could correct it, or defend my self
He would then say something to the effect that he had all ready posted it. Watch this

Okay Jake, name one lie I have told

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem..."

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

Your false case means nothing. Clinton did a far better job at protecting the homeland while preserving civil liberties than Bush. You are merely a neo-con whose time is over for good.

Your 'ideological' views are irrelevant. Show me where in the United States Constitution [Article and Clause] it's written that rights are to given to those captured on the battlefield, outside the U.S.? Can you explain why none of the thousands of German soldiers captured in battle in Europe, or the Japanese soldiers in battle over in the Pacific, were provided with civilian trials? Were their civil liberties violated?


The big difference between enemy combatants, and Eric Holders own unrelenting "view" of terrorists being treated as a simply criminals:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B5bkzypa6Y&feature=related]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shakles is going blah blah blah. Bugger off, son. Your time is over.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

These 2 Boo and Jake take this stuff way personal. There is no logic in there reasoning. The also fail to admit that when the terrorist trained to fly those jets, Clinton was the president. I do not blame any-one but the highly motivated, and crazy 19 terrorist who carried out the mission.
But the logic of who kept us safe according to Jake is in-correct

The rightwing progressive neo-con imperialists like you JRK get nowhere denying the truth.

All know that you lie, and that the bushies days of freedom will come to an end eventually.

Shack back in the day I would ask Jake point out one of my lies so i could correct it, or defend my self
He would then say something to the effect that he had all ready posted it. Watch this

Okay Jake, name one lie I have told

Jake is just trying to hold VERY desperately to his "view", but his argument is unraveling. You can not make the claim of "false statements" if you have nothing but mere hot air to back it up. Jake has offered no credibility to his position, except resorting to neo-con statements. Judging from that response he resorts to, he has GOT to be frustrated in the fact he is losing ground in defending his case. Best thing for you JRK, is simply ignore him as his further statements have become basically irrelevant to the discussion here. Stick to those you can actually have a political dialogue with, who actually takes the time to respond through well thought out statements.


Boo on the other hand, I CAN respect for standing up to the plate in this discussion and providing articles to try to defend Clinton's position. Honestly I don't mind, and would rather learn from a new different perspective, exchanging views and positions with BlindBoo. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You lie when you say that I have not shown you and the liber fools up every time, when in fact you guys are walking around holding your asses with both hands you have been metaphorically beat so hard on them by the truth.

Now if you want to post neo-con and libertarian lies go for it, and get smacked for it.

Simple. That's how it works here.

 

[BlindBoo]

Thank you for closing my argument by saying Clinton only treated Terrorism through "legal means" as every documentation surrounding President Clinton (you provided) looks very clear to support that view.

Here is the simple question: Has Obama ever retracted from pursuing terrorists as "criminals" and has stated that terrorists shall be called "enemy combatants"? Are Terrorists still viewed and treated, in the eyes of Eric Holder as criminals, by these articles below?

"Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem..."

The problem still remains: Clinton NEVER viewed terrorists as enemy combatants ONLY "criminals". The fact he didn't aggressivly persue to protect the citizens of the United States, or its troops is VERY clear when you look at the attacks that followed. You can not simply look at these attacks after the initial Trade Tower bombings and say Clinton was actively protecting America. He failed to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

President Obama ALSO never took the stance of calling terrorists enemy combatants. Eric Holder still pushes to keep Miranda Rights very much alive and a part of capturing terrorists, because he still refuses to see them as anything but "criminals". Miranda Rights and the right of a trial, as written in the Constitution, does not apply to boundries OUTSIDE of the United States.

If that were true President Clinton wouldn't have tried to assassinate him with cruise missiles. Here's how he viewed the terrorist after the bombing of our embassies. Not quite the "ONLY CRIMINALS" view you have claimed.

"Last May, at the Naval Academy commencement, I said terrorist and outlaw states are extending the world's fields of battle, from physical space to cyberspace, from our earth's vast bodies of water to the complex workings of our own human bodies. The enemies of peace realize they cannot defeat us with traditional military means. So they are working on two new forms of assault, which you've heard about today: cyber attacks on our critical computer systems, and attacks with weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, potentially even nuclear weapons. We must be ready -- "

From: REMARKS BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
ON KEEPING AMERICA SECURE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

President William Jefferson Clinton's Speech-National Academy of Sciences

 

[BlindBoo]

Your false case means nothing. Clinton did a far better job at protecting the homeland while preserving civil liberties than Bush. You are merely a neo-con whose time is over for good.

Do you get tired of being owned?

Is your baby monitor still hooked up to the white house? Did you ass wipes finally decide its OK for the FBI and CIA to communicate?

These 2 Boo and Jake take this stuff way personal. There is no logic in there reasoning. The also fail to admit that when the terrorist trained to fly those jets, Clinton was the president. I do not blame any-one but the highly motivated, and crazy 19 terrorist who carried out the mission.
But the logic of who kept us safe according to Jake is in-correct

Personal? Nah, the only thing that I vaguely take personal is the meaningless insults. I take my not being able to ignore them all, by returning some of them in kind, as a personal failing of my own, so I will redouble my efforts to ignore them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boo, neo-cons always lie. That's what they do.

 

[JWBooth]

"Now, much needs to be done by all of us in the community of civilized nations. We must act against the criminal menace of terrorism with the full weight of the law, both domestic and international. We will act to indict, apprehend, and prosecute those who commit the kind of atrocities the world has witnessed in recent weeks. We can act together as free peoples who wish not to see our citizens kidnapped or shot or blown out of the skies -- just as we acted together to rid the seas of piracy at the turn of the last century. And incidentally, those of you who are legal scholars will note the law's description of pirates: "hostis humanis'' -- the enemies of all mankind. There can be no place on Earth left where it is safe for these monsters to rest or train or practice their cruel and deadly skills. We must act together, or unilaterally if necessary, to ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere." Ronald Reagan, July 1985

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's why Reagan ran in Lebanon?

 

[JRK]

The rightwing progressive neo-con imperialists like you JRK get nowhere denying the truth.

All know that you lie, and that the bushies days of freedom will come to an end eventually.

Shack back in the day I would ask Jake point out one of my lies so i could correct it, or defend my self
He would then say something to the effect that he had all ready posted it. Watch this

Okay Jake, name one lie I have told

Jake is just trying to hold VERY desperately to his "view", but his argument is unraveling. You can not make the claim of "false statements" if you have nothing but mere hot air to back it up. Jake has offered no credibility to his position, except resorting to neo-con statements. Judging from that response he resorts to, he has GOT to be frustrated in the fact he is losing ground in defending his case. Best thing for you JRK, is simply ignore him as his further statements have become basically irrelevant to the discussion here. Stick to those you can actually have a political dialogue with, who actually takes the time to respond through well thought out statements.


Boo on the other hand, I CAN respect for standing up to the plate in this discussion and providing articles to try to defend Clinton's position. Honestly I don't mind, and would rather learn from a new different perspective, exchanging views and positions with BlindBoo. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

I really cannot tell the diff with the 2. I think Boo took the truth personal. I do not ever remember him being that way until we began to debate Iraq and the truth versus what the media and the democrats repeated for so long it became the truth. It makes me furious to know that the Democrats covet being elected more than the truth about the real events that lead up to invading Iraq