Bill Clinton fires off at Fox News

[Miss Modular]

I'm surprised no one has posted this yet. I'm of two minds: I don't blame him, yet I figured Clinton would handle himself in a much classier way.

Over in the other room a few minutes ago on Fox News, I was hearing Mancow screaming about what an awful President Bill Clinton was and how this was Clinton's way of appealing to the far left.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060925/ap_on_re_us/clinton_fox_news

Clinton, Fox anchor battle in interview By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 26 minutes ago



In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former President Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"

He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.

Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?'"

"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.

Clinton said he "worked hard" to try to kill bin Laden.

"We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," he said.

He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

The interview was taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference.

On NBC's "Meet the Press," also taped Friday and aired Sunday, Clinton told interviewer Tim Russert that the biggest problem confronting the world today is "the illusion that our differences matter more than our common humanity."

"That's what's driving the terrorism," he said. "It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have — and some women — who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."

[El Blanco]

Did a former president go on national TV and dmit he hired contract killers for an assassination?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yeah, I thought that was pretty gangsta.

[McClain]

Clinton seemed combative. Fox does that to dems.

[mburbank]

He was tooo ready for a fight, and he let Fox look reasonable, which is a bizarre failure in and of itself. He should have calmly answer the question and THEN slowly but surely lit into tem for the free ride they have given this administration.

PLUS, he never should have gone all tough guy with the hunting and killing thing. He should have said he had a program of alternative methods that would have allowed him to capture Bin Laden dead or alive if only he didn't have to worry about quaint legalities.

[Abcdxxxx]

Let's not forget that the majority of 9/11 planning happened under the Clinton staff's watch, before anyone could predict GW of all people would get in the White House. Let's also not forget that Clinton has backed GW on his mid-east policy most of the time and he never hesitated to prove he could use our military. That said, no President has enabled terrorist more then Clinton.

What message did this send? The Cole bombing happened one year latter.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/clinton_arafat.jpg

[mburbank]

"That said, no President has enabled terrorist more then Clinton. "

Would that be in your personal opinion, or in the sense that the speed of light in an absolute?

[Abcdxxxx]

Would that be your attempt at a contradictory response?

[mburbank]

No, you concieted doofus. I'm asking if you think of it as a debatable opinion or an iron clad fact.

[Abcdxxxx]

Let's see if you can debate it, and maybe we'll find out.

What other President has knowingly invited a most wanted terrorist to the White House.

[mburbank]

I'm sorry, is that more or less enabling then say, selling terrorist weapons systems, or trading them weapons for hostages, or sending brent scowcrof to bring terrorists a cake and a bible, or sending Donald Rumsfeld to convey our warmest wishes to a guy we knew had used chemical weapons on his own people or assisting in assasinations and a coup in Chile, or allowing the Chileans to assasinate people in the united states. Oh, say, maybe it's more enabling than training Latin American death squads at the School of the Americas, or sending death squads buckets of money even after congress passed a law saying not to on account of the death squads? Or maybe selling terrorists weapons to fund death squads? See, it's so hard to tell what's the most enabling thing you can do for a terrorist, or even who a terrorist is. Say, if a ruler isn't a terrorist when we like him, but then he's almost Hitler when we don't? Oh, hey, what about when we sent the aforementined scowcroft to toast the chinese leadership about a month after Tianamen square, or when Bonzo went to Bittburgh and laid a wreath on the tomb of the unknown SS officer? Of course that's a retroactive endorsement of terrorsim, and how enabling is that? Plus, doing something Ellie Wiesel begged you not to do takes balls. Oh, hey, how about this, letting a guy who gave nuclear knowledge to the axis of evil get a pardon and house arrest, do you think that might send an , I don't know, enabling signal to terrorists? Or maybe diverting your armed forces and intelligence away from capturing the man responsible for 9/11 so you can have them go play the hokey pokey in Iraq? That might be called enabling. Or starting the Iraq war? All 16 of our intelligence gathering agencies agree that the Iraq war has strengthened terrorism, who enabled that?

I'm no Clinton fan. But even in modern history, your claim is an arguable opinion at best. And then you get into all the American Presidents who were pro genocide in the name of manifest destiny, or pro slavery. How many slavery advocates and big time Indian Killers got to dine in the whitehouse? How about William Sherman, he of the 'scorched earth policy'? An effective general, sure, but do you want to tell me he wasn't a terrorist? American Presidents haven't just enabled terrorism, they've actively sponsored it. What's terrorism? Killing non combatants speciffically for the purposes of scaring the living crap out of the survivors. You really want to make a case that of all American Presidents, CLINTON enabled that the most?

Truman dropped two atomic bombs on cities! Roosevelt bombed Dresden until there was a firestorm! The main, tactical purpose was to kill enough civillians to scare the crap out of the survivors!

You can pick and choose which incidents of terror you think were worth it, but terror as a tactic is time honored, and Clinton was a piker at enabling it. Now as countries go, we enable far less terrorism than a lot of other countries. But we hold up our end.

I think it's possible that you have just the tiniest case of tunnel vision.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm sorry, is that more or less enabling then say, selling terrorist weapons systems, or trading them weapons for hostages.....

Here comes the predictable hysterics. You really are a lunatic...but to answer your question - YES! When the President of the United States of America elevated one of histories most notorious terrorists, there was absolutely no precedence for it. It legitamized them in a way which secret arms deals and clandestine relationships never ever could do.

Or maybe diverting your armed forces and intelligence away from capturing the man responsible for 9/11 so you can have them go play the hokey pokey in Iraq?

Are you going to argue that 9/11 was planned, and executed all within an 8 month span, all while Bush was in office? Otherwise stop bullshiting.

I'm no Clinton fan. But even in modern history, your claim is an arguable opinion at best.

Then fine, I'm still waiting for you to argue that. You're just going off on some rant about the evil in the world, all while name dropping various crimes against humanity. Even if you believe events surrounding Tinnamen Sqr. enabled terrorism (forgot what we're discussing or something?) you haven't bothered to explain any supposed connection between those events. Just that civilians died.

And then you get into all the American Presidents who were pro genocide in the name of manifest destiny, or pro slavery.

Yeah let's talk about genocide and slavery! Or wait, we can stay on topic....we're talking about terrorist organizations as they relate to modern history, not some phillosophical concepts of life and evil. Not "who was the most corrupt President of all time" or "Who can we blame for the most people dying". The structure for the Islamic Supremacists organizations BOOMED during the Clinton years. Bush just inherited it.

What's terrorism? Killing non combatants speciffically for the purposes of scaring the living crap out of the survivors.

BWAHAHAHHA No wonder. Thanks for the robotic sheep definition of terrorism... that kind of explains why you're talking about an endless list of events that do not fall into the relm of this conversation let alone your own defined concept of terrorism. It's not about fear you dunderhead, it's about killing. But hey, if you want to argue that terror is a War of the Worlds tactic, and the death/destruction bit is all incidental and secondary...go for it. Maybe you think civilian deaths = terrorism? Hate to break it to you, but the FBI and State Dept. definitions of terrorism don't include State sponsored acts, or even unaffiliated hate crimes. Aren't we talking about rogue organizations and guerilla armies?

Truman dropped two atomic bombs on cities! Roosevelt bombed Dresden until there was a firestorm! The main, tactical purpose was to kill enough civillians to scare the crap out of the survivors!

Oh guess not. You see no difference between Truman's atomic bomb, and Bin Laden's 9/11. It's a wonder your wife can kiss you with your head so far up your own ass.

[sspadowsky]

I see your points, but I'm going to pretend I don't, as I am terrified of admitting that I've just had my ass handed to me.

[Geggy]

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/jpg/bush-saudi.jpg

[Geggy]

Ahhaha there's that red necktie again

[Ant10708]

Red necktie equals signal for next 9/11

[mburbank]

I'll cop to predictable hysterics, which I rather enjoy, if you cop to being a one note symphony.

"Are you going to argue that 9/11 was planned, and executed all within an 8 month span, all while Bush was in office? Otherwise stop bullshiting."
-Alphaboy

No. I'm arguing that Al Quaeda and the Taliban were in Afghanistan, that our President totally dropped that ball to pursue a personal vendetta, and that this action enabled and empowered terrorists more than any action of any other President. You may not agree with that argument, but it's hrdly bizarre. You might also say that bankrolling the Islamic fundamentalists who went on to become the Taliban as a hedge against the soviet union enabled terrorist, and so can spread the blame on Carter and Reagan, without whom their might be no Taliban. I hope I put it less hysterically this time. I know that didn't directly involve Israel and so it's virtually invisible to you.


""That said, no President has enabled terrorist more then Clinton. "
-Alphabetty

"we're talking about terrorist organizations as they relate to modern history,"
-Alphabits

Forgive my confusion. Also, if genocide and slavery don't fall under your deffinition of terror, again, forgive my confusion. Perhaps you'd like to define terror. I suggest something along the lines of "Terror is only the things I say it is."

"Thanks for the robotic sheep definition of terrorism"
-Alphadog

I beg your pardon. Perhaps you'd like to define it. Why not "Terrorism is I win all arguments."

"It's not about fear you dunderhead, it's about killing."
-Alphabot.

I'm not sure you should go with that. 'Cause if that were true, it might be called Killingism. Or, you know, war. And you should try not to say "BWAHAHAHHA". It makes you sound like some sort of horrid little teenage internet creep. Your not a teenager are you? Becaue if you are I'm sorryy I picked on you and your tunnel vision is developmentally apropriatte.

"the FBI and State Dept. definitions of terrorism don't include State sponsored acts,"
-AlphaRalphaBoulevard

I didn't know that, but it accounts for some of the lack coherency on the part of the administration. Does this mean that when we overthrew the taliban and toppled Sadaam, those were not parts of the WOT? And doesn't W talk prepetually about State Sponsored Terrorism. I don't think you should rely on the FBI or the Sate Department and for god's sake don't use a dictionary. State your own deffinition. We already know it's 'about killing' but that just doesn't seem to be helping you. Try "I Win!". It's a time honored internet technique favored by people who write "BWAHAHAHHA" to express their contempt.

"Aren't we talking about rogue organizations and guerilla armies?"
-Alpha? I don't even know a.

Okay, closer. "It's about killing by rogue organizations and guerilla armies" I'd add something about what makes a guerilla army different from a legitimate resistance or a revolution. What about "Guerilla Armies are the ones I don't like."

"You see no difference between Truman's atomic bomb, and Bin Laden's 9/11. It's a wonder your wife can kiss you with your head so far up your own ass."
-AlphaIWIN!

Here are the top two differences.
1.) Truman had a military context, a speciffic strategic goal and technology, all of which Bin Laden lacked. It is arguable (though entirely impossible to prove) that his action 'saved more lives than it ended' and so is morally acceptable.
2.) Truman killed lots and lots and lots more totally innocent people. And Truman blows Bin laden out of the water in the proportionate # of deaths that were children.

So you see, I do see differences. Do you see any similarities at all, or does your laser like focus preclude it entirely? It's a wonder you can kiss ... whatever the hell lets you kiss it... when you close with twadry little lines about peoples wives. You should have just written "BWAHAHAHHA" again. It would hve made you seem less of a net weiner.

Okay, now you write

"Yeah, whatever. This just confirms stuff I think about you that's obvious but I'll never put down in words because then everybody would realize I'm a hideous, narcisistic creep."
-Alphaweiner

[mburbank]

Pssst! DO NOT use this deffinition:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

And DO NOT define it with this one:

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear

or even

4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

[Abcdxxxx]

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/9173/nkjlp0.gif

Dude, You're a middle aged man that routinely gets unhinged on a message board forum.

According to you, and your definitions, Horror movies, and Halloween are as much terrorism as Embassy bombings. According to your definitions, the gaping dark space in your brain is terrorism. You're that far removed from reality. I'm not going to bother discussing the boogie man as terrorism, sorry. Terrorist acts are crimes, not just a suggestion of crimes. Not all crimes are terrorism. Sort it out on your own time, we're not going to agree on a basic understanding of the terminology.

The only relevant thing you said was....

"No. I'm arguing that Al Quaeda and the Taliban were in Afghanistan, that our President totally dropped that ball to pursue a personal vendetta, and that this action enabled and empowered terrorists more than any action of any other President.[/quote]

Dude, you're a seething old hopalong who knows nothing but Bush bashing. I mean maybe the above reference is when YOU started taking some casual interest in the story, but the timeline starts way earlier.... here's a snippet of what I'm talking about....

** Arafat goes to the Whitehouse, inherits billions in aid, is promised his own country, a police force, and the Oasis Casino. Photo op on the front lawn. The results? Another intifada. 2 Hezbollah attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina, followed by near daily terror attacks. A Prime Minister is assassinated. That alone was unprecedented (and teaches all the Muslim Brotherhood types that terror does indeed work.) ** First WTC bombing (the eventual trial was for conspiracy rather then the actual bombings) and again the attempt was unprecedented ** Mogadishu (the US takes a defeat, empowers terror groups) ** Clinton does nothing effective in Rwanda, refuses to call it genocide (the event is referenced by terror groups who exploit the US reluctance to intervene and stop mass killing) ** We attack Iraq (and do it several times more. Once as revenge for a supposed plot against Bush Sr.) In turn Saddam puts greater effort into supporting terror groups even playing himself up as an Islamic warrior when convenient. *** Soviet Union collapses and we fail at making sure their nuclear arsenal doesn't wind up in the hands of rogue organizations around the world ** We aid the Taliban rebels enabling them to take power. *** Oklahoma City bombing. We treat it as a homegrown incident, and settle on the McVeigh as a patsy story to put the event to bed. (The incident, along with Janet Reno's fucked response to Waco becomes the talk of the terror camps.) ** Kohbar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia (we don't properly respond.) *** Sudan offers Bin Laden to the US, and Saudi Arabia, but the US turns them down because we can't indict him in a court of law. Sudan later expels him, to Afghanistan. ** We aid a civil war in the Congo. ** Embassy attacks in Nairobi, Kenya, and Tanzania. (We finally respond, bombing Afhganistan, and Sudan - ineffectually). Then we finally indict Bin Laden, but he's hiding in a cave and a terror network has already started planning bigger and better attacks. ** Cole bombing in Yemen (we don't properly respond.)

So let's refresh - Al Qaeda came into prominance during the Clinton era. The Taliban were formed during the Clinton era. Arafat, considered the grandfather of terrorism, by some, was elevated to world leader diplomacy status during the Clinton era. Killing sprees, and oppressive regimes thrived under the Clinton administrations close watch. ....and it goes on and on.

"You might also say that bankrolling the Islamic fundamentalists who went on to become the Taliban as a hedge against the soviet union enabled terrorist, and so can spread the blame on Carter and Reagan, without whom their might be no Taliban."

That would be great response if I had said "no other President enabled Islamic terrorism ever". Spread the blame all you want, you'd do well to focus on the years PRIOR to Clinton, since a lot of bad choices were made by US Presidents that enabled terrorism...but Clinton still takes the cake, and as bad as GW might be, he inherited the situation, didn't create it.

[mburbank]

Okay, 'dude'.

I'm a middle aged comedy writer. I mean every word I post here, but I work the language. Take it any way you like.

You are a weiner of indeterminant age, since, like almost everything about you, you won't say, as it might confirm that you are as miuch of a crank as you appear to be. I'm voting for you to be under twenty. It woud be less sad. Life experience, Alphaboy, has it's merits. You should give it a shit and see. Dude.

"According to you, and your definitions, Horror movies, and Halloween are as much terrorism as Embassy bombings."
-Alphaboy

Absurd sophism. Horror movies would only be terrorism if the viewer was unaware they are movies (which I can easily imagine you doing) and their intent was to make you capitulate to someone elses will. Halloween? Why bother even typing that one? Were you terrified by trick or treaters as a child? Are you now? Don't waste space with stuff you know is stupid. Oh, and if you didn't know that was stupid, my apologies.

"Terrorist acts are crimes, not just a suggestion of crimes. Not all crimes are terrorism."
-Alpharainless

Hey, thanks. I was all worried stealing gum might be terrorism. I'm going to stand by my idea that genocide and slavery fit the deffinition (the dictionaries, not mine) of terrorism. Let me put this in terms you might be able to follow. Was Kristalnacht Terrorism?

"we're not going to agree on a basic understanding of the terminology."

I don't imagine we'll even discuss it if you don't say what you think it is a little more clearly than " "It's about killing by rogue organizations and guerilla armies". I gave you my deffinition and a dictionary deffinition. Go take a look at Preechs new post, deffinitions. He writes well. You have very bad habbit of saying "The fact that you don't know what I'm talking about just shows your head is up your ass."

I don't now where to look for the FBI and State Departments deffinition of Terrorism. Since you know what those are, why don't you post them? Or is it just easier to tell me my head is up my ass?

"a seething old hopalong who knows nothing but Bush bashing"
-AlphaGuppy

A seething old hopalong is good, but I was bashing Presidents before the unfortunate incident that spawned you. 'Dude'. Do you recognize my Icon? Do you think I chose it randomly?

Thanks for the history lesson. I did actually know what you are referring to, as you might have guessed from the tunnel vision remark. Your chain of causality is obsessive complusive. Did the chronological tragedies you laid out have something to do with your version of the Prime Mover, Arafat going to the White house? Without question. re you actually sayiong that none of the things that happen between your two first ***'s wouldn't have happened if Clinton had never had Arafat over for beer and skittles? The first WTC bombing happened on Clinton's watch. There was an actual trial, at least. Not hat I'd have wanted, but less empowering than jailing hundreds of people without charge. Rwanada? Couldn't agree with you more. The shameful act of a base triangulator, and a stain on the United states. Did I mention I dislike Clinton intensely? I wish like hell we'd done something since then. What's more empowering, refusing to call something genoicde, or publicly acknowledging it is and not doing anything about it? I'm not sure. I think calling a spade a spade is an improvement, I'll give points to W over Clinton on that one, but not many. And I thought state sponsored Genocide wasn't part of your deffinition of Terrorsim.

"Soviet Union collapses and we fail at making sure their nuclear arsenal doesn't wind up in the hands of rogue organizations around the world ** We aid the Taliban rebels enabling them to take power."
-Alphabawah?
The balme for loose soviet nukes is spread between Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. We strated aiding the people who later took the name Taliban during the Carter administration and continued to aid them up until a few days before September 11.

"Oklahoma City bombing. We treat it as a homegrown incident, and settle on the McVeigh as a patsy story to put the event to bed. (The incident, along with Janet Reno's fucked response to Waco becomes the talk of the terror camps.)"
-Alphageggy

Don't go tinfoil hat on me here, Alphaboy. What do you think we should have done? Set Mcveigh on fire in the public square to show we mean bidness when it comes to Terrorism? Recinded free speech and opened up a proto Guantanamo for dirtbags that think the same kind of shit McVeigh did? Waco? HUGE fuckup. But I think Osama may have used the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia more effectively. Clinton shares the blame with Bush I for that one.

"Sudan offers Bin Laden to the US, and Saudi Arabia, but the US turns them down because we can't indict him in a court of law. Sudan later expels him, to Afghanistan."
-Alphaboy.

Agreed. Did I mention I really think Clinton was a bad President?

"We aid a civil war in the Congo. "
-Alphabasaidsomething real dumb.

maybe the above reference is when YOU started taking some casual interest in the story, but the timeline starts way earlier. The united sttes has a LENGTHY history of supporting strong men and thugs in civil wars and coups all over the world. Sadaam Hussein was one. The Shah of Iran. Pinochet. Repulsive, but hardly Clinton's domain alone. PLEASE tell me you're still young. If you want to talk timelines, don't you think the miserably failed rescue attempt of the Iran hostages might have had something to do with any of this? How about our lengthy and total support of the Saudi Royal family? Maybe ttrading weapons for hostages during the Reagan administration gave terrorists an idea that terrorism works. While I think W has pushed the envelope, I hardly think the story begins with him. Are you so young and full of yourself you think the story begins with Clinton and Arafat? Or are you just arguing thats the most significant event? I could see that. I wouldn't agree, but I could see it. I think Clinton fucked up a lot. I just think W has fucked up way more, and again, while you may not agree, it's hardly a bizarre point of view confined solely to seething old Hopalongs like me, 'Dude'.

"So let's refresh - Al Qaeda came into prominance during the Clinton era. The Taliban were formed during the Clinton era. Arafat, considered the grandfather of terrorism, by some, was elevated to world leader diplomacy status during the Clinton era. Killing sprees, and oppressive regimes thrived under the Clinton administrations close watch. ....and it goes on and on."
-Alphabonghit

Okay, for the sake of argument, I won't even quarrel with your wording. I mentioned I'm not much of a Clinton Fan, right? Don't like his wife, either. Al Quaeda was born under Bush I out of unforseen blowback from Gulf War I. The Taliban are a product of the CIA and Pakistan and are direct result of policies dating back to the Carter administration. Killing Sprees and oppressive regimes have thrived under, been allies of and sometimes funded by the Unitd states under every single President since our opinion mattered on a global scale, and continue to. If you see a statistically significant uptick under Clinton, you should study the administrations of particularly Johnson, Nixon and Reagan. I'm not out on any wierd lft wing amewrica hating limb here. Detene under Nixon and Real Politik under Bush I were all about choosing which bastards were the most advantageous to hook up with. And then there's Reagans south American adventures and Iran/Conta. I know all that stuff happened before W came along for me to hate enough to pay attention to the world, so I must not know anything about it, but I seem to recall it happening.

"Clinton still takes the cake, and as bad as GW might be, he inherited the situation, didn't create it."
-Alphabunghole

Clinton didn't exactly inherit a blank slate. He failed to solve the problem and it got worse. W took the problem and engaged us in a war which has lasted longer then WWII with someone who was a bastard, but not the enemy, has failed to catch Bin Laden or Mullah Omar or eliminate the Taliban (I think it's pretty empowering to pull off 9/11 and get away with it alive. I think it's probably the single most empowering thing that's ever happened for our serious enemies) and whos occupation of Iraq, percieved crusader mentality, and use of kidnapping and torture I personally think, have radicalized far more people than anything Clinton did. Two arguable opinions. Not the truth vs. a ranting middle aged guy or even a horrid little internet weiner Vs. the Truth.

So 'BWAHAHAHAHA', 'Dude'. Here's another phrase from your teenage lexicon. 'Get over yourself.'

[Abcdxxxx]

Just read my last post again so we can stop going in circles. Every other sentence in your last response started with "I agree but..."

..... and no Kristellnacht was not terrorism. Genocide in not terrorism - Rwanda has some specific relevance to the conversation, as opposed to say, every random incidence of genocide all through history, but you've made it clear you can't follow just why. Hell, if your best defense is to say that terrorism has had a long sordid history, then have at it - nobody said otherwise. Again, no other President has done for a terrorist leader, and his methodology what Clinton did. Hysterics aside, you haven't addressed my statement at all. You prefer to say 9/11 is the most empowering one event for our enemies ....well attribute that to Clinton...attribute that to his campaign legitamizing Arafat....attribute it to the original WTC bombing, and then the follow up success conceived under Clinton's reign. Find out who the Muslim Brotherhood are, and their connection to the PLO, and Al Qaeda, and then maybe it will clear itself up for you. It might also explain why the Iran hostage crisis, or many other events you mentioend didn't exactly have as much resonance in the Arab world as you might be suggesting.

As far as age goes, you're the last person who should be playing that up. Go rent American Beauty and stay off the internet. Then again...with every rant you make on the internet, it's one less minute you can spend ruining your daughters life. Consider it child services, bubbula!

[mburbank]

"Every other sentence in your last response started with "I agree but..."
-Alphabawrong

Huh. I count myself agreeing with you twice, once about Rwanda, and once about the Sudan. You can sort of count my agreeing that Waco was a fuckup, but I don't think I granted you that it was significant in encouraging terrorism, which was your point. Are you counting where I agreed I was middle aged, and a hopalong? Okay, that takes you up to five agreements. Oh, I guess your counting where I agreed Clinton was a bad president, and when I agreed with your list of events that took place during the Clinton Administration. But all I agreed with is that they happened, not that they support your argument. But fine, take that one too. So a maximum of 7 agreements if you REALLLLLY strecth it. Amongst about 100 some odd sentences, not counting when I was quoting you, 'case I'm being generous here. 7 is 50% of 100 to you? Oh well, this isn't a math test. All I'm saying (and I thought very nicely) is that you aren't totally wrong about everything you say. If I thought you were all wrong all the time about everything always, there wouldn't be the least point in communicating with you.

Okay, No genocide (except where it has 'relevance', ie. you brought it up) no Kristellnacht. You're right, I can't follow why that would be. I wish you'd explain why, one would almost think you can't. Is your deffinition any more speciffic than "Terrorism is the killing of people by Non State groups"? You're making me do this for you, so forgive me if I still haven't gotten what you're saying. I think it's very rude of you to treat me like an idiot when I work so hard to parse meaning from your screed.

"Again, no other President has done for a terrorist leader, and his methodology what Clinton did. Hysterics aside, you haven't addressed my statement at all"
-AlphaNarcissa

Pedantics aside, you haven't supported your argument. You've listed things that happened and claimed they make Clinton more culpable than anyone else. You admit that relatd things happened under other Presidents, but your argument is basically "The things I mentioned are the ones that count more" What evidence or argument do you have that says the Arafat invite empowered terrorism more than the war in Iraq, which W certainly did not 'inherit'. You attribute 9/11 to Clinton, (and here I'd thought that was Osama, but I do understand you) I think what blame there is for that can be shared by the Bush administration, and they alone are responsible for Bin Laden, Omar and the Taliban still existing.

"It might also explain why the Iran hostage crisis, or many other events you mentioend didn't exactly have as much resonance in the Arab world as you might be suggesting. "
-AlphabaMuslimworld

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were the Muslim World. It was my impression that a lot of Middle East scholars thought it was kind of significant, the first instance of Muslim radicals being able to completely defy The Great Satan. But on your say so, I'll accept that it wasn't that big a deal. It sure seemed like a lot back then. But of course I was alive and you were a blastoma.

"As far as age goes, you're the last person who should be playing that up."
-Alphabaweenie.

Why? It's easy writing to vaguely imply something. Is it that you don't have the sack to say what you mean, or is it just the imagination you're lacking.

"Then again...with every rant you make on the internet, it's one less minute you can spend ruining your daughters life."
-Alphababedwetter

Well said, Alphaboy! An eloquent example of why young men of quality like yourself should have free reign over the tubes of the Internet. Seriously, do you have any self respect? Do you know what you sound like when you write something like that? Why would anyone take your opinions about anything seriously when you are obviosuly such an unpleasant person, 'Dude'?

[Preechr]

hmmm

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Christ, I should read these threads better....

Ok, kids. That's right, I'm a fascist, I'm drunk with power, yada yada yada....

If we can't debate without attacking children, then big brother will have to lock the thread. Abc, I'm sure you can argue with Max without bringing his family into the matter. That definitely crosses the "taking it personal" line. No more of it, that's a warning.

And in general, I'd like to see you both stay on issues andavoid personal crap. I know this has been said before, but try harder. Thanks.

[sspadowsky]

Oh, Jesus H. Christ on a fucking pogo stick. What is this bullshit?

Big Brother's going to have to lock the thread?

Look, I'll be the first to agree that Abcd's remark was stupid, immature, and uncalled for. But that speaks for itself, and we can all have fun turning him into a virtual pinata for his douchebaggery.

First of all, it's just a goddamn message board, so let's just relax those sphincters, shall we? Anything goes. If we were all face-to-face, and Abcdklhdfkh shoved a broken beer bottle in Max's grill, I'd feel a little differently. But he didn't. Max is more than capable of defending himself, and I'm sure he can whip up a snappy comeback that will make Abcd look dumber than he already does.

Secondly, Kevin, over the years on this board, you've been given to immature name-calling silliness as much as anyone else, me included, so get over yourself already.

It's just a fucking message board. Relax. I know it's been said before, but try harder.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Put a sock in it, Potsy.

"Look, I'll be the first to agree that Abcd's remark was stupid, immature, and uncalled for. But that speaks for itself, and we can all have fun turning him into a virtual pinata for his douchebaggery."

Good point! Why stay on topic, when we can just derail every thread into name calling and personal jabs!

There's being immature, and then there's being offensive. If you can't tell the difference between name calling and calling out someone's kid, then don't jump in.

These are the fucking rules of the message board. I didn't ban anybody, and I haven't locked it yet. I asked nicely. If you don't like it, go whine to Chojin, and spare me and everyone else here. Thanks a bunch.

[sspadowsky]

Yes, because I-mockery has a long and proud tradition of threads staying on-topic and not devolving into insults and personal attacks.

I say again- get over yourself.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yes, because asking that people not insult family members is surely a reflection of my own ego. :rolleyes

Maybe you should get over the impulse of hitting that "submit" button, buddy.

[sspadowsky]

No, it's a reflection of you taking a message board waaaaaaaaaay too seriously. And no, you didn't ask nicely, you said it with a certain insufferable pomposity that seems to pervade most of the posts you've made in the last year or so. Your sarcastic little "buddy" closer in that last post is a prime example.

I don't think anyone has suffered any truly hurt feelings from anything that's ever been said on this board. Abcd is a douche, no question, and he seems to take pride in it. But he'll get an ass-chewing for it, and so what if it derails the thread? Big fucking whoop. It's not like a thread going off-track is going to keep some important legislation from passing. It's just a bunch of yo-yos on a message board pretending they know some shit.

A guy can get called out for being an ass, whether it ruins a thread or not. The thread can always be brought back on track. Waving magical moderator powers around is silly and pretentious.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Cool, thanks for your input.

[sspadowsky]

No sweat, buddy. ;)

[Abcdxxxx]

i'll just pull a geggy, and say this article touches on a few points...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24328

[Preechr]

I vote with Kevin. That was uncalled for.

I'll be first in line to pick on Kevin for his inflated ego, but keeping discussions at least somewhat civil and on topic is what a mod is supposed to do. Abcdxxxx crossed a line, and now the discussion is about that instead of whatever the topic was. As you said, sspad, now it's virtual pinata time if anybody's interested, but this board has mods just in case nobody cares about civility and decency. You seem to be more offended that Kevin is enforcing I-mock's rules than you are that somebody broke them in a cheap attempt to get out of a conversation without admitting he was wrong.

Not everybody here is twelve years old, and some of us yo-yos enjoy talking things through on a more adult level. Maybe you just don't understand where the line was crossed, or why that line exists where it does. Don't feel bad. General Blabber is jam-packed with teeny-boppers that can't make a point without flinging shit. As they get older, most of them will grow to understand that there's a time and a place for flinging shit, and some shit you just probably shouldn't fling if you want to stay at the adult table.

There's a big difference between name-calling and mocking someone's fatherhood. Kevin gets that, and apparently you don't. There are some rules I guess I'm not as comfortable relying on you and the rest of the mob to enforce, and maybe that's a good example of why. Since Kevin is the mod for "Philosophy/Sociology/Religion/Politics/News/etc." and not the food forum, I'm thinking the Admins here agree that at least in this part of the board, the shit-flinging should be a little more limited here at the adult table than it is in the other forums.

[sspadowsky]

"Then again...with every rant you make on the internet, it's one less minute you can spend ruining your daughters life."
-Alphababedwetter

Well said, Alphaboy! An eloquent example of why young men of quality like yourself should have free reign over the tubes of the Internet. Seriously, do you have any self respect? Do you know what you sound like when you write something like that? Why would anyone take your opinions about anything seriously when you are obviosuly such an unpleasant person, 'Dude'?

There it is. Max addressed it, succinctly, and in adult fashion.

Furthermore, I already agreed that it was uncalled for. If you dig back through the history of this board, you'll see that I've been one of the most vocal when pointing out that Abcd is an asshole. I've been on this board a long time, Preech, and am well aware of how things can get out of hand, and am very well aware of the dynamic on the Philo board as opposed to the others. That is why I spend most of my time on I-mock here, as opposed to the other boards. I just thought Kevin overreacted to it. If the guy is posting anal fisting porn, or spamming his website, by all means, call in the board police.

While I would imagine that Max appreciates the sentiment, he's demonstrated over and over that he doesn't need anyone else coming to his defense.

[mburbank]

And in an attempt to keep the thread from derailing, the thread has been uttrly derailed. And not by me, or even Alphaboy, I might add, although as long as this thread is not yet locked, I will say that Alphaboy is almost certainly a terrible individual, but that does not mean his penis is neccesarily small and useless.

I intend to start another thread to discuss the political aspects of moderatorship. Lets move that discussion there. Or at least try harder to.

Oh, and I totally agree with Sspad. While this forum shouldn't be general blabber, it is politics, religion, news and MOCKERY! If I wated politics without the Mockery, I'd read stinky old poli sci journals.

Alphaboy, any thoughts on the merits, or has all the gas leaked out of your bag?

[Ant10708]

Sspad took Kevin's post way to seriousy.

[mburbank]

Off topic. I have made a whole new thread for this.

[sspadowsky]

Sspad took Kevin's post way to seriousy.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK, YOU DIRTY MOTHERF-

Oh, wait.

No, I didn't take it too seriously. I took it as an opportunity to needle Kevin, because I thought his behavior was silly and arrogant. Arrogant, even for Kevin, and that's something of an achievement.

I find arrogance and condescension far more offensive than anything a guy could say about another guy's parenting qualities. And when I think someone is getting too full of himself, I take the opportunity to call him on it. It's fun and entertaining, particularly because arrogant people are unable to laugh at themselves, and easier to annoy.

In the interest of not being passive-aggressive, I will now address Kevin directly.

I don't know what happened to you, man. You used to be a likeable guy. I'm not sure if this change in your personality coincided with your move to DC, but it seems it was about that time that I noticed you acting a little differently, and it became more noticeable over time.

I don't see humor in what you post anymore; just a lot of venom, vitriol, name-calling and the like. So when you whipped out your internet authority badge, it seemed like a good time to suggest that you might be taking this just a teensy bit too seriously.

I've spoken my piece, and I will now drop it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

And with that, the spotted Sspad will return to eight months of hibernation.

[sspadowsky]

:lol

That's more like it.

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay well I attempted to go back on topic, but that didn't work so here are some thoughts:

I totally crossed the line, and did so intentionally. You get what you put out. I can't ridicule the personal details of his life unless he's brought them to the table in this section of the forum to begin with.

We've been talking about the same shit for 6 years now - if someone wants to play dumb and go in circles, as if this is the first time these topics have come up, with little development or reference to the topic in an assemblance of evolving conversation, then they're just clowning around.... I can either repeat the same shit, or take the conversation down clown alley, where they're most comfortable. Either way, I can claim to have grown assier over the years , but has Burbank really become any more clever, OR informed? I wouldn't mind taking these conversations back to the days when we sourced our arguments, and kept a conversation going in one thread rather then 20. There were personal insults, and ethnic slurs, but while I posed outrage, I could give a fuck really. Nothing posted in this forum has ever offended me.
(I do think it's totally presumtious to call her a "totally innocent 12 year old", as few 12 years olds are totally innocent these days, right Burby?) Now if that offends anyone, and they want these conversations to stick to solid debates, with sourced factual arguments that differenetiate between opinions, and historical truths - well I'd love that...I'm perfectly capable, and welcome it. I'm not putting in that effort when people just make drive by posts, or launch into HeeHaw schtick. In other words, I doubt we're going to raise the bar of discourse here anytime soon. The majority of posters just aren't really capable. So really, let's just be honest about what this forum is an outlet for. All that said, if I don't like it, I can go post elsewhere - I respect Kevin's moderation, because the guys got a brain and far more patience to deal with You People then I ever could.

p.s. since we're getting our priorities straight, maybe we could sticky some topics of heavy debate so they don't distract from the mocking about , instead of the other way around?

[sspadowsky]

"Yeah, I could be less of a dick, but I won't, 'cause you won't know the stuff that I tell you you're supposed to know if you wanna be smart like me."

You could have just typed that, and saved some time.

[mburbank]

I'm sorry, you may have been looking for clown alley, but you seem to have made a wrong turn into douchebag dead end. You didn't 'cross the line' deliberately, you're just an ass. That's not some calculated choice, it's who you are.

[Miss Modular]

I will now address Kevin directly.

I don't know what happened to you, man. You used to be a likeable guy. I'm not sure if this change in your personality coincided with your move to DC, but it seems it was about that time that I noticed you acting a little differently, and it became more noticeable over time.

I second this. That is all.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think 'likeable' = knee-jerk Leftist on this board.

That is all.

[mburbank]

I think you find pigeonholes more useful with each passing day. And I'm cetain that is not all.

[sspadowsky]

I think 'likeable' = knee-jerk Leftist on this board.

That is all.

No, 'likeable'= 'used to have a sense of humor and used to not have a superiority complex.'

That's what I meant by 'likeable,' anyway.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It's DC, man, it changes you. Remember the movie Wallstreet? It's like that, but in Washington. I'm surrounded by interns and free blow and it warps you, man.

:rolleyes

[sspadowsky]

I knew it. :( Kevin's a beltway insider now.

[mburbank]

Don't forget all the free food. Before my brother got married and started going home for dinner, he just used to drop in on whatever official dinners were being held for the cocktail hour and feast on taxpayer funded hour duerves. Or has security conciousness put an end to all that?

[Preechr]

Keving got a cush job as an official food tester for a pool of notable congressmen. Now he's all fat and mean like Vince.

[Geggy]

Donna Marsh O'Conner Issues An Open Letter to Bill Clinton

911blogger.com

We received the following letter this evening from Donna Marsh O'Connor, mother of Vanessa Lang Langer who died in WTC Tower II, 93rd floor on 9/11. Please be sure to click 'read more' for the entire letter. Comments to this thread are allowed, but anything which I deem at all inappropriate will be removed.

An Open Letter to Bill Clinton from a 9/11 Mother

Dear President Clinton,

This is a letter explaining to you in, I hope, explicitly simple detail why I feared your eventual speaking out almost as much as I feared one more minute of the reign of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. But first I have to say, with absolute clarity, from the bottom of my soul, heart, in fact the very soles of my feet, thank you for finally, finally, five years too late to be sure, but finally, telling the truth about 9/11/2001.

If interested in continuing you can read the rest of the letter here
http://205.234.134.46/node/3289

[kahljorn]

Geggy is hilarious.

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

Did a former president go on national TV and dmit he hired contract killers for an assassination? Well yeah, he even fired missiles at him and got a few places around him but missed him in particular.

I think Clinton did a spectacular job trying his best to attack Bin laden and fight the pre 9/11 war on terror as best he could. I think the pre 9/11 republicans were to complacent and now they are doing their best but may be inneffective.

If you blame Clinton's administration for doing to little, in a time where he was risking war to go after a then barely known terrorist you are blind and partisan.

Maybe Clinton was mad and was over the top in his repsponse but damn it he was right in everything he said. Keep in mind I'm usually a republican but I gotta suppert Bill on this cause he's right.