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/...inton_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.

[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]

Originally Posted by mburbank

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.

Originally Posted by mburbank

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.

Originally Posted by mburbank

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.

Originally Posted by mburbank

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.

Originally Posted by mburbank

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?

Originally Posted by mburbank

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]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

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]

[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]

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.