Clinton Strikes Back

BooksAndLeaves wrote: he was a good president

.Ryan wrote: Ken Majors wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: blackdog144 wrote: in iraq theres only been almost 3000... I will do the math for you.Somalia = 18.Iraq = 2,697. Of that 18 that I knew PERSONALLY...4 that is the difference in my military mind. Piss off. Hey there hoss, those soldiers died trying to help people, just like those who have died in Iraq. There is no freakin way you can hold those lives against Clinton and not hold the 3000 who have died in the Iraq mess against Bush. Besides, you act like they meant more because you knew them. All human life is precious. And as far as how he handled Somolia, he handled it great, considering the amount of pressure the GOP was puttin on him to "cut and run" right after the whole Blackhawk Down thing. He actually stayed long enough to hand the thing over to the UN, instead of leaving a huge power vaccum, which he could have easily done....You fault him for doing what you say we should do in Iraq.... Anyway, I love Clinton. He was probably one of the best presidents we've had in the last 40 years...And I absolutely loved seeing him lay the smack down on the fox "news" joker...'course, it's refreshing anytime a politician actually gets passionate to the point of anger about something.... Oh and, I was so gonna post this... Oh and battlefreak, Bush gave the Pakis nuclear technology in exchange for vegitable goods....mangos I believe...

Nothing better than a good mango, not even fresh nuclear technology.

I'm a republican.

I dont have anything against Bill Clinton from what I know of him he's a ok dude.

battlefreak wrote: speculation

Sums up your post pretty well.

I'm not even going to read any of the above and simply say this. I respect Clinton.

Actually, my bad. It was India. I withdraw my point, mostly. Still, that deal hardly says anything about Clinton or his presidency as a whole....

They meant more to me because I knew them.

Yes that is selfish. Pick up a weapon, serve your time, maybe you will get a little selfish too.

I tried to delete my post and just go away....but this clown has to quote everything, and drag it out.

I never said that she wasn't a good president. I just said that I didn't like that one decision. I never said that Iraq wasn't important. Clinton did not get us into Iraq...so I guess I miss the connection on that one Mr Obvious....or did we turn this suddenly into a lets bash Bush debate?

They were my personal friends. We used to babysit there kids. It could have been done better, more effectively.
She was not a good commander in chief. Her wartime decision making should have been left to those in theatre, on the ground, where the metal meets the meat. Not in an ivory tower thousands of miles away, while people died, waiting for her to decide what was right.
The MEU was on station, locked and cocked. They should have been allowed to do the job they were there to do.
It didn't happen. The After action review on CSPAN plainly stated that the decision was made by the president. At least she owned up to the mistake.
Either way...that is what I disliked about Clinton...not alot of bad things to say about an 8 year tenure in the oval office. So...hate me if you like. It's easier than trying to understand what I am saying.

edit: oh and God and Rangers love the Pakis...if it wasn't for them and their APCs (US M113s) that 18 we lost would have been closer to 100. And since you like numbers so much...then you must know that the casualty rate was in the neighborhood of 80%...but noone cares about the wounded...just the dead.

Edited by Ken Majors - 25 September 2006 at 8:52pm

savage you are half satanic

Enos Shenk wrote: Eh, I didnt like him.But Id gladly take him back now.

Most of you idiots dont like Clinton because your parents said he was a bad president.  I'll bet half of this forum who talk politics are too young to even remember his presidency, they just go by their parents "OH NOEZ, ORAL SECKS!" crap.

/rant