Bush Hallucinating as Always

[FendeR`]

If it sucked that badly, I don't think we all would be using it.

[Jackal]

Well, it is kind of a monopoly, every system just seems to come with Windows. And it does suck pretty bad.

[Riot]

There are other operating systems than just Windows.

I can almost guarntee that President Bush would have had some pretty serious military action after some of the events that too place during Clinton's term. How do I know? Because 4-8 years later he did it anyway. He held the promises Clinton did.


After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

The bottom line is there were a lot of bloody warning signs that Bin Laden and terrorism is starting a war with America. Bill Clinton refused to do anything and let those people die without revenge. How could Clinton sit there and do practically nothing after all those things? The warning signs, the attacks and the threats were there. The American people didn't know who he was? LET THEM KNOW WHO HE IS! He was one of the most feared men in the Middle East. We knew he was funding terrorism (billions). We knew he hated America. We knew he was funding terrorist groups that were probably linked to all these attacks. Yet, you think the economy is more important?

[Bang]

There are other operating systems than just Windows.

I can almost guarntee that President Bush would have had some pretty serious military action after some of the events that too place during Clinton's term. How do I know? Because 4-8 years later he did it anyway. He held the promises Clinton did.


After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Bush covered it.

The bottom line is there were a lot of bloody warning signs that Bin Laden and terrorism is starting a war with America. Bill Clinton refused to do anything and let those people die without revenge. How could Clinton sit there and do practically nothing after all those things? The warning signs, the attacks and the threats were there. The American people didn't know who he was? LET THEM KNOW WHO HE IS! He was one of the most feared men in the Middle East. We knew he was funding terrorism (billions). We knew he hated America. We knew he was funding terrorist groups that were probably linked to all these attacks. Yet, you think the economy is more important?

Once again, all after 9/11. Anyone would have done what Bush did, unless they don't want any votes. Of course historically it was ONLY possible for Bush to have done that. Clinton just sat there because the people didn't really care. Or the majority didn't. Think Pearl Harbor. America was largely isolationist after World War 1, and then after Pearl Harbor, they received such a shock that they had to go to war. You think there were no other confrontations before pearl harbor? I believe there was a little known skirmish in one of the pacific islands (I forget) but the American people didn't give a shit. They just ignored it. Only when Pearl Harbor happened did FDR go to war. Why? Even though FDR wanted it since the beginning? The people did not want a war. Simple as that. You think that if Clinton went to war in Afghanistan he would've been popular? Hell NO! People would ask why they are wasting resources, or why isn't he focusing on the economy. You refuse to think out of perspective do you?

[Riot]

Once again, all after 9/11. Anyone would have done what Bush did, unless they don't want any votes. Of course historically it was ONLY possible for Bush to have done that. Clinton just sat there because the people didn't really care. Or the majority didn't. Think Pearl Harbor. America was largely isolationist after World War 1, and then after Pearl Harbor, they received such a shock that they had to go to war. You think there were no other confrontations before pearl harbor? I believe there was a little known skirmish in one of the pacific islands (I forget) but the American people didn't give a shit. They just ignored it. Only when Pearl Harbor happened did FDR go to war. Why? Even though FDR wanted it since the beginning? The people did not want a war. Simple as that. You think that if Clinton went to war in Afghanistan he would've been popular? Hell NO! People would ask why they are wasting resources, or why isn't he focusing on the economy. You refuse to think out of perspective do you?

Pearl Harbor was in WWII, not WWI.

And America was giving supplies and money in WWII but after Pearl Harbor we decided to step in. But President Bush was thinking about invading Iraq and the taliban in Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. It's just after 9/11 he had the full support of the people.

But that's not the point. You say after 9/11 any president would have done that. But President Clinton had many, many attacks against US personal and he didn't do shit, even after he vowed he would. All those attacks against Americans and he does nothing. Thousands killed and he continues to do nothing. I guess Clinton never got the memo, but President Bush did. Bush and Gore knew they were running for a shaky presidency with all the attacks against Americans over the past decade.

But the bottom line is Bush reacted to the attacks over the past decade and Clinton didn't. Bush kept his promise and Clinton didn't. The president's don't control the economy. Yet somehow people get the idea that Clinton was an amazing president and Bush isn't. It's a mockery.

[hipn]

I saw this shoe on TV and the people on the show said that the 9/11 incident could have been avoided or in other words, it didn't have to happen. I remember hearing about the FBI predicting this, but Bush decided not to do anything to stop it. Im using my memory so don't be quoting me on this.

[Cable]

Sorry, I had to quote this

I saw this shoe on TV

Back on topic, Riot said something about that earlier somewhere else, I can't remember what it was though ...

Riot?

[Riot]

Yup, the CIA, FBI and the administration had a few warning signs and intelligence saying that an attack on America using airliners could happen on US soil. However, Bush's administration was less informed than Clinton's. President Clinton knew about a potential attack since 1996 (maybe even earlier).

You had President Bush who wasn't even in office for a year yet vs. Clinton who was in office for 8 years before him. They are both to blame but putting the blame solely on President Bush would be a mistake. And really, putting the blame on either is kind of childish. What happened happened and that's really the bottom line. They get hundreds of threats a day, it's hard to sort out what one is real and what one is false. Back then we felt like we couldn't be touched. I mean, hijacking our airliners and flying them into landmarks? That's funny. They can't do that to us. But it happened and because of that it has made Americans more aware of the situation in the Middle East.

[Bang]

Once again, all after 9/11. Anyone would have done what Bush did, unless they don't want any votes. Of course historically it was ONLY possible for Bush to have done that. Clinton just sat there because the people didn't really care. Or the majority didn't. Think Pearl Harbor. America was largely isolationist after World War 1, and then after Pearl Harbor, they received such a shock that they had to go to war. You think there were no other confrontations before pearl harbor? I believe there was a little known skirmish in one of the pacific islands (I forget) but the American people didn't give a shit. They just ignored it. Only when Pearl Harbor happened did FDR go to war. Why? Even though FDR wanted it since the beginning? The people did not want a war. Simple as that. You think that if Clinton went to war in Afghanistan he would've been popular? Hell NO! People would ask why they are wasting resources, or why isn't he focusing on the economy. You refuse to think out of perspective do you?

Pearl Harbor was in WWII, not WWI.

And America was giving supplies and money in WWII but after Pearl Harbor we decided to step in. But President Bush was thinking about invading Iraq and the taliban in Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. It's just after 9/11 he had the full support of the people.

But that's not the point. You say after 9/11 any president would have done that. But President Clinton had many, many attacks against US personal and he didn't do shit, even after he vowed he would. All those attacks against Americans and he does nothing. Thousands killed and he continues to do nothing. I guess Clinton never got the memo, but President Bush did. Bush and Gore knew they were running for a shaky presidency with all the attacks against Americans over the past decade.

But the bottom line is Bush reacted to the attacks over the past decade and Clinton didn't. Bush kept his promise and Clinton didn't. The president's don't control the economy. Yet somehow people get the idea that Clinton was an amazing president and Bush isn't. It's a mockery.

I said AMERICA WAS ISOLATIONIOST AFTER WORLD WAR 1 when did I say Pearl Harbor was World War 1? As a person who studied Asian History almost like a minor, there is no fucking way I would get that wrong. Look after world war 1, America became isolationsit because they did not want to waste their own soldiers for a foreign war. After Vietnam, America has sort of been that way as well. Damn you fail to see any part of my argument. Prove me how the fuck Bush wanted to invade Afghanistan before 9/11. There was nothing that showed that. Also the key part in your argument is It's just after 9/11 he had the full support of the people. Clinton wouldn't have had the full support, even after all those incidents. You don't think governments control the economy? Well you haven't learned that much about macroeconomy have you? Not to mention Clinton was a democrat, and democrats believe in using federal power to boost the economy. That's one of the reasons FDR got the US out of the depression. (War was the big reason, however.) You think Clinton did nothing because you think governments are laissez-faire about economies, like Bush is. Democrats generally do get involved in the economy. Also, I know for sure that Clinton had a great effect in the economy, since I've taken a course in Economics and read books related to that. (AND THE TEACHER WAS A REPUBLICAN!)

[Riot]

The economy is designed so one man (the President) doesn't have control over it. You can pass bills and other stuff, but the President does not have control over the economy. The economy goes into recessions every once and a while. It has little to do with who is President and what they do.

After a few of those attacks in the 90's I'm sure Clinton could have gotten the support of the people. He needed to bring it to the attention of the people. That's his job. His job is to protect the American people. If he really thought it was a threat he could have convinced the American people that. But he refused to get involved and it costed lives.

[Bang]

Yes, but the government does have quite a bit of control over it, especially Democrats like to have control of the economy. So Clinton did contribute to the growth of the US economy. Read Commanding Heights by I forgot who, it shows how governments screwing up can end up screwing the economy and vice versa or the opposite.

No those incidents, like those skirmishes that happened in the pacific islands pre-Pearl Harbor, were not great enough incidents to get people interested. You didn't have that much civilian harm when compared to 9/11. Not to mention the physical symbolic meaning it brings. You don't wake the great giant by just poking him a little. The American public would've said "Is this really necessary? Shouldn't we be using this money elsewhere? As in Education maybe?"

[Riot]

I stand by what I said, the President doesn't have control over the economy. If you want to blame anyone for the economy I guess you can blame congress. If you want to point fingers.

271 people died in these little "skirmishes". And you can add 6,239 injuried in those skirmishes too. If Clinton would have brought it to the public's attention they would have understood. I mean, he vowed to get revenge! The public wanted revenge and he didn't do it. How can you sit here and say the public wouldn't have supported it? Over 270 people dead and over 6,200 injuried in those attacks. The public wouldn't have understood? Please.

[Bang]

I stand by what I said, the President doesn't have control over the economy. If you want to blame anyone for the economy I guess you can blame congress. If you want to point fingers.

271 people died in these little "skirmishes". And you can add 6,239 injuried in those skirmishes too. If Clinton would have brought it to the public's attention they would have understood. I mean, he vowed to get revenge! The public wanted revenge and he didn't do it. How can you sit here and say the public wouldn't have supported it? Over 270 people dead and over 6,200 injuried in those attacks. The public wouldn't have understood? Please.

Then why was there no public outrage? Why did nobody care? Why was Clinton's approval rating so high? Because Americans didn't give a shit since the majority was just ignorant of those events. They wouldn't have cared. They would've cared more about their jobs, or their money, or their dot-bomb stock. Clinton never had a Pearl Harbor type attack to wake him up. Bush did. And then people grabbed onto what they could, which was Bush. I guess since you are at the moment, there is no way of objectively seeing the power of desperation, the power of people holding on to the most weakest of people at the time of need.

I don't get how a C average, rich, dumb kid with a speech impediment who skipped days of his service to the army, who was arrested for drunk driving (or just pure stupidity) can be viewed as a hero in any way. It's just funny.

BTW
2,819 killed in 9/11 sure seems much bigger than all those Clinton events combined.

[Riot]

Then why was there no public outrage? Why did nobody care? Why was Clinton's approval rating so high? Because Americans didn't give a shit since the majority was just ignorant of those events. They wouldn't have cared. They would've cared more about their jobs, or their money, or their dot-bomb stock. Clinton never had a Pearl Harbor type attack to wake him up. Bush did. And then people grabbed onto what they could, which was Bush. I guess since you are at the moment, there is no way of objectively seeing the power of desperation, the power of people holding on to the most weakest of people at the time of need.

I don't get how a C average, rich, dumb kid with a speech impediment who skipped days of his service to the army, who was arrested for drunk driving (or just pure stupidity) can be viewed as a hero in any way. It's just funny.

BTW
2,819 killed in 9/11 sure seems much bigger than all those Clinton events combined.

Like I said, it's Clinton's job to bring it to the attention of the people. If Clinton would have done what he promised and showed the US public that we are threatened the public would have backed him. Since his approval rating was so high wouldn't they trust him?

I don't get how him getting arrested for DUI, "skipping" his military duties and his C average at one of the toughest colleges in the world have anything to do with this discussion. Would President Bush win a debate? Probably not, although he kicked John Kerry's ass in the debates. Would he win a spelling bee? I have no clue. But he knows how to lead a country and he knows in his heart what's important.

Bush stood up and took the terrorists head on. President Clinton did not. Bush brought Iraq and Afghanistan to the attention of the American people. After 9/11 we were looking for a fight and that was the right mentality. My beef with Clinton is he vowed to get revenge on those responsible for those thousands of lives injuried and 200+ lives murdered and he didn't do it. Don't you think President Clinton let the American people down after that? He didn't do once, he didn't do it twice, he didn't do it three times, he didn't do it four times, he did it five times! Five wake up calls didn't wake him up to the obvious.

The American people wouldn't have understood? It's his job to protect the American people. Congress would have supported military action and that's really all that matters. He could have done something in his 2nd term when he had no re-election votes at stake. Clinton let us down.

[Bang]

By us you mean staunch Republicans, because even some less conservative Republicans prefer Clinton over Bush.

[Riot]

By us you mean staunch Republicans, because even some less conservative Republicans prefer Clinton over Bush.

No, by us I mean Americans and those families of loved ones hurt or killed in those 5 attacks.

The Clinton love-fest is awful. He is probably the most overrated President of all time.

[hipn]

Oh yea n i meant "show" not shoes...sry bout that

[Bang]

By us you mean staunch Republicans, because even some less conservative Republicans prefer Clinton over Bush.

No, by us I mean Americans and those families of loved ones hurt or killed in those 5 attacks.

The Clinton love-fest is awful. He is probably the most overrated President of all time.

I don't think Clinton was a great president. I think he's overrated as well. However, to NOT acknowledge that Clinton DID help the economy is saying stuff without knowing it. As an Economics major, I know for SURE that Clinton's policies had a profound effect on the economy. Clinton's also the guy responsible for ignoring Rwanda remember? I don't think Clinton is that great.
All I'm saying is he's better than Bush and better than how you put him. Bush has been incompetent in so many ways, and his past is a good indicator. I mean, he's worse than even the lowest of people I know, and I'm supposed to respect him? I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that I am much more qualified that than guy. Maybe it's because he is stupid, but still, how the hell are you supposed to believe that he can magically protect the world.
Look, if he wanted to invade Afghanistan in the first place, and cared about terrorism so much, then WHY DID 9/11 HAPPEN? WHY DID HE IGNORE THE GLARING EVIDENCE? HE DIDN'T CARE. HE DIDN'T CARE UNTIL IT HAPPENED. Or if you do say that he knew and he cared, then I guess you mean he let it happen. It's quite logical

You blame every single mistake in the Clinton administration on Clinton, then why not blame every single mistake on the Bush administration? You obviously aren't thinking objectively. You blame everything on democrats and you owe all your happiness to bushyboy. Reminds me of the cultural revolution in China. I guess people are bound to the thoughts of their circumstances.

1. Bush Thought about Terrorism Before Attacks and was aware of possible terrorism?
2. He received Warnings before attacks.
3. Logically he should've stopped them. Since he really cared about it so much. Yea, he probably wouldn't have ignored an alert that said possible bin laden attack.
4. Ok, for all these facts to be true, the only conclusion is that he let the attacks happen.
5. However, I don't think no. 4 is correct, and I know you do not agree to no. 4.
6. Thus some statement must be wrong from 1~2.
7. statement 2 is definitely correct.
8. Statement 1 must be wrong.
9. Bush didn't give a shit about terrorism until the greatest attack on America by a foreign country happened.

[Andrew]

I don't get how him getting arrested for DUI, "skipping" his military duties and his C average at one of the toughest colleges in the world have anything to do with this discussion. Would President Bush win a debate? Probably not, although he kicked John Kerry's ass in the debates. Would he win a spelling bee? I have no clue. But he knows how to lead a country and he knows in his heart what's important.

Right or wrong, we tend to hold political leaders and indeed all public figures to a very high standard so there's usually public outcry when they commit any wrongdoing or do something that "sets a bad example". It's unfair but it's unlikely to change and is a possible reason for that criticism of Bush.

Also, a country's leader is kind of like the head of an organisation or company. Most people usually bemoan a boss that we consider ourselves more intelligent than or one that appears ineffective or in some other way inadequate and unfit to hold power over the others. As President, Bush is the big boss in America so most people would probably hold him to a similar standard.

There's probably also some resentment that someone of his scholastic capabilities (or lack therof) was able to attend those prestigious schools mainly because of cash and connections, or that he could rise to the rank of President. Or it might worry some that someone with such academic shortcomings has such powerful military might at his disposal. And the whole military thing would suggest a lack of commitment which is unappealing in a politician.

That's not to say I believe Kerry to be better or that Bush is Evil Incarnate. I just think those are some of the reasons people dislike him or at least dislike the fact he's President.

[Matt]

Yes, but the government does have quite a bit of control over it, especially Democrats like to have control of the economy.

not as much as you think. The economy tends to run itself.

[Riot]

I don't think Clinton was a great president. I think he's overrated as well. However, to NOT acknowledge that Clinton DID help the economy is saying stuff without knowing it. As an Economics major, I know for SURE that Clinton's policies had a profound effect on the economy. Clinton's also the guy responsible for ignoring Rwanda remember? I don't think Clinton is that great.
All I'm saying is he's better than Bush and better than how you put him. Bush has been incompetent in so many ways, and his past is a good indicator. I mean, he's worse than even the lowest of people I know, and I'm supposed to respect him? I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that I am much more qualified that than guy. Maybe it's because he is stupid, but still, how the hell are you supposed to believe that he can magically protect the world.
Look, if he wanted to invade Afghanistan in the first place, and cared about terrorism so much, then WHY DID 9/11 HAPPEN? WHY DID HE IGNORE THE GLARING EVIDENCE? HE DIDN'T CARE. HE DIDN'T CARE UNTIL IT HAPPENED. Or if you do say that he knew and he cared, then I guess you mean he let it happen. It's quite logical

You blame every single mistake in the Clinton administration on Clinton, then why not blame every single mistake on the Bush administration? You obviously aren't thinking objectively. You blame everything on democrats and you owe all your happiness to bushyboy. Reminds me of the cultural revolution in China. I guess people are bound to the thoughts of their circumstances.

1. Bush Thought about Terrorism Before Attacks and was aware of possible terrorism?
2. He received Warnings before attacks.
3. Logically he should've stopped them. Since he really cared about it so much. Yea, he probably wouldn't have ignored an alert that said possible bin laden attack.
4. Ok, for all these facts to be true, the only conclusion is that he let the attacks happen.
5. However, I don't think no. 4 is correct, and I know you do not agree to no. 4.
6. Thus some statement must be wrong from 1~2.
7. statement 2 is definitely correct.
8. Statement 1 must be wrong.
9. Bush didn't give a shit about terrorism until the greatest attack on America by a foreign country happened.

Once again, the President doesn't control the economy. We enter recessions and peak out of them all the time. If you look at the economy chart over the years you'll see it's a lot like a roller coaster ride. It has nothing to do whether a democrat or a republican is in office.

Do you know what "evidence" Bush had? He was told terrorists might hijack airliners and crash them into buildings. That's great. First of all, before 9/11 you would have laughed at that too. Secondly, what is he suppose to do? All the hijackers entered the country in the 90s. Sure he could have done something, and I bet he wishes he did, but it's not like they recieved specific threats of when, where and who.

Did Bush want to invade Afghanistan before 9/11? No, what I said wasn't 100% factual. What I meant to type was Bush was against terrorism and he basically didn't approve with what was going on in Afghanistan. But if 9/11 wouldn't have happened we probably wouldn't be there. But Bush did want to invade Iraq before 9/11, despite his Dad saying he shouldn't.

[Bang]

Yes, but the government does have quite a bit of control over it, especially Democrats like to have control of the economy.

not as much as you think. The economy tends to run itself.

All I'm saying his Clinton's policies has had SOME impact on the economy. I'm not fucking saying it's all Clinton. It's the internet, the technology revolution, but Clinton's policy sure helped. To say Clinton has NOTHING to do with the economic boom is wrong. It's not like I'm saying this out of thin air. I've studied this material dammit. I know for sure Riot wouldn't have studied this material and is making shit out of thin air. What have you studied in economics? AP economics at max probably.

Crap, I shouldn't have sold that book, shit. I would've had pages of proof. Oh what the hell. Like you would listen. (You meaning Riot, not Matt.)

[Riot]

This whole time all I've been saying is the President doesn't control the economy. That's really all I've said on that matter.

[cyanide]

What Bang is trying to say is:

The president doesn't control the economy, but the president has the power to make policies that can affect the economy.

[Riot]

But you can't sit here and say President Clinton is the reason why the economy was so good and Bush is the reason why it is so bad. It doesn't work that way. That's what Riot was trying to say.