Rice & Rummy: It's On, Bitch

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Most of them post right here

The few. The proud. The ignorant.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

What does it tell you when the most blatantly clueless, incompetent asshole that has caused the biggest debacle in Iraq actually gets more power?

We're supposed to not mention the "C" word ( Clinton, for you "slow" liberals :D ), don't you know that? :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
We're supposed to not mention the "C" word ( Clinton, for you "slow" liberals :D ), don't you know that? :D

WTF are you even talking about? Seriously...

The guy that voted for Bush, and approves of Rumsfeld brings up "Clinton" yet again...

All evidence to the contrary dumbass...

[LoungeMachine]

Ya know Brie....

It really blows your cred to even suggest you think Clinton was clueless and incompetent, especially when compared to the utter dolt you elected, and support in here on a weekly basis.

Clinton may have been a womanizer, and lied about it, but that's chump change compared to the hell the Chimp has brought upon this world.

Anytime you want to compare accomplishment between the 2 administrations you go right ahead.

[Roy Munson]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Ya know Brie....

It really blows your cred to even suggest you think Clinton was clueless and incompetent, especially when compared to the utter dolt you elected, and support in here on a weekly basis.

Clinton may have been a womanizer, and lied about it, but that's chump change compared to the hell the Chimp has brought upon this world.

Anytime you want to compare accomplishment between the 2 administrations you go right ahead.

Even though I find what Clinton did in the oval office was dispicable, I would never say that he was clueless.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Roy Munson
Even though I find what Clinton did in the oval office was dispicable, I would never say that he was clueless.

Actually, I think he was utterly clueless on certain foreign policy matters, such as dealing with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

History proves that.

[Hardrock69]

However his actions never resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Hundreds, perhaps..(Vince Foster anyone?), but comparing Clinton to Chimpy is like comparing an anthill to Mt. Everest in terms of evil.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Actually, I think he was utterly clueless on certain foreign policy matters, such as dealing with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

History proves that.

Complete and utter BULLSHIT

[FORD]

History proves that Clinton tried to take Osama out and missed by a matter of hours, while Chimpy outsourced the operation to the Afghan "Northern Alliance" heroin salesmen, who allowed someone (Pakistan? BCE?) to airlift Osama out of his Tora Bora cave.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
History proves that Clinton tried to take Osama out and missed by a matter of hours, while Chimpy outsourced the operation to the Afghan "Northern Alliance" heroin salesmen, who allowed someone (Pakistan? BCE?) to airlift Osama out of his Tora Bora cave.

Outsource?

Yeah, you swallow that John Kerry and MoveOn.org rant line and sinker, don't you?



BTW - Clinton missed because he wanted too.

[BigBadBrian]

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson was a military aide to President Clinton from May 1996 to May 1998 and one of five individuals entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football"—the bag containing the codes for launching nuclear weapons. This responsibility meant that he spent a considerable amount of time next to the president, giving him a unique perspective on the Clinton administration. Though he arrived at the job "filled with professional devotion and commitment to serve," he left believing that Clinton had "sown a whirlwind of destruction upon the integrity of our government, endangered our national security, and done enormous harm to the American military in which I served."

Dereliction of Duty is not a personal attack on President Clinton or a commentary on his various scandals; rather, it is a "frank indictment of his obvious—to an eyewitness—failure to lead our country with responsibility and honor." Lt. Col. Patterson offers a damning list of anecdotes and charges against the President, including how Clinton lost the nuclear codes and shrugged it off; how he stalled and lost the opportunity to launch a direct strike on Osama bin Laden at a confirmed location; how the President and the First Lady, and much of their staff, consistently treated members of the military with disrespect and disdain; and how Clinton groped a female Air Force enlisted member while aboard Air Force One, among other incidents large and small. A considerable portion of this slim book is devoted to the myriad ways in which President Clinton undermined the military, and hence the security, of the nation. He seriously questions Clinton's decisions to send troops to Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia to accomplish non-military tasks without clear objectives. Having participated in each of these engagements, Lt. Col. Patterson personally "experienced the frustration of needlessly wasted lives, effort, and national prestige" as well as the alarmingly low morale that Clinton inspired.

This is certainly not the first anti-Clinton book, but it is different in that Patterson does not seem to have a political ax to grind. In fact, at times, he appears apologetic about having to write about his ex-commander in chief. Yet, in the end, this retired soldier felt his last act of service should be to share his experience with his country.

[Warham]

Clinton was just an average president.

Very crafty though...and that charisma...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Actually, I think he was utterly clueless on certain foreign policy matters, such as dealing with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

History proves that.

Really? Actually, he was the only President to do anything about Bin Laden prior to 9/11.

The only thing "utterly clueless" are your factless rantings based on partisan bullshit and your stilted selective histories...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian


Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson (has lied)

Oh yeah, some asshole, no one has ever heard of with the exception of morons that believe and buy every book they can find at partisan websites, says it's all Clintons fault...

Maybe I'll start to quote tracks from the official 9/11 Commission findings, which hold Bush far more culpable in no uncertain terms...

Oh yeah, Brian found some bullshit on the internet, must be true...

BTW, Patterson is a proven liar that seems to make shit up in order to sell books:

Lt. Col. (Ret.) Patterson gets a "Buzz" out of distorting Kerry's record

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson, author of Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security (Regnery Publishing, 2003) and the newly released Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undermine Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our National Security (Regnery Publishing, 2004), appeared as a guest on the July 19 edition of Hannity & Colmes and the July 20 edition of FOX & Friends (both on FOX News Channel), where he issued a series of unfounded attacks against Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and the Democratic Party.

On Hannity & Colmes, Patterson joined co-host Sean Hannity in distorting Kerry's record on defense and intelligence spending:

PATTERSON: He's voted against every major weapons system that the military ...

HANNITY: Every one of them.

PATTERSON: Every single one of them.

HANNITY: And when they say he didn't, these are slanted votes, that's a lie. He was dead set against them.

PATTERSON: Every single one of them over his 20 years in Senate.

HANNITY: Wanted $7 billion in intelligence cuts after the first Trade Center bombing.

PATTERSON: That's right.

Patterson also distorted Kerry's Senate voting record on FOX & Friends, saying Kerry spent "Twenty years voting against every single major weapons system that the military is fighting the war on terror with today," and that Kerry "served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years, never voted for an increase of funding, voted for cuts three times, voted for cuts during the 1990s during the war on terror."

As Media Matters for America previously noted when Hannity made similar false claims about Kerry's voting record on military funding, Patterson's and Hannity's claim that Kerry "voted against every weapons system" presently in use by the military echoed Bush-Cheney '04 campaign advertisements and a February Republican National Committee research brief that misrepresented the facts on Kerry's record. As the Annenberg Political Fact Check explained, "Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990,1995 and 1996 were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate."

On Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes countered Patterson's distortion, saying, "I couldn't disagree with you more. John Kerry supported more than $4.4 trillion in defense spending during his Senate career." Later, when Colmes reiterated his point, saying, "I just talked about the trillions of dollars he [Kerry] spent on defense," Patterson replied, "[T]hat is not true, Alan." But Kerry's record speaks for itself. The defense authorization bills Kerry has supported in the Senate amount to $4.46 trillion in defense spending through 2003.

Patterson's and Hannity's claim that Kerry "wanted $7 billion in intelligence cuts after the first Trade Center bombing" -- a claim MMFA noted was also made on the July 16 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume -- may have stemmed from a March RNC research brief that pointed to Kerry's 1994 proposal to cut $1 billion per year from the intelligence budgets for 1994-98 as part of a broader deficit reduction package. But as the Annenberg Political Fact Check pointed out, "[A]t that time there was growing concern about how effectively the intelligence agencies were spending the money they had." Congress formed the Aspin Commission later in 1994 to examine the state of the intelligence services, concluding two years later, according to FactCheck.org, "that balancing the federal budget would probably require that cuts be made."

Lt. Col. Patterson also issued groundless attacks on Kerry's support for veterans, saying on FOX & Friends, "[H]e did not vote for a single military pay raise, for example, voting against pay raises 12 times" and on Hannity & Colmes that Kerry "voted against every single military pay raise, on 12 separate occasions." In fact, Kerry has supported military pay raises. For example, in 1999, he voted in support of a 4.8 percent increase in the "monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services." Kerry also supported Defense budgets in 2002 and 2003 that increased military pay. (View the Senate roll call votes here and here.)

In his new book, Reckless Disregard, Patterson went further in his attacks on Democrats, bluntly stating -- without foundation, as Media Matters for America has noted several other pundits and reporters have also done -- that terrorists want the Democrats to win the upcoming U.S. election. Patterson wrote, "[P]olitical expediency is politics as usual for the Democratic Party. And in election year 2004, every terrorist cell, every terrorist hiding in a spider hole or cave complex, every phony business front used to launder terrorist money and every rogue state willing to sponsor terrorism will be watching the results, hoping for the party of political expediency to win again."

—A.S.

Golly, I'm sure everything this asshat says is true...

Well...

CIA Incompetence
Reported by Judy - July 20, 2004

Fox News, which is to say the Republicans, is trying to blame the CIA for the bad information about WMD that got the nation into the Iraq war, and they're trying to blame the Democrats for the CIA's incompetence. Trouble is, the facts are otherwise.

Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter today (July 20) said on Fox and Friends (8:17 a.m. EDT) that the reason the CIA performed so poorly was that the Clinton Administration cut the CIA's budget in the 1990s. Richard Clarke, the Republican who served as national counterterrorism coordinator both before and after the Clinton years, provides ample evidence to the contrary.

Clarke, in his account of counterterrorism in the Clinton years, says the administration "had done well in pumping up the counterterrorism funds" in the budgets for 1994 and 1995, although he did not get everything he asked for. When he asked for another $1 billion in 1996, Clinton's budget chief, despite his desire to drive down the deficit and balance the budget, said, "Okay, sounds good." [Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004) 128.]

Time and again, Clarke expressed disappointment in the CIA's performance in counterrorism. In 1995, only under White House pressure, did CIA start planning a CIA station dedicated to bin Laden's network (148). Although the CIA did carry out several snatches of terrorists in foreign countries, Clarke said the agency "was reluctant to put its personnel into Afghanistan" which was harboring bin Laden (150). On one occasion, the CIA agreed to send a third-country national into an al Qaeda camp to take soil samples for chemical weapons. Clarke says that while the CIA took great pride in the operation, a reporter from The New York Times later drove right up to the gate of an al Qaeda camp thought to be dealing with chemical weapons (178-179).

Clarke blames the CIA for the failure of the U.S. to assassinate bin Laden in the late 1990s, after Clinton had signed presidential directives authorizing the action. "I believe that those who in CIA claim the authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission," Clarke wrote (204). Clarke theorized that the CIA was afraid to take on risky missions for fear they would go badly and the CIA would get the blame for it. (209-210). Clarke also found that the CIA refused to spend any of its regular budget on counterterrorism, always asking for supplemental appropriations, of which it received several (210). As Clarke said, "Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda." (210)

In other words, the CIA ignored President Clinton's directive that fighting terrorism was the nation's top priority in the late 1990s and spent its budget on other things. The CIA's problem was not a lack of funds, but a lack of will.

Fox viewers, of course, never heard that part of the argument, because no Democrat appeared alongside Hunter.

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/07/20/cia_incompetence.php

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, maybe BigBlunderBri can dig up an article that states exactly what Bush did in regards to Bin Laden and al-Qaida prior to September 11, 2001?

Good luck.