He lied by refusing to classify it as a genocide because if the word genocide was used, then the US would be obligated to help.

-Rudey

I don't know if Clinton lied much about Somalia, but based on his track-record, it wouldn't suprise me.

Clinton refused to give the troops in Somalia heavy equipment and kick-ass weapons because he didn't want to turn it into a big incedent. Well it did, and many American troops died as a result of this in Mogadishu (spelling?).
This is even mentioned in the Movie "Black Hawk Down," when the troops refer to "Washington" not giving them the big weapons and stuff.

Nice try on trying to paint Bush as more of a "Waffler" then Kerry. Most of the things you talk about are legitamate changes of opinion and policy after major events, such as 9-11, not just "flip-flopping" on issues.

Kerry has waffled on everything from the war in Iraq, to abortion, to owning an SUV! I just can't get over how someone can't make a decision about whether or not they own an SUV!!!! Kerry generally tells whatever audience whatever he thinks they want to hear.

And lets not forget voting for the 87 billion before voting against it.

Actually, with Kerry in many of these cases, it's not "waffeling". It's simply telling complete lies in order to try to appeal to his immediate audience. I swear the guy has to have some sort of personality disorder.

Wow, people still can't get over Clinton.

Someone posted a picture about Clinton, thus those silly little Democrats just couldn't get over Clinton.

-Rudey

I can't get over Clinton because he is very responsible for 9-11, and that happened a half mile from my home. I had to breath that toxic air for months, but didn't complain because my family was unharmed. I don't blame Clinton for the first WTC bombing that occurred soon after he took office. He had almost 8 years to do something about it, and he didn't.

We're still living with Clinton's incompetence, so we're not over him yet.

But let's tie Clinton in with the "Axis of Evil" nations.

North Korea - His administration struck a deal with them to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons. North Korea didn't follow the agreement, and now they have nukes. Thank you Bill Clinton for your incompetence.

Iraq - Allowed genocide to take place, and tolerated Iraq's repeated violations of UN Security Council resolutions. This reduced the credibility of the UN, and led to an emboldened Sadaam Husein who flooded radical Palestinian organizations with money, after 9-11, to further destabilize the region. Thank you Bill Clinton for your incompetence.

Iran - Basically did nothing. I can't say that Bush has been much better here, but we should have thown much more weight behind Iranian exiles who have started broadcasts into Iran, in much the same way of the Reagan funded broadcasts into the Warsaw Pact nations. Also, Iran's role as a state sponsor of terrorist organizations was not confronted. Nor was their nuclear capability confronted. Thank you Bill Clinton for your incompetence.

http://www.adl.org/learn/jttf/wtcb_jttf.asp

This article discusses the first WTC bombing in which numerous people were caught and convicted.

In reading an article on Tenet's resignation, I found this:
The CIA is expected to be harshly criticized in the final report due July 26 from the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. In a preliminary report, the panel found the CIA didn't even identify the al-Qaeda network until 1999 - 11 years after it was formed. Tenet did, however, issue repeated warnings about the threat posed by Osama bin Laden.

So, if the presence of the al-Qaeda network wasn't known until 1999, nobody could have done much about it. We can also be pretty sure that when/if we capture bin Laden, it won't be the end of al Qaeda. In fact, it will probably trigger more terror incidents. Not that we shouldn't go after bin Laden anyway, but they have said that the 9/11 incident was in the planning since 1996, so it's pretty tough to say that anybody could have prevented it.

Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush Sr., not anybody, but Al Qaeda. If they were determined to do a similar attack today, I doubt anybody would stop them, even now.

Dee

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?...24fr_archive03

That the Clinton administration wasn't aware of Al Qaeda until 1999 is just semantics. They were aware of the key players, and the potential danger that they represented, and they did next to nothing.

More to the point, Sudan offered the Clinton administration Osama bin laden. Three times. The Clinton administration declined. Three times.

Yes Clinton knew they would back out on that deal.:rolleyes:

And since he can predict the future he is a bad man. ;) What has Bushdone about North Korea?

Clinton was was doing the the rest of the world was doing about Iraq, nothing. He had faith in the UN. Even before 9/11 Bush gave Iraq more time as well to comply with the UN. If Clinton waited to long why didn't W go in right away?

And on Iran like you said what has Bush done?

Its not about predicting the future. Its about assigning credibility to a government that wasn't credible. They should have known better than to trust North Korea. There was absolutely no precedence for that nation acting in a resposnible way. Clinton ignored what was known, and allowed North Korea to develop nukes. That makes Clinton complicit, and incompetent.

What has Bush done about North Korea? He's formed an ad hoc regional coalition to deal with it. Time will tell, and Bush may prove to be inadequate, but at least he hasn't done anything as stupid as signing a treaty with North Korea, and then not enforce it. Stupid, stupid, stupid. This is part of the Clinton legacy. Absolutely stupid.

The time for Clinton to go back into Iraq was 1993, or 1994 at the latest. There were at least two genocides going on, and Iraq was in violation of UN treaties. Clinton was very tolerant of genocide. That's also part of his legacy. Should Bush have gone in right away in 1993? Prior to 9-11, it wasn't that urgent. After 9-11, the Bush administration set out to remake the Middle East. Iraq could have been left alone, except Iraq suddenly was pooring money into regional terrorist groups, and doing everything possible to be a road block to the US. The Baathists asked for a war, and they got it.

Clinton had faith in the UN? BS. The UN does not do anything about genocide. When Clinton finally committed to stopping the Bosnian genocide, it was performed through a coalition that was outside the UN.

Bush has done little about Iran. Part of the blame, again, can be placed on Clinton. For almost a half century, it was US policy to maintain a military that could fight in two theaters at once. Clinton scaled back American capability to 1 1/2 theaters. We have been stripped of the military option, which is needed to deal with Iran.

Please stop reading MoveOn.org. Its a propaganda site that is devoid of contextually accurate facts.

Clinton had surgical strikes prepared for N. Korea. It was considered the closest we've come to war in recent years with that country but he didn't follow through. Right now N. Korea actually has nuclear weapons so war isn't exactly the easiest option anymore. War is never a joy, but this would be a nightmare. What has Bush done? Bush has pressured the country through the use of its Asian allies, most prominently China. Bush has allowed for talks.

On Iraq: Clinton and Bush knew the UN was useless on Iraq. Both wanted to act on it. One didn't because he knew it would be a PR debacle that he didn't want to deal with so he just left it to Bush.

As for Iran? Well Bush has pressured the UN to find that they are in breach of nuclear violations. Have they found them to be? Of course but has the UN or any country done anything about it? No. Can Bush just attack Iran as well? No, because people like you will talk about where are the WMDs? War is no good? Etc.

-Rudey