Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Yes. Chinese-American Wen Ho Lee was accused of spying for the Chinese at Los Alamos National Laboratory. He spent nine months in solitary confinement awaiting trial, and he ultimately plea bargained to putting classified information on a insecure computer.

I'm not sure if Clinton even knew who Lee was prior to his prosecution.

I think Burger is thinking of John Deutch, DCI after Woolsey and before Tenet, who had top secret stuff on his home computer.

I believe that the security issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory have not been resolved.

In California, we blame the continuing story on Texas's efforts to steal the laboratories away from UC. Doubtless the security is not good, either.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And I hope Chinaski's still around to pay for the board in December.

the only fear there is your boy Mr. pulling the plug on me.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the only fear there is your boy Mr. pulling the plug on me.

If you keep the plug in place until Dec, you are going to have some serious intestinal problems.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think Burger is thinking of John Deutch, DCI after Woolsey and before Tenet, who had top secret stuff on his home computer.

That's the one.

I can understand how this stuff happens for top-level folks, who are on duty essentially 24 hours a day. Not to excuse it, but it's understandable.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you keep the plug in place until Dec, you are going to have some serious intestinal problems.

did i ever tell the "butt plug performance art story?" its quite good, but I think I told it? Graduate art school master thesis films a crap after a month on butt plug?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
did i ever tell the "butt plug performance art story?" its quite good, but I think I told it? Graduate art school master thesis films a crap after a month on butt plug?

How much did you get paid for that?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How much did you get paid for that?

that's the punch line. Her dad paid $60,000 tution for her to have the opportunity.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The "so what" is important because it is Wilson that raised the 16 word issue, which I submit was the spark that set the "Bush Lied" crowd ablaze.

I think it was the complete absence of WMDs despite the Bush Admin's repeated statements that no sane person could deny that there were WMDs.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What do you think makes Bush not credible? Are you referring to his budget estimates?

That has to be the most amazing post in the history of this board.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I think it was the complete absence of WMDs despite the Bush Admin's repeated statements that no sane person could deny that there were WMDs.

I don't mean this a snipe, but a simple question. Why is it a lie for Bush, when Clinton said the same thing. Based upon what they knew the US Government was convinced Sadaam had WMD, in 1991, 1995, 1998 and 2003. Clinton was convinced at the time he was privy- why should Bush not be convinced. Why is only the second the lie.

One could make the argument that the mistake in the late-90's was the worse mistake. The mistake that Sadaam still had them then created the assumption that the problem could only be worse now. So if it was a lie in 2003, what was it 1998?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That has to be the most amazing post in the history of this board.

Sorry, no.
"JFK was the only skipper to have his PT boat sunk in WWII" is still the top. It led to the demise of a very long-lived sock.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is just pure and utter crap that is being peddled as an excuse for the failure to act by the Clinton Administration, and if anything, it was Clinton's actions had constrained their ability to act. I have never blamed Clinton for 9/11, mainly because I think it could not have been prevented. But I do think he was thoroughly uninterested in foreign policy, and uncomfortable with military strength, and we are paying for that now.

Once again, Clinton built the military that Bush used so effectively in Afghanistan. Bush was not responsible for development of a single system, the procurement of a single weapon, or the training of a single soldier. All of the weapons were the product of the Clinton Admin's efforts, and the focused effort at building needed military strength (rather than bankrupting the country to re, then de, commission battleships and the other white elephant project of which Reagan was so fond).

As for foreign policy, Clinton glows in comparison to Bush -- who has turned all of our allies against us (except, of course, our glorious Coalition of Tonga and Costa Rica) while pissing away all of the worldwide goodwill and sympathy that we had after 9/11.

But it's hard to fight a war, even harder when you don't have super majority support, and still harder when you are being criticized at home as being a liar, murderer, etc.

RIght. That's what SAM is saying about how the Republiban damaged Clinton's foreign policy efforts. Although Clinton still managed to prevent genocide in Kosovo without wasting American lives or losing American allies.

But, I guess many on the left don't really consider this a war.

Fuck you, you McCarthyite piece of shit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't mean this a snipe, but a simple question. Why is it a lie for Bush, when Clinton said the same thing. Based upon what they knew the US Government was convinced Sadaam had WMD, in 1991, 1995, 1998 and 2003. Clinton was convinced at the time he was privy- why should Bush not be convinced. Why is only the second the lie.

One could make the argument that the mistake in the late-90's was the worse mistake. The mistake that Sadaam still had them then created the assumption that the problem could only be worse now. So if it was a lie in 2003, what was it 1998?

As I have posted here before, in direct response to you as I recall, air strikes launched by Clinton (Operation Something Or Other) are now credited with destroying Hussein's programs. Also, the sanctions were working. As to the facts on the ground, the answer start there.

For our end, pretending that Clinton and Bush took the same view of what was happening in Iraq is a cute debating trick, but nothing more. Obviously, the intelligence was ambiguous. Clinton felt that containment was appropriate, based on what he was told. Bush decided earlier on, it would appear, that he was not going to follow the same policy, and then -- as Hoagland helpfully explained back in 2002 -- the CIA eventually followed his lead.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What are you insinuating that he did wrong (other than any disagreement you may have with policy)?

He went to war against Iraq because they had WMDs and they were working with Al Qaeda, when they did not have WMDs and were not working with Al Qaeda.

I guess "whoops" is a good enough excuse for you. I wonder how that would work as a eulogy for the dead American soldiers.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't mean this a snipe, but a simple question. Why is it a lie for Bush, when Clinton said the same thing. Based upon what they knew the US Government was convinced Sadaam had WMD, in 1991, 1995, 1998 and 2003. Clinton was convinced at the time he was privy- why should Bush not be convinced. Why is only the second the lie.

One could make the argument that the mistake in the late-90's was the worse mistake. The mistake that Sadaam still had them then created the assumption that the problem could only be worse now. So if it was a lie in 2003, what was it 1998?

There is a higher standard when the statement is being made as justification for war.