Bill Clinton backs Obama at convention

High hopes mean hard falls and broken hearts.

Slurp, slurp....in a minute.

Way to bring up Monica, moron. You can always count on some idiot bringing it up. How has he not impressed you besides his personal ordeals?

It's like bringing up house count or Jeremiah Wright.

It's only annoying when you like the person and not annoying when you dislike them.

Double standards...indeed.

Most liberal morons would rather forget that be cause of Clintons lackadaisical attitude toward foreign policy indirectly lead to the 9/11 attacks. His almost non-existent responses to the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the Somalia fiasco, not to mention the 8 years of neutering that the US military went thru while he was in office, gave the impression to terrorist organizations that the US had become weak. This served only to embolden them into the 9\11 attacks.

Imagine their surprise when Bush opened up a can of whoop-ass on 2 terrorist sponsoring countries and shit-stomped the ruling regimes. Unfortunately Bush tried fighting a “politically correct” war that landed us in the situation that we are in now, instead of doing a proper curb stomping and getting the hell out.

That is how he's not impressed me.

Are you kidding me?! I thought the reason we went in the middle east was to find WMD's and capture Osama Bin Laden!

Both which have not come to fruition, in case you haven't noticed.

That's all people talked about. Now you guys are simply saying that Saddam needed to be overthrown and Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. Well NOW it is! There's so much anti-American sentiment there, just our presence is creating terrorists!

And as for the Cole, maybe if you did your research instead of blinding accepting whatever Rush Limbaugh's fat face says, you'd know that Clinton wanted to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban - a move widely criticized by the GOP. He couldn't get the CIA and FBI to certify Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks - so military action was at a stalemate.

If you were going to blame Clinton for 9/11, why shouldn't we blame Bush Sr. for the first attack on the WTC? 9/11 happened 9 months after Clinton left office, and he gets blamed. The first attack on the WTC happened 38 days after Bush Sr. left office. Double standard, indeed.

So when Bush Jr was approached with a document entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" after stealing the white house, you know what he did? He took a long vacation at his ranch in Texas. What a hero.

One last thing...after Bill Clinton left office, counterterrorism expert Robert Oakley (of the Reagen administration, so I assume you already like him) said, "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama".

QED.

Abam...I love how you pretend to know what the terrorists were thinking. More right wing bullsh*t. We get it...you're scared and you let fear rule you life. So keep dreaming of curb stomping if it helps you sleep at night. Sad.

And by the way, after the first WTC bombing in '93, nobody knew the bomber was doing it on behalf of Al Queda, let alone Bin Laden. Hindsight is 20/20, moron.

You just got curb stomped. By facts, the conservative's enemy.

Yes hindsight is 20/20.... and knowing what we know now we should have glassed the fuckers during the first gulf war, but thats neither here nor there.

While your right, I dont propose to know what terrorists were thinking. I do know this. For 8 years of Clintons presidency he did the bare minimum to show any type of response to terrorism. What was it... a few cruise missiles at a couple of defunct and abandoned "training bases"? Just enough to make it look like he was achieving something without actually doing anything.

I am not pushing the blame on Clinton for 9/11 I'm just pointing out that his foreign policy actions gave the impression that the US had become complacent and weak and that weakness was acted upon resulting in the 9/11 attacks.

As for Bush I, he didnt cut our military by 40% he also didnt treat terrorists with kit gloves either, as a matter of fact he just got thru handing Saddam his ass on a platter. The main thing that I fault him for is not finishing the job when we had the chance.

As for my knowledge on terrorists, I worked in military intelligence assigned to the ME from 87 to 91 and on and off thru out the early to mid 90's. So I'd say that I know a little about how they think. Granted I have not worked in the intelligence field in over 10 years but I really dont think that they have changed much... after all we really have not given them reason to.

Fear doesnt dictate my ideals and actions. I've served my country and have seen first hand what we are up against...... have you?

No I did not. Fortunately I'm still entitled to my opinion. Which lines up with counter terrorism expert Robert Oakley. Who isn't just some guy on a post who says he's an expert. But if you are such an expert...which "fuckers" should we have "curb stomped" exactly? Those must be military intelligence terms? How many Iraqis were involved in 9/11 again? Or all they just all the same?

Never said that you werent entitled to your opinion, and never said that I was an expert on the same level as Robert Oakley. (BTW counter-terrorism is not really the same thing as ME intelligence) but anyway I am more of an expert on the subject than say... um you.

Thats not to say that your dumb or ignorant or anything. Just that I have had more exposure to the subject that you probably ever will. Which I find is really unfortunate for you as you may have a different outlook if you knew what was really going on and didnt have to rely on the half baked stories that you get off the internet and television.

Granted I never used phrases like "Fuckers" "curb stomped" or "assholes" in any of my reports or briefings to the Joint Chiefs, Pentagon, any Generals, Admirals, Colonels, Majors, Captains or even my own section chief, But then again Current isn't really a forum where I really need to adhere to professional courtesy. As such I will take liberty with what ever such language I wish.

Oh and BTW there are documents that link Saddam's regime with funding ties to terrorism. Most of it is still classified, but there is proof that he partially funded the first WTC attack and the USS Cole bombing. As a matter of fact there is speculation that the Cole attack was a revenge strike against the Cole specifically for the cruise missile strikes that it launched during the Gulf War.

I said it before but incase you missed it. If we would have had the foresight to finish the job during the First Gulf War then we wouldnt be having this discussion right now.

Right. Well I guess we should all just take your word for the fact that these secret documents exist and that you say you have the experience you say you do. I mean I would totally expect a trained military inteligence officer to post classified information on a site like this just to make a point...that makes perfect sense. Come on.

And use whatever language you want...but again, if you're trying to pass yourself off as a intelligence professional don't expect people not to take that into consideration when gauging whether to buy what you're saying.

I'm unconvinced.

You can take what ever you want how ever you want to. I quite frankly don’t care whether you believe me or not, I have posted no classified material, only the more commonly known fact that it does exist, it’s the information in the documents that is classified.

At any rate don’t put too much trust in everything that you see, hear and read in the media, it is just a propaganda tool that is used by both sides. Roughly 60% of what the media puts on display is trash that should be discarded.

At least you appear to have the intelligence to question me, and I don’t expect you to believe everything I have to say. My only hope here is that you also have the intelligence to weed out the trash that the media feeds us on a daily basis.

Well, we can agree that a lot of what's in the media is trash.

I honestly don't know who to believe when it comes to so-called intelligence. I remember a lot of talk about WMDs in Iraq and this wasn't manufactured by the media...it came from two Presidential Administrations (one from each party) and that turned out to be wrong. Of course only one of those two parties choose to gamble half a trillion of our dollars and the lives of 4146 Americans on this bad intelligence. And only one of the candidates for President not only voted for that colossal blunder, but actively helped sell it to the American people. These are facts. And they should be taken into account when evaluating these two candidates. It would be foolish not to. At the end of the day...you're going to form your opinion based on what you think is true and I'm going to do the same. If we end up on different sides of the voting booth...that's okay. At least we both gave it some independent thought.

So...what do you think of McCain's VP choice?

I cant propose to know what intelligence the government was acting on after 9/11. Unfortunately we probably wont live long enough to see that info release to the general public.

Maybe I should have framed my point this way instead of taking an aggressive stance on it.

During the time that I was working in the intelligence field I was privy to information that the general public still doesnt know about. I have since moved on out of intelligence. My point being that what ever we as civilians do hear about we need to remember that its probably only 20% or 30% of the full story.

WMD's in Iraq ... you may or may not know this but YES there was some found in Iraq. The big issue is that they were not found on the grand scale that the American people were lead to believe. 2 other factors affected the release of this info ... one was that Fox News was given the story so it was immediately discounted as RW propaganda, 2 the liberal slanted media outlets either did not run the story or they minimized the impact of the find. Dont get me wrong I dont think that this was a big defining blow out justification for invading Iraq, but it shouldn't have been passed off as insignificant either.

As far as the war is concerned... I have a little brother serving in the Marines in Iraq right now, dont you think that I want him to come home as soon as possible? Of course I do, but I also want them to make sure the job is done right before they do. That way there is less of a chance that they will be sent back 2, 4, 8, or 10 years from know when we may not have the advantages that we do now. That is the overwhelming consensus of the troops serving in Iraq.

I know this from speaking with friends and my brother that are currently serving in Iraq and I know from the way I felt when I served during the first Gulf War. Like I stated earlier. Its a shame that we didnt finish the job the first time as if we had we probably would not be having this discussion now.

Yes, I suppose taxing corporations and the 2% wealthiest Americans, creating allies, stopping genocide around the world, balancing the budget, trying to create universal healthcare (which would've helped me as a child), the Family and Medical Leave act, the attempt of peace between Israel and Palestine, bailing Mexico out of bankruptcy, the attempts of disarming Al Queda (while being ridiculed for this action by the house republicans, then being blamed later for "not doing enough"), gay and women's rights created a huge hurricane and was such a disaster! What a bad president!

anyone looks good when that's all you mention.

Well, please! Enlighten me then!

You mean when he's not acting like himself (crabby) he's a good sounding person.

I so agree.

And if he stayed, the Obama groupies would accuse him of taking the focus off of Obama. You Obama groupies wouldn't be happy no matter what he did.

Just take this convention, replace all the smiling diverse faces with wrinkled pale ones, change all references to hope, change and prosperity with fear, dogma and taxes - spin it and sprinkle in a a good portion of BS and viola - you've got the Republican convention.

Those references to Hope, Change, Prosperity are just that .... References ... because not a damn one of them know what the hell they are talking about.

Here is your Hope, Change and Prosperity

Hope - We hope that if Obama gets elected that his Marxist policies dont fuck the country over too bad before we can get a real leader in.

Change - Change is all that we the average American will have left in his pockets after we are raped by the massive cost of all the new social plans that Obama is proposing.

Prosperity - Prosperity, is as we all know reserved for the people that run a Marxist government. Not the people that they govern over.

There is your Hope, Change and Prosperity. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Ah Abamanation...you sound pretty scared. I guess you should be. Three nights. Four great speeches. One more to come tonight. No wonder the right is shaking in their $500 loafers.

You're right Huntre. That's the Spin you need to put on it. And He's the Master at it. Bill will make you love him. Bar none, "JFK couldn't even begin to do his charm", He's the best.

Are you at the right convention? The RNC is next week.

Me too!

Bill is still the man!