National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama

Fair point. I'm wrong. I forgot about that bombing one month into Clinton's presidency.

 

Why do you think only attacks “on US soil” matter?

Americans ALSO got killed in the following attacks Clinton largely ignored as he refused to fight the war on Terror and al-Qaeda, probably to save money and poll points (deeds which no doubt lead to 911)...


1996 - Khobar Towers bombing - Saudi Arabia
1998 - U.S. Embassy bombings Kenya/Tanzania
2000 - USS Cole Bombing – Yemen

 

I didn't express that only attacks on US soil matter. But avoiding attacks on US soil is a different proposition than attacks in foreign lands.

 

Well Clinton did neither!

 

I acknowledged my error.

 

Yep, Clinton was smart enough to avoid spending trillions, like Bush, invading countries and thus incuring opportunity costs.

The trillions Bush spent in Iraq could have actually been spent to make the US safer.

Clinton contained Saddam the smart way: with inexpensive international sanctions and occasionally shooting down one of his planes. This after Reagan stupidly armed Saddam (like he did virtually every criminal government on the planet)

As to al Qaida, Clinton did the right thing in treating this ragtag group as criminals, rather as some existential threat. There have never been more than a few thousand AQ fighters and they were never a threat to the US. But of course Bush being fixated on cutting taxes for the billionaires totally ignored law enforcement and allowed 9-11 to happen. Like Reagan in Lebanon, another totally inept conservative caught sleeping at the wheel.

 

Benefit? They have to pay for them out of the budget and our tax dollars, what benefit. There is NO benefit there only a drain on declining resources during a recession for pay, health care and Cadillac pensions.

You said the past year not me. Your cherry picking the numbers, I am only pointing out how disingenuous that is by posting the net numbers for Obama's presidency.

 

And all the while Democrats spent, and plan to spend tens of Trillions violating the Constitution in their never ending “War on Poverty.”

Reagan armed Saddam to check Iran.

What was it, just like 19 of those “AQ fighters” that committed 911? I guess bringing down the WTC and a good part of the Pentagon, and GOD only know what else was NOT a “threat to the US” according to the LEFT!

 

It benefited the recoveries.

I certainly agree that Reagan and Bush should have not increased spending so much and should have raised taxes.

Yeah. I said "past year". So why did you cite data from over two years ago as if you were proving my statement wrong?

I deny it is cherry picking numbers. The fact that government employment has decreased by about a million over the past year or so shows how that has impacted the employment situation over the past year.

 

So tell us (with link) what Clinton did domestically to avoid the attacks? Did he create the Dept of Homeland Security to tighten up airport security? He had 2 full budget cycles? What did he do domestically in those 2 and a half years?

 

How, when it just puts more stress on reduced treasury revenues?

Obama increased the debt by $4 trillion dollars in 2 1/2 years, far more than Bush or Reagan.

Your statement is correct, just out of context and disingenuous and in my opinion meant to deceive.

But your forgot the hiring spree in 2009 and 2010 which, as we knew, was unsustainable.

Gotta go get ready for work now, BBL to debunk replies.

 

On February 26, 1993—thirty-six days after Clinton took office, terrorists who the CIA would later reveal were working under the direction of Osama bin Laden detonated a timed car bomb in the parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. (See World Trade Center bombing) Clinton responded by ordering his National Security Council, under the direction of Anthony Lake, and the FBI to find and punish those responsible. The FBI was able to quickly identify the vehicle used in the bomb from a remnant found in the rubble: a Ryder rental van, which had been reported stolen in Jersey City, New Jersey the day before. The truck was rented by Mohammed Salameh, whom the FBI immediately detained. Similar evidence led to the arrests of other plotters behind the attack, including Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj, and Ramzi Yousef—who was identified as the key player in the bombing. All men were tried and convicted for the bombing and other terrorists activities.[34]

In his 1995 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed "comprehensive legislation to strengthen our hand in combating terrorists, whether they strike at home or abroad."[35] He sent legislation to Congress to extend federal criminal jurisdiction, make it easier to deport terrorists, and act against terrorist fund-raising.[36] Following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Clinton amended that legislation to increase wiretap and electronic surveillance authority for the FBI, require explosives to be equipped with traceable taggants, and appropriate more funds to the FBI, CIA, and local police.[37]

In June 1995, Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 39, which stated that the United States "should deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens." Furthermore, it called terrorism both a "matter of national security" and a crime.[38] The implementation of his proposals led to a substantial increase in counter-terrorism funds for the FBI and CIA.

In 1996, the CIA established a special unit of officers to analyze intelligence received about bin Laden and plan operations against him, coined the "Bin Ladin unit." It was this unit that first realized bin Laden was more than just a terrorist financier, but a leader of a global network with operations based in Afghanistan. Given these findings, the NSC encouraged the Department of State to "pay more attention" to Afghanistan and its governing unit, the Taliban, which had received funding from bin Laden. The State Department requested the Taliban to expel bin Laden from the country, noting that he was a sponsor of terrorism and publicly urged Muslims to kill Americans. The Taliban responded that they did not know his whereabouts and, even if they did, he was "not a threat to the United States." The CIA's counter-terrorism division quickly began drafting plans to capture and remove bin Laden from the country. However, Marine General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move, saying that the United States should focus instead on ending the Afghan civil war and the Taliban's human rights abuses.[39]

In 1998, Clinton appointed Richard Clarke—who until then served in a drugs and counter-terrorism division of the CIA—to lead an interagency comprehensive counter-terrorism operation, the Counter-terrorism Security Group (CSG). The goal of the CSG was to "detect, deter, and defend against" terrorist attacks. Additionally, Clinton appointed Clarke to sit on the cabinet-level Principals Committee when it met on terrorism issues.[34]

Clinton’s Counter-terrorism Center began drafting a plan to ambush bin Laden’s compound in Kandahar. The CIA mapped the compound and identified the houses of bin Laden’s wives and the location where he most likely slept. The plan was relatively simple, at least on paper. Tribals would “subdue” the guards, enter the compound, take bin Laden to a desert outside Kandahar, and hand him over to another group of tribals. This second group would carry him to a desert landing strip—which had already been tested—where a CIA plane would take him to New York for arraignment. When they completed a draft plan, they ran through two rehearsals in the United States.[40] Confident that the plan would work, the Counter-terrorism Center of the CIA sought the approval of the White House. While they acknowledged that the plan was risky, they stated that there was “a risk in not acting” because “sooner or later, bin Laden will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD.”[41]

Clarke reviewed the plans for Sandy Berger, the National Security Director, and told him that it was in the “very early stages of development” and stressed the importance of only targeting bin Laden, not the entire compound. The NSC told the CIA to begin preparing the necessary legal documents to execute the raid.[42]

The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan, and despite objections, canceled the operation, fearing that the risk to their operatives and financial costs were too high. It is unclear whether or not Clinton was aware of the plan.

As the Counter-terrorism Center continued to track bin Laden, they learned in 1998 that the Saudi government had bin Laden cells within the country that were planning attacks on U.S. forces. CIA Director George Tenet, encouraged by the Saudi’s show of force against bin Laden, asked them to assist in the fight against bin Laden. Clinton named Tenet as his informal “personal representative” to work with Saudi Arabia on terrorism. The Saudis promised Tenet that they would do everything they could to convince the Taliban to release bin Laden for trial in America or elsewhere. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, held various meetings with Taliban chief Mullah Omar and other leaders and received assurance that bin Laden would be removed. Omar, however, reneged on that promise.[34]

On August 7, 1998, bin Laden struck again, this time with simultaneous bombings on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (see above) The CIA, having confirmed bin Laden was behind the attack, informed Clinton that terrorist leaders were planning to meet at a camp near Khowst, to plan future attacks. According to Tenet, “several hundred,” including bin Laden, would attend. On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at the camp and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by “a few hours.”[39]

At the time of the attacks, Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal (see below). This led many Republicans in Congress to accuse the president of “wagging the dog”—launching a military attack simply to distract the public from his personal problems. Clinton and his principals, however, insist that the decision was made solely on the basis of national security.[34]

After the attacks failed, Clinton moved his focus to diplomatic pressure. On the advice of the State Department, Clinton encouraged Pakistan, whose military intelligence agency was a patron of the Taliban, to pressure the Taliban to remove bin Laden. After numerous meetings with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani’s would still not cooperate.[34] Sharif eventually agreed to allow the United States to train Pakistani special forces to find bin Laden. When Sharif was ousted by Pervez Musharraf, the plan was abandoned.[43]

After encouragement by Richard Clarke, Clinton issued an executive order in July 1999 declaring the Taliban regime as a state sponsor of terrorism.[44] This was followed in October 1999 by Resolution 1267 sponsored by the United States placing economic and travel sanctions on the Taliban.[45] The Taliban, however, stood by bin Laden, and the United States, along with Russia, proposed yet another UN resolution (Resolution 1333), this time imposing an embargo an arms shipments to the Taliban.[46] The move was meant to weaken the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance in their civil strife. However, the resolution did little to limit the illegal flow of arms from Pakistan.[34]

In August 1999, Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification ordering the CIA to develop another plan to capture bin Laden, and giving the CIA the authority to order bin Laden be killed.[47]

Near the end of 1999, the Clinton administration, working with the government of Jordan, detected and thwarted a planned terrorist attack to detonate bombs at various New Year millennium celebrations around the world. The CIA confirmed that bin Laden was behind the plot, which was disrupted just days before the New Year.[39] While many credited Clinton’s new CSG for playing a role in the foiling of these plots, critics claim it was “mostly luck.”[48]
...

More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration

So tell us what Bush did to prevent 9/11 in the 8 1/2 months he was president, during which time he managed to find the time block funding for abortions, channel federal money to "faith based" organizations, and to pass a massive tax cut that mostly benefited the wealthiest?

 

More people were employed. That decreased unemployment.

Neither Bush nor Reagan inherited the worst recession in 80 years nor a massive deficit from their predecessors.

Unsustainable when Republican dominated state legislatures are laying off hundreds of thousands of employees.

 

Pitiful dodge.

Yep, that was stupid. Now Iran has hegemony in the region, thanks to Bush. Man, these conservatives are dunces.

Typical Tea Party insecurity and fear. You actually think that blowing up a building will destroy the US? That's how much you hate America. Al Qaida terrorists should be tried in traffic court, to show just how little we fear these petty criminals. But instead Bush made martyrs out of them and made it out that a few thousand ragtag criminals threaten our existence.

S-T-U-P-I-D

 

S-t-u-p-i-d

 

Can't help quoting me, I understand.

I love it how conservaytives are so insecure and so distrustful of America that they actually think a few thousand rag tag terrorists, supported by Reagan in Afghanistan, could destroy this country. Man, you guys need to get a life.


This was symbolized perfectly with George Bush during 9-11 cowering in bunker somewhere. If he hadn't been a cowardly conservative, he should have strode up the steps of the Capitol Building and stated he wasn't afraid of this criminals and neither should Americans be afraid. Instead, he ran for it. Typical spineless conservative.

It must suck to always be afraid.

 

Why don't you write your librul pals and tell them to compromise and cut wasteful spending pas a balanced budget amendment and eliminate subsidies?

They had four years to get their act together and all we got for it was $1.6 trillion in deficits, 16% REAL unemployment, and an additional $4 trillion in debt.

I am constantly amazed that Libruls who do nothing but parrot idiot DNC talking points thinks this has anything to do with the Tea Party and EVERYTHING to do with Democrats who had total control for two years.

Democrats came into power in the Congress when the deficit was $161 billion; they left the House with $1.6 trillion deficit. Now they idiotically whine that the Tea Party is holding them accountable for their fiscally irresponsible spending spree and that Republicans should now fix it instantly with tax increases.

Where were these "necessary" tax increases when they controlled all facets of Government?

The reality is that we are seeing more of the same from spendthrift Libruls who pretend to care more than anyone else while they destroy the economy with their idiot legislation and blame everyone else for nothing more than partisan political gamesmanship.

The American people are gullible, but I am not sure they can be THAT gullible and be fooled to elect Democrats in the majority a second time. If anything, we should hope that the Senate changes hands along with a one term President so we can get back to the business of sanity.

 

Iriemon's laughably stupid rebuttal is nothing more than parroting idiot DNC talking points with the idiot claim that raising taxes is the one and ONLY solution to runaway Democrat spending sprees.

It's the same laughably stupid argument that has been refuted time and time again with the facts; we don't have a REVENUE problem, it is a SPENDING problem created by moronic hypocrites who whined about the Bush deficits then outspent him making Bush look like a spendthrift.

 

How is the truth a "Pitiful dodge?"

 

I did. They have.

Where are the Republicans who are agreeing to compromise with a tax increase to get a budget deal done?

And their increase in spending was lower than the Republicans under Bush.

But they've had to clean up the worst recession in 80 years.

 

That's the point, you dodged the topic, having no truth, and little knowledge.

You and Perry, sitting in a tree . . .

 

Another pitiful dodge.

Your claims are toast. But that won't stop your dishonestly. It's a hobbit trait.

 

Wrong again; but par for the course for Democrat defenders of irresponsible behavior.

The Congress is the ONLY body that can tax and spend. Democrats were in charge of the purse strings from Jan 2007 until Obama’s second year in office. They chose to do NOTHING to raise taxes, chose to do NOTHING but spend like heroin addicts and couldn’t even pass a budget their last year in total power.

I am amused when the non-thinking parrots idiot DNC talking points in a vacuum of reality or the facts. The reckless and wonton neglect began with Democrats back in the 90’s and continues today with the reckless policies that have given us an additional $4 trillion in debt and $1.6 trillion deficits with nothing more to show for it but high unemployment and malaise.

The same idiots who spent six years of Bush’s Presidency complaining about a $400 billion deficit but now defend an unprecedented $1.6 trillion while continuing to blame Bush after they have controlled the all of Washington for the last two years.

Bush was handed a recession and 9-11. Then after Democrats joined Republicans and voted for two wars, they spent the next eight years impugning Bush for the war’s conduct as if by some miracle all wars are managed like a business and whining about deficits which they now claim are necessary.

Can you spell stupid and hypocrite? That pretty much defines the Democrat party these days.

Wrong again; but expected from defenders of a failed ideology. Obama wasn’t handed anything he and the Democrats hadn’t already voted for. They voted for the bailouts, they voted for the stimulus spending, they voted for Obamacare, they voted for both wars and they voted to continue spending vast sums of money they didn’t have on the FALSE promise to the American people that it would make the economy better. Almost three years later it is painfully obvious what a failure Obama is.

Note to the clueless; EVERY president inherits what their predecessor left them. The true leaders don’t spend every waking moment pointing the finger of blame, they roll up their sleeves and get to work; something we have yet to see from our golf and basketball playing admonisher.

Did Obama vote for the TARP bailouts? YES. Did Obama push for the stimulus package that did nothing but bury Americans in $1 trillion of debt? YES. Did Obama pass Obamacare whose fiscal ramifications will make the Bush drug plan look like a fiscal cakewalk? YES. Did Obama expand the war in Afghanistan? YES. Did Obama lead the charge to continue the Bush tax cuts when he had wide majorities in the house and Senate? YES.

This idiotic claim that Bush did all this can only be made by willfully suspending common sense, the truth, the facts and disbelief.

They are; and they are being impugned by morons who continue to blame Bush for everything this administration has done.

Trying to blame Bush for Obama’s failures is not helping your credibility.

Be honest; did you vote for Obama the last election?

 

He's closing in on G.W. Bush's record of $5 trillion

 

That's incorrect. They didn't have a filibuster proof Senate for the last two years... only a sum total of about six months.

You weren't parroting an idiot RNC talking point there, were you?
.