Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[VAZHOG]

Funny how people forget this stuff!!! I could go on, but here just some of Clintons fine achievements!

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/Penn%20LR%202.html

            Aside from getting himself impeached but not removed, President William J. Clinton’s most noteworthy impact on the Constitution has been in the area of war powers.  When it comes to using the American military, no president in recent times has had a quicker trigger finger.  In March, 1999, for example, President Clinton ordered 31,000 American servicemen and women to engage in air operations against Serbia, the largest and most powerful province of the former Yugoslavia, to prevent the “ethnic cleansing” of Albanians living in Kosovo.  As part of an operation sponsored by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 7,000 American ground troops then entered Kosovo on June 10, 1999, after NATO bombing had forced Serbia to withdraw its forces.  It is unclear how long American troops will remain, as NATO’s goals include not just ending war but building a new nation in Kosovo.

 

While broader in scale and destructiveness, President Clinton’s Kosovo operation followed a pattern set by similar military interventions over the last eight years.  Since December 1995, some 20,000 American troops have implemented a U.N.-brokered peace plan in Bosnia, another former province of the former Yugoslavia.  American war planes continue to enforce a no-fly zone in Iraq, and on occasion American cruise missiles and bombs have attacked Iraqi military assets.  In the summer of 1998, President Clinton again used cruise missiles, this time to hit suspected terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan.  In 1994, President Clinton sent 16,000 American troops to Haiti, under the auspices of the U.N., to oversee its transition to democratic government.  In 1993, President Clinton expanded the goals of the 28,000 American troops in Somalia, originally deployed by President Bush for humanitarian reasons, but then withdrew them after the deaths of soldiers in combat.  On President Clinton’s watch, American troops also have participated in U.N. peacekeeping missions in dangerous places such as Macedonia and Rwanda.

 

In none of these cases did the Clinton administration seek congressional authorization for its decisions to use force abroad.  In fact, the President has justified his military interventions more often on the need to uphold our obligations to the United Nations or NATO, than upon congressional approval.  Although on several occasions Congress refused to authorize the use of force, President Clinton argued that he had the sole constitutional power as Commander-in-Chief to send American servicemen and women into harm’s way.  While he often signaled that he would welcome congressional support, he also made clear that he would implement his military plans without it.  President Clinton further refused to acknowledge that the War Powers Resolution bound his discretion to act.  Arguably, the Clinton administration’s use of the military in several long-term interventions has rendered the War Powers Resolution a dead letter.



Clinton Technology Transfer to China

http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/booklet.htm



1998 Clinton Bombs Iraq

Politicians link Clinton's timing to impeachment scandal
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.07/index.html



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/clinton_i_wasnt_soft_on_bin_la.html

As usual, Clinton figures that the rest of us are too stupid or lazy to look it up for ourselves. And having read the complete report when it came out more than two years ago, I think it is an inescapable fact that a vacillating, equivocating administration had more than one opportunity to take out terrorist mastermind Bin Laden, but blew it.

A good place to look is the report's "Chapter 4: Responses to Al Qaeda's initial assaults," Section 4.5, "Searching for Fresh Options." There you have details of how Bin Laden was ready to be plucked, but someone in the administration either ignored or nixed it. Or put it on an endless "you-decide, not-me" merry-go-round.

For example, the report said the CIA was receiving "reliable" reports that Bin Laden would be in the Sheikh Ali hunting camp in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar until at least midmorning of Feb. 11, 1999. The military was targeting him for a hit with cruise missiles, and only needed a green light. Yet, no missiles were launched, to the disappointment of field agents and the CIA's "Bin Laden" unit. By Feb. 12, Bin Laden had moved on, and the golden opportunity passed.

Still, the CIA hoped that Bin Laden would return to the popular camp, but Richard Clarke, the nation's counterterrorism chief, may have blown it by calling the United Arab Emirate to express his concern about the their officials associating with Bin Laden at the hunting camp. Being no fools, the terrorists within a week had "hurriedly dismantled" and deserted the camp, the report said.

In May, 1999, the report said, the administration may have missed the best and last opportunity to hit Bin Laden with cruise missiles as he was moving in and around Kandahar. "It was a fat pitch, a home run," a senior military official told the commission, confident of the intelligence and the possibility of minimal "collateral damage." The report picks up the story:

"He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, 'We all just slumped.' He told [the commission] he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad game. Bin Laden 'should have been a dead man' that night, he said."

And to Think Many in AMerica, Still Want him (HER) Back in Charge  Ahh-- longing for the good old daze  NOT

[sadunbar]

How many kw's of energy was required by the vacuum microwave reactor to produce how many kw's of energy in the form of H?  It does not a have to be in kw's, it could be joules or what have you but the efficiency in conversion always has a loss, always.   

1 therm of dino will typically yield only .4 therm in electrical output due to loss in conversion from chemical energy(oil) converted to themal energy(boiler) conveted to mechanical energy(steam turbine) conveted to electrical energy(generator).  Small increases in this heat rate help but it is the 1st law of thermodynamics, no free lunch.

What makes dinofuel so great is its ability to be transported and stockpiled easily.  Canada is full of it! and oil too!

It has been a hurdle in the business for some time.   If I could only .......

Miker   

Miker,

The short answer (to respect confidentiality agreements) is the energy consumed by the process is a fraction of the energy produced by the process...  a fraction...  The process has been proven in laboratory settings and in prototype production models.  

Scott

(still staying out of the political discussion, but it sure is fun to watch you guys debate!!)   

[miker]

Cool......maybe the dark hand will allow it to come to fruition.   

Mike

[iski]

BTW - this so called "study" was funded by George Soros & a variety of left wing groups.

Very interesting the AP "forgot" that tidbit of pertinent information when they wrote the article.  Why?

Internet is great for exposing stuff - cuts both ways.

[Keats]

You have to love this.......Kerry going after Clinton  who would have thought

I must be in the twilight zone

The Democrats in self destruct mode........you cannot make this stuff up

[skreminegul07]

Jorge...

Not only is Bush and his "crew" liars, but Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents this country has ever had...the man is an absolute idiot.

Typical left wing reponse, grammar school insults.

[FNGw/08SERK]

Typical left wing reponse, grammar school insults.

It shows how successful the politicians are at polarizing the electorate!! 

[Twolanerider]

Typical left wing reponse, grammar school insults.

Various "wing"-ed responses have been the norm here.  Feel free to knock the elected officers.  We choose them, we pay them, we can bitch about them and call them names.  It's part of the process.  It feels good to vent.  It's even a right so far as political speech is concerned.

The personal insults to each other, however, are a crock.  And beneath this group of people.  Not long ago I got witness personally how good this group can be.  The same group is better than not being able to discuss what they don't agree without saying stupid things about one another.

I agree with some of what Terry has to say.  I disagree with other of what he has to say.  There are areas where he and I would each believe the other is a full off tilt random trajectory nut job without heart or compassion for our fellow man.  That he would take the time to make an effort at reasoned political discourse, as others have also, is complimentary in and of itself though.  Lots of places in the world that's not even allowed if you happen to be in the opposition.  So, please, don't be some sophomoric as to complain of typical grammar school repsonses. 

For one thing real thought, effort and search has gone in to much of the discourse on both side; so it hardly is simple or stupid whether you agree with it or not.  Even more importantly it's beneath the friends on both sides.

[Hoist!]

Various "wing"-ed responses have been the norm here.  Feel free to knock the elected officers.  We choose them, we pay them, we can bitch about them and call them names.  It's part of the process.  It feels good to vent.  It's even a right so far as political speech is concerned.

The personal insults to each other, however, are a crock.  And beneath this group of people.  Not long ago I got witness personally how good this group can be.  The same group is better than not being able to discuss what they don't agree without saying stupid things about one another.

I agree with some of what Terry has to say.  I disagree with other of what he has to say.  There are areas where he and I would each believe the other is a full off tilt random trajectory nut job without heart or compassion for our fellow man.  That he would take the time to make an effort at reasoned political discourse, as others have also, is complimentary in and of itself though.  Lots of places in the world that's not even allowed if you happen to be in the opposition.  So, please, don't be some sophomoric as to complain of typical grammar school repsonses. 

For one thing real thought, effort and search has gone in to much of the discourse on both side; so it hardly is simple or stupid whether you agree with it or not.  Even more importantly it's beneath the friends on both sides.

Can't we all just learn to get along?

Kumbayah my Lord, kumbayah
Kumbayah my Lord, kumbayah
Kumbayah my Lord, kumbayah
Oh Lord, kumbayah

Someone's singing my Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing my Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah

Someone's laughing, my Lord, cumbaya
Someone's laughing, my Lord, cumbaya
Someone's laughing,my Lord, cumbaya
Oh Lord, cumbaya

Someone's crying, my Lord, cumbayah
Someone's crying, my Lord, cumbayah
Someone's crying, my Lord, cumbayah
Oh Lord, cumbayah

Someone's praying, my Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, my Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's sleeping, my Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, my Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping,my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

 

Hoist!

[FNGw/08SERK]

Various "wing"-ed responses have been the norm here.  Feel free to knock the elected officers.  We choose them, we pay them, we can bitch about them and call them names.  It's part of the process.  It feels good to vent.  It's even a right so far as political speech is concerned.

The personal insults to each other, however, are a crock.  And beneath this group of people.  Not long ago I got witness personally how good this group can be.  The same group is better than not being able to discuss what they don't agree without saying stupid things about one another.

I agree with some of what Terry has to say.  I disagree with other of what he has to say.  There are areas where he and I would each believe the other is a full off tilt random trajectory nut job without heart or compassion for our fellow man.  That he would take the time to make an effort at reasoned political discourse, as others have also, is complimentary in and of itself though.  Lots of places in the world that's not even allowed if you happen to be in the opposition.  So, please, don't be some sophomoric as to complain of typical grammar school repsonses. 

For one thing real thought, effort and search has gone in to much of the discourse on both side; so it hardly is simple or stupid whether you agree with it or not.  Even more importantly it's beneath the friends on both sides.

When I grow up  I would like to write as eloquently as Mr. Twolanerider!  Very well put Don!!

[harleyteam]

By Lily Hindy - ASSOCIATED PRESS        (this article was in the Buffalo News, January 26,2008
Updated: 01/26/08 6:50 AM


U.S.invasion was surprise, Saddam told agent

Saddam wanted Iran to think he had WMD.
NEW YORK — Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.

Saddam expected only a limited U.S. aerial attack and thought he could remain in control, FBI agent George Piro told CBS’ “60 Minutes” program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

“He told me he initially miscalculated . . . President Bush’s intentions,” Piro said. “He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 . . . a four- day aerial attack.”

The Associated Press spoke to a close aide of Saddam in August 2003, who said that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.

Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002. When they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn’t fully cooperating.

Piro, a Lebanese- American who speaks Arabic, debriefed Saddam after he was found in an underground hideout in December 2003 near his home city north of Baghdad, nine months after the U.S. invasion.

Piro said Saddam told him that he wanted to keep up the illusion that he had the weapons program in part because he thought it would deter a likely Iranian invasion.

“For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,” Piro told Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes.”

Piro added that Saddam intended to restart the weapons program and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Piro said Saddam revealed what pushed him to invade Kuwait in 1990: an insulting comment that the Kuwaiti leader, Sheik Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah, made about Iraqi women.

Piro said Al Sabah told the Iraqi foreign minister during talks aimed at resolving some of the conflicts between the two countries that “he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute.”

“And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait,” Piro said.





therein lies the culprit himself.   you want the world and your enemies to think you have them,  so you put out all the intelligence that you do,,,, but never think of the consequences.

[SPIDERMAN]

To answer the question posed by the title of this thread.

Absolutely, unequivocably NO, but his regime is damn near over and I'm looking ahead to someone who can put us back on course to peace and prosperity.

I am so sick of Clinton bashing, Bush bashing, Kerry bashing, Chaney bashing , name a politcian and we've all bashed or annoited the SOB in the past 20 years.

So let's get it straight. Nobody's going to impeach this guy and nobody's going to add his face to Mt Rushmore, so can we please all move on ?

Thanks

B B

[FNGw/08SERK]

therein lies the culprit himself.   you want the world and your enemies to think you have them,  so you put out all the intelligence that you do,,,, but never think of the consequences.

To understand "todays" conflicts and global poitics I believe we must try to acquire a THOROUGH historical background from places other than traditional news. Saddam killed many innocent people over the years including 37 US sailors with NO consequences. He had no reason to think he would the recipient of our wrath given his murderous unanswered history.

For a good look into the history of politics in the region try reading Inside the Danger Zone written by Harold Lee Wise. Our current position in and around the entire region started long before GW and weapons of mass destruction. For all my friends that take the time to research facts this is a fast read that doesn't stink of leftism or rightism. Give it a try I think you'll be surprised on many levels. Just another piece of the puzzle - but an important one all the same.

One things for sure if we want to "fix" things we have to take the time to do some honest factual research (outside the box that is). Nothing happens in a vacuum not immigration, not Iraq, our economy or any other aspect of this great American lifestyle we are blessed to be a part of.

And while we complain and point fingers at the cause of our angst I'm always cognisant of the fact that WE the people seem to assume very little individual personal responsibility.

[Midnight Rider]

Jorge...

Not only is Bush and his "crew" liars, but Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents this country has ever had...the man is an absolute idiot.

I should rephrase that statement, and apologize for being so blunt.

That GW is not the brightest bulb in the box is not a partisan opinion, and neither is his lack of fully understanding all facets of any given problem.

In my opinion, a good leader, even if they are not the most intelligent being on the planet, should surround him/herself with people/advisers who bring different perspectives to the table, regardless of political affiliation, and actually listen to what they have to say...not blow them off just because their opinions/advice do not fit with their point of view.  They might actually offer up a reasonable argument contrary to his/her preconceived notions.

As I have stated previously, very, very few issues facing the country (the world, for that matter) stand in a vacuum...almost every action taken has a ripple effect, and until all those ripples have been examined and weighed, it is better to take no action at all.  As I've also said, there absolutely are no simple solutions to very complex problems.  This country has not been appointed by anyone to be "King of The Planet"...there is always room for reasonable differences in thought...there are truths to be found in all.  Last time I looked, there were no absolutes...

[Hoist!]

I should rephrase that statement, and apologize for being so blunt.

That GW is not the brightest bulb in the box is not a partisan opinion, and neither is his lack of fully understanding all facets of any given problem.

In my opinion, a good leader, even if they are not the most intelligent being on the planet, should surround him/herself with people/advisers who bring different perspectives to the table, regardless of political affiliation, and actually listen to what they have to say...not blow them off just because their opinions/advice do not fit with their point of view.  They might actually offer up a reasonable argument contrary to his/her preconceived notions.

As I have stated previously, very, very few issues facing the country (the world, for that matter) stand in a vacuum...almost every action taken has a ripple effect, and until all those ripples have been examined and weighed, it is better to take no action at all.  As I've also said, there absolutely are no simple solutions to very complex problems.  This country has not been appointed by anyone to be "King of The Planet"...there is always room for reasonable differences in thought...there are truths to be found in all.  Last time I looked, there were no absolutes...

"The Planet" has no boundries! Countries are a man-made concept, whose borders and rules are used to control of groups of people. Some are controlled in a Democratic fashion with its associated rules. And others are controlled forcefully. And as in nature, only the strongest of a species survive and evolve! Until something stronger comes around, that is!

And BTW, I'm very fortunate to belong to one of the strongest man-made boundaries ever!!! And may we only get stronger!!!

Hoist!