Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

    It seems the Bush team is back on the defense again in its claim that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were Bill Clinton's fault.

    Mr. Bush needs to man-up and admit his administration didn't take the threats of al Qaeda seriously enough in the first eight months of his administration. The strategy of claiming that the lack of preparation for the 2001 terrorist attacks were Mr. Clinton's fault is not going to sell very well. It sometimes takes Americans a long time to figure out where the truth lies, but usually they finally get it.

    Http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/20...ents_0926.html

    A memo received by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly after becoming National Security Advisor in 2001 directly contradicts statements she made to reporters yesterday, RAW STORY has learned.

    "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told a reporter for the New York Post on Monday. "Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."

    Rice made the comments in response to claims made Sunday by former President Bill Clinton, who argued that his administration had done more than the current one to address the al Qaeda problem before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. She stopped short of calling the former president a liar.

    However, RAW STORY has found that just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects." This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

  • #2
    Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

    Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 8 months. It's not like Clinton's leaving office suddenly opened a window of opportunity. The movement was already in play.

    There's plenty of blame to go around but those 8 years tip the balance IMHO.

    As for those strategies... is that another way of saying "price tags"?



    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

      You obviously didn't check out the story bball, which has photocopies of the explicit plan left for Condi et al. which they now state didn't exist. When Clinton did attack Bin Ladin, the entire right wing chorus shouted "wag the dog" and would have shouted it even louder had there been boots on the ground.
      The worst misconception is that he had 8 years. The embassy bombings didn't happen until 1998, so basically he had 2 years and as he stated at least he did something and that he regrets not getting Bin Ladin. Bushco did nothing and admits zero mistakes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

        What mistake did Clinton admit to? Not killing Bin Ladin? It sounds to me the argument is trying to be made Clinton was doing fine and Bush dropped the ball in 8 months. Regardless of how hated Bush is I can't fathom how anyone can believe that.
        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

          I think the case has been made quite forcefully that the Clinton admin. did make them a very high priority, especially in the person of Dick Clarke including stopping the Millenium bomb plot on the US despite opposition from the Republicans in congress at the time.
          In Bush, we had the deemphasis of everything Dick Clarke was doing, and a complete dismissal of the 8/06/01 pdb regarding Bin Ladin's imminent strike on the US.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

            Why do we keep saying President Bush had 8 full months before the attack occured?

            He was sworn into office on January 20, 2001 & the attacks occured September 11, 2001.

            The 20th of the month is past the half way mark of a month so therefor, at best, he had 7 months & three weeks to do something.

            That is makeing the wild assumption that on the night of the 20th he should have convened a war cabinet & taken out Bin Laden.

            If you will recall there was a contentious election & he did not even has all of his cabinet approved by congress when the attacks occured.

            Unreal, you guys actually believe that a brand new President would invade a foreign country in the first 7 months of office without even having one terror attack on his watch?

            Look, I don't like that Clinton did nothing about the USS Cole. But I also understand a President in his last few months of office is not going to invade a country either.

            Also just because President Clintons team left a plan that doesn't mean it was a good one. The Bush team had every right to want to evaluate & come up with their own ideas. Just as President Clinton did when President Bush sent teams into Africa.

            President Bush's administration has killed more Islamic terrorist than any other administration in history & I'll go so far as to say more than all other adm. combined.

            You may not like him or his policys but you can not deny that he has been agressive in his fight on terror.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

              Originally posted by McClintic Sphere View Post
              I think the case has been made quite forcefully that the Clinton admin. did make them a very high priority, especially in the person of Dick Clarke including stopping the Millenium bomb plot on the US despite opposition from the Republicans in congress at the time.
              In Bush, we had the deemphasis of everything Dick Clarke was doing, and a complete dismissal of the 8/06/01 pdb regarding Bin Ladin's imminent strike on the US.
              You see this is what bothers me. Some claim that Clinton was just defending himself--which I think he is entitled to do. I certainly don't think that he should take the blame for 9/11. But I don't think this is what it is about anymore. It is about trying to place 9/11 soley on Bush. If Clinton's only mistake was not killing Bin Ladin, then it had to be Bush's fault. That just smacks of election year dishonesty to me.

              I realize many on here think Bush is a liar and bumbling; however, that doesn't automatically make the other side honest or correct.
              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

                Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                It sounds to me the argument is trying to be made Clinton was doing fine and Bush dropped the ball in 8 months. Regardless of how hated Bush is I can't fathom how anyone can believe that.
                The ball was dropped. On Sept. 11, 2001 those *******s should never have been allowed to do what they did. Those in charge of the defense of this country failed us.

                Personally, I don't think the Bush administration took terrorist threats seriously enough. And, I also think the new administration was hampered by the in-fighting by professional bureaucrats of the various agencies with a piece of the responsibility for keeping this country safe from attacks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

                  A memo received by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly after becoming National Security Advisor in 2001 directly contradicts statements she made to reporters yesterday, RAW STORY has learned.

                  "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice told a reporter for the New York Post on Monday. "Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."

                  Rice made the comments in response to claims made Sunday by former President Bill Clinton, who argued that his administration had done more than the current one to address the al Qaeda problem before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. She stopped short of calling the former president a liar.

                  However, RAW STORY has found that just five days after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, a memo from counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke to Rice included the 2000 document, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects." This document devotes over 2 of its 13 pages of material to specifically addressing strategies for securing Pakistan's cooperation in airstrikes against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
                  Wow! Over 2 pages!

                  Heck - if I do a cash flow for a client on whether to make a $10,000 purchase I end up with 6 pages, minimum so two pages - no - OVER 2 pages must be comprehensive! I mean they only bombed the World Trade Center, blew up foreign embassies and blasted a hole in a Naval ship - surely that can be summed up in a couple of pages.



                  Do these folks realize how stupid they sound? Here's a web site on how to do a home manicure. I copied it into a Word doc and it came to over 2 pages.

                  http://www.revive-city.com/index.php?id=189
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

                    Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                    You see this is what bothers me. Some claim that Clinton was just defending himself--which I think he is entitled to do. I certainly don't think that he should take the blame for 9/11. But I don't think this is what it is about anymore. It is about trying to place 9/11 soley on Bush. If Clinton's only mistake was not killing Bin Ladin, then it had to be Bush's fault. That just smacks of election year dishonesty to me.

                    I realize many on here think Bush is a liar and bumbling; however, that doesn't automatically make the other side honest or correct.
                    You are acting like his response happened in some kind of vacuum, Arcman. His interview happened on Fox only shortly after ABC broadcast The Path to 9/11 which contained many misrepresentations of the Clinton admin. effort on terror and was given a deliberately inflammatory question attributed 'courageously' by Chris Wallace to "viewer e-mails."
                    I thought Clinton has been remarkably quiesent on the subject until then, but it was obvious the man could only take so much slander.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

                      Looks pretty detailed to me. A pretty damning response to:
                      "Big pieces were missing," Rice added, "like an approach to Pakistan that might work, because without Pakistan you weren't going to get Afghanistan."
                      Of course, since Richard Clarke was marginalized, it's not like they were going to listen to anything he said anyway.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

                        I agree that Clinton was being overly critized and he should defend himself. The nature of debate has changed now. There is a difference between saying that neither party was taking the threat as seriously as they should and saying that Clinton did and Bush didn't.
                        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          You may not like him or his policys but you can not deny that he has been agressive in his fight on terror.
                          He's been aggressive, but hardly smart.

                          As you proudly proclaim, he does get scoreboard on the body count of terrorists killed, but he also gets scoreboard on the number of new terrorists and affiliates with terrorist organizations created. He also gets ranked near the top in the number of innocent civilians and non-terrorists killed in an American sponsored civil war in a foreign land.

                          Taking the fight to Afghanistan and Bin Laden was good. Bin Laden is a terrorist and his buddies had taken over Afghanistan. But the job in Afghanistan has hardly been finished in a satisfactory way.

                          The unintended consequences of the occupation of Iraq are awful:

                          We have created instability in Iraq that is probably beyond our will to contain; our troops have been inserted inside a civil war in which the outcome will not be to our liking, when and if we leave; we have redirected huge resources that could have been better spent in a real fight against terrorism; and we have undeniably created an environment where Iran's influence over the resources of Iraq will grow to dangerous levels. At least Saddam was a buffer against the aggression of Iran - we have lost that now. When we exit Iraq or are asked to leave, as seems more likely than ever now, the Middle East will grow even more unstable and dangerous.

                          I wish there was meaningful evidence that Mr. Bush had thought this venture through before he rushed this nation into the invasion of Iraq. I just don't see any.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

                            Amen, sixthman. Very well stated...and FWIW, I think you should be a starter.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Condi Lies, or Inconvenient Memory Lapse?

                              Originally posted by sixthman View Post
                              The ball was dropped. On Sept. 11, 2001 those *******s should never have been allowed to do what they did. Those in charge of the defense of this country failed us.

                              Personally, I don't think the Bush administration took terrorist threats seriously enough. And, I also think the new administration was hampered by the in-fighting by professional bureaucrats of the various agencies with a piece of the responsibility for keeping this country safe from attacks.
                              They never should have been allowed into the country. Who was in office when they came in? Clinton.

                              Who was in office during the first WTC bombing? Clinton
                              Who was in office during the Khobar Tower strikes? Clinton
                              Who was in office during Kenya and Tansania Embassy bombings? Clinton
                              Who was in office during the USS Cole bombing? Clinton.

                              Go check your facts buddy. Clinton dropped the ball several times when he had reason to get OBL's head on a silver platter.

                              He okay'ed looking into killing Osama, but NEVER authorized an attack.

                              In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris’s first tier.

                              Clinton asked Morris where he stood. “I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category,” Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president’s standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. “Yeah,” Clinton responded, “It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it.”

                              Clinton then asked, “What do I need to do to be first tier?” “I said, ‘You can’t,’“ Morris remembers. “‘You have to win a war.’“ Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. “I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism,” Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)

                              But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris’s polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?

                              “He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”

                              And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton’s handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn’t his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He’s right about that, too.
                              http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...A1MDNmYWQ5M2Y=

                              Dick Morris was Clinton's top political advisor, and he even told Clinton while he was going into his second term he needed to step up on terrorism. Clinton rejected his advice and went with his own, because he was too afraid of another Vietnam. This War on Terrorism started in the early 90's. Too bad for us, our government didn't realize it until 9/11/2001.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X