Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Clinton Lays an Egg on Fox News Sunday

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: fossten

Excerpt from Newsbusters.org:

From the onset, Mr. Clinton seemed ill at ease. This is understandable, as he didn't see the normally comforting initials of the "Clinton News Network" proudly displayed on the video cameras in front of him. But, this doesn't absolve him of appearing before the American people as if he were Norman Bates just questioned about his mother.

On the other hand, maybe asking the former president anything of consequence these days will elicit such volatility, as the fireworks started as soon as Wallace brought up historically factual statements made in a new book, The Looming Tower. In it, author Lawrence Wright addressed how Osama bin Laden had indicated that when American troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993, he and his al Qaeda buddies saw this as an indication of American weakness.

Although this certainly couldn't have been the first time he had heard this, it didn't sit very well with Mr. Clinton, who lashed out in a fury akin to a president that had just been accused of having sexual relations with an intern:

I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn't do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush's neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn't have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn't do enough said that I did too much.

Republicans claimed that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? He did too much to try to capture the infamous terrorist leader?

Do the facts support such assertions, or is this the typical Clinton modus operandi: when questioned about your own mistakes, bring up Republicans, neocons, and conservatives - the liberal equivalent of lions and tigers and bears...oh my - and how it's all some kind of a conspiracy the complexities of which only Oliver Stone fully grasps.

Historically this line of attack has worked quite well with an adoring interviewer that buys such drivel hook, line, and sinker. However, what Mr. Clinton and his ilk seem to forget regularly is a recent invention known as the Internet. It is indeed odd the former president is unaware of this, inasmuch as his vice president created it.

Regardless, this tool - with the assistance of search engines and services such as Nexis - allows folks to go back in the past to accurately identify the truth. Sadly, as has often been the case with the rantings of the Clintons, their grasp of the past is as hazy as their understanding of what the word "is" means. At least that is the charitable interpretation.

Nothing but GOP support for getting bin Laden

With that in mind, a thorough Nexis-Lexis search identified absolutely no instances of high-ranking Republicans ever suggesting that Mr. Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, or did too much to apprehend him prior to the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. Quite the contrary, Republicans were typically highly supportive of Clinton's efforts in this regard.

As a little background, prior to the August 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, there is hardly any mention of bin Laden by President Clinton in American news transcripts. For the most part, the first real discussion of the terrorist leader by the former president - or by any U.S. politicians or pundits for that matter - began after these bombings, and escalated after the American retaliation in Afghanistan a few weeks later.

At the time, the former president was knee-deep in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so much so that the press was abuzz with the possibility that Clinton had performed these attacks to distract the American people from his extracurricular activities much as in the movie Wag the Dog.

Were there high-ranking Republicans that piled on this assertion? Hardly. As the Associated Press reported on the day of the attacks, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said the following on August 20, 1998:

Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do. [emphasis added]

Gingrich was not alone in his support. CNN's Candy Crowley reported on August 21, 1998, the day after cruise missiles were sent into Afghanistan:

With law makers scattered to the four winds on August vacation, congressional offices revved up the faxes. From the Senate majority leader [Trent Lott], "Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America's interests throughout the world." [emphasis added]

Crowley continued:

"The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism," said the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee [Jesse Helms]. [emphasis added]

It was vintage rally around the flag, just as they did for Ronald Reagan when he bombed Libya, for George Bush when he sent armed forces to the Gulf.

The Atanta Journal-Constitution reported the same day:

"Our nation has taken action against very deadly terrorists opposed to the most basic principles of American freedom," said Sen. Paul Coverdell, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "This action should serve as a reminder that no one is beyond the reach of American justice." [emphasis added]

Former vice president Dan Quayle was quoted by CNN on August 23, 1998:

I don't have a problem with the timing. You need to focus on the act itself. It was a correct act. Bill Clinton took-made a decisive decision to hit these terrorist camps. It's probably long overdue. [emphasis added]

Were there some Republican detractors? Certainly. Chief amongst them was Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana:

I think we fear that we may have a president that is desperately seeking to hold onto his job in the face of a firestorm of criticism and calls for him to step down.

Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) also questioned the timing at first. However, other Republicans pleaded with dissenters on their side of the aisle to get on board the operation, chief amongst them, Gingrich himself. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Speaker felt the "Wag the Dog" comparisons were "sick":

"Anyone who saw the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, anyone who saw the coffins come home, would not ask such a question," said the House speaker, referring to the 12 Americans killed in the embassy bombings.

In fact, Gingrich did everything within his power to head off Republican criticism of these attacks as reported by the Boston Globe on August 23, 1998:

Indeed, Gingrich even saw to it that one of his political associates, Rich Galen, sent a blast-Fax to conservative talk radio hosts urging them to lay off the president on the missile strikes, and making sure they knew of Gingrich's strong support. [emphasis added]

That's the same Rich Galen, by the way, who is openly urging Republican congressional candidates to try to take political advantage of the president's sex scandal in their television advertising this fall.

Sound like Republicans were complaining about President Clinton obsessing over bin Laden? Or, does it seem that Mr. Clinton pulled this concept out of his... hat in front of Chris Wallace, and ran 99 yards with the ball, albeit in the wrong direction?

Regardless, in the end, sanity prevailed, and both Specter and Coats got on board the operation:

After reviewing intelligence information collected on bin Laden, Specter said: "I think the president acted properly." [emphasis added]

As for "neocons," one so-called high-ranking member, Richard Perle, wrote the following in an August 23, 1998, op-ed published in the Sunday Times:

For the first time since taking office in 1993, the Clinton administration has responded with some measure of seriousness to an act of terror against the United States. This has undoubtedly come as a surprise to Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist believed to have been behind the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the regimes in Afghanistan and Sudan who provide him with sanctuary and support.

Until now they, along with other terrorists and their state sponsors in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea, have manoeuvred, plotted, connived and killed with confidence that the United States would do little or nothing in retaliation.

So Thursday's bombing is a small step in the right direction. More important, it reverses, at least for now, a weak and ineffective Clinton policy that has emboldened terrorists and confirmed that facilitating terror is without cost to the states that do it. [emphasis added]

Does that sound like a "Bush neocon" claiming that Clinton was "obsessed with bin Laden" to you?

In reality, the only person that appears to have said that Clinton was fixated with the al Qaeda leader was Richard Clarke, who stated the following on CNN on March 24, 2004:

Bill Clinton was obsessed with getting bin Laden. Bill Clinton ordered bin Laden assassinated. He ordered not only bin Laden assassinated but all of his lieutenants.

Well, at least somebody felt Clinton was obsessed with Osama. But Clinton referred to Clarke quite favorably during his tirade.

Moving forward, conservative support for Clinton's Afghanistan attacks didn't end in the weeks that followed. On October 25, 1998, high-ranking Republican senator Orrin Hatch of Utah said the following on CNN:

You've seen the great work of the FBI and the CIA in particular with regard to the Osama bin Laden matters.

Yet, maybe more curious than the delusion by Mr. Clinton that Republicans were claiming he was obsessed with bin Laden is the fact that he believes he was. After all, if Clinton had been so focused on this terrorist leader that Republicans would have thought it was over-kill, wouldn't there be indications of this obsession in the record?

Quite the contrary, much as there is no evidence of any Republican expressing such an opinion, there is no evidence that anti-terrorism efforts were a huge focus of the Clinton administration. For instance, just five months after the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa, President Clinton gave a State of the Union address.

Think terrorism or the capture of bin Laden was a central focus to the supposedly obsessed former president? Hardly. In a one-hour, seventeen minute speech to the nation on January 19, 1999, this is all President Clinton had to say about such issues:

As we work for peace, we must also meet threats to our nation's security, including increased danger from outlaw nations and terrorism. CLINTON: We will defend our security wherever we are threatened-as we did this summer when we struck at Osama bin Laden's network of terror.

The bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania reminds us again of the risks faced every day by those who represent America to the world. So let's give them the support they need, the safest possible workplaces, and the resources they must have so America can continue to lead.

We must work to keep terrorists from disrupting computer networks. We must work to prepare local communities for biological and chemical emergencies, to support research into vaccines and treatments.

Furthermore, twelve months later, even though he spoke for almost an hour and a half during his final State of the Union address on January 27, 2000, according to a Nexis-Lexis search, the name Osama bin Laden was never mentioned. This appears almost impossible to believe given revelations that very morning about a connection between the individual apprehended trying to cross the Canadian border with explosives in December and bin Laden.

So much for obsession.

Sadly, this entire incident speaks volumes about how the press have given Clinton a pass for his transgressions, and, maybe more important, the danger of such negligence. When one watches this interview, it is easy to see a man that is unused to challenging questions from the media. After all, this is the first time that Clinton agreed to be on Fox News Sunday, and, as a result, he's become so accustomed to the softballs fed to him by folks like Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos that he feels it's his right to not be challenged.

Just look at some of the disdain Clinton showed for his interviewer all because he was asked a question he didn't want to answer:

You set this meeting up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work on Climate Change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about...You said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion dollars plus over three days from 215 different commitments. And you don't care.

Or, how about this wonderful statement by a former president:

And you've got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you're so clever...

Or this one:

So you did FOX's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.

Just imagine President Bush speaking this way to a member of the media when he is being grilled either during a press conference, or in the middle of any of his interviews since he became president. Or getting in the face of his interviewer and tapping on the host's notepad that's sitting on his lap.

Would this be acceptable? Not a chance. However, such was the behavior of America's 42nd president. And, as much as he and his troops appear to be aggressively defending his actions to preserve his legacy, they have failed to recognize that such displays in front of a well-regarded member of the press will defeat their purposes no matter how much they try to rationalize them.

In the end, it's not clear which is more surprising: Mr. Clinton once again lying to the American people and disgracing himself so, or that he didn't realize that in his self-absorbed desire to revise history for the benefit of posterity, he was actually doing himself more harm than good.

Posted by: MonsterMark

The guy that ran the CIA Bin Laden unit (Michael Scheuer) during the Clinton years told the liberal announcer (Harry Smith) on the CBS This Morning Show that the only reason Bin Laden was alive today was that, Clinton, Berger and Clarke refused to kill kim.

Lefties want to blame Bush for not getting him in Bora Bora when Bush sent troops in there. What is interesting is Scheuer lays the blame clearly on the feet of Clinton who he says had 8-9 chances to kill Bin Laben and never sent even 1 US military person after him.

It is fun to watch the Clinton legacy circling the drain.

Posted by: Calabrio

And, in fairness, I don't think that just having killed Bin Laden would have prevented 9-11 either.

The only way to have made any difference would be to have launched a "global war" such as Bush has. Ambitiously cutting off finance, military action, disrupting communication, taking apart the leadership...

Just having killed one man wouldn't have stopped anything. We do ourself a disservice when we think of the Islamic threat in terms of individuals.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

History will prove without a doubt that Bill Clinton will be regarded as the worst president in American history. Just give him enough rope and he will eventually hang himself. It almost seems as if lately the only time he ever even opens his mouth is to change feet. Could I have done a better job, probably not, never claimed to be able to, and would never even try. Could I have done a worse job, HELL NO.

Posted by: evillally

Quote:

History will prove without a doubt that Bill Clinton will be regarded as the worst president in American history.

I wouldn't say that- but I will say that in comparison to the current and Regan administrations- Clinton is a complete pussy when it comes to fighting terror.

BTW, I watched that interview and he behaved like a complete jackass who was cornered and proven wrong- yet refused to concede that he blew it. He came close and he admitted that he while "he tried, but failed"- implying that it was as if it was all beyond his control and no matter what he did, Bin Laden is invincible and cannot die.

At the end, he would barely shake Chris Wallace's hand. Sore loser. OWNED.

Posted by: fossten

Where are all the Clintonoids that are supposed to rush to his defense?

*crickets*

Posted by: Calabrio

Why Clinton "Lost His Temper"
The former president knew what he was doing.
by William Kristol
09/25/2006 11:16:00 AM

LET'S DO A THOUGHT experiment: Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things.

1. Helping Democrats in 2006.

In the Fox interview, and in other recent interviews (Meet the Press, the New Yorker), Clinton has shown himself well aware of Republican efforts (engineered by the dastardly Karl Rove) to paint Democrats as unreliable in the war on terror. Clinton would have known that these were doing some damage to Democrats, and that Bush and Rove have had a few good weeks on this issue. And he would know that the Democrats haven't fought back well (e.g., they're now in a difficult position on the Bush-McCain detainees legislation).

In this interview, Clinton rallied Democrats. He reminded them of their talking points on Bush's alleged passivity in his first eight months in office (remember Richard Clarke!), and on the alleged distraction posed by Iraq from the more worthwhile war in Afghanistan. He nicely laid the predicate for the leaked portions of the National Intelligence Estimate that appeared in the press the next day. If the Bush-Rove war-on-terror offensive stalls out this week (and much of the media is committed to making this happen), and Democrats do well in November, Bill Clinton can take credit, at a crucial moment, for discrediting the terror issue as a mere political ploy, and showing Democrats how "to fight back" and how "to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine" (in the words of Howard Dean).

2. Helping Hillary in 2008.

Hillary Clinton has been having problems with the left wing of the Democratic party. With this interview, Bill Clinton has the entire left wing of the Democratic party rallying to him. Some of this solidarity can presumably be transferred to Hillary. And the dangerous move of the left-wing of the party toward Gore and Edwards, and their rise in national and Iowa polls respectively, can perhaps be stopped.

3. Intimidating Critics.

Clinton wants to make it incorrect, or at least impolite, to criticize his record on terror. Chris Wallace stood up to him. Will others? Will his next interviewer raise the same set of questions? Will they be willing to take the criticism of being "conservative hit men" or part of the vast, Fox-centered right-wing conspiracy? Bullying and intimidation sometimes work. Clinton has used both effectively in the past. Now he wants to put out of bounds certain perfectly legitimate and straight-forward questions. Can we debate which party--based on their practice when in power--can better deal with the jihadist/terror threat? No, according to Clinton. That's illegitimate right-wing propaganda. Whose personal reputation benefits from putting such issues out of bounds? Which political party benefits? Which 2008 presidential candidate?

Bill Clinton is a smart (and calculating) politician.

--William Kristol

Posted by: fossten

I think Bill Kristol, whom I highly respect, is wrong in his theory. If this was calculated, then why aren't any of his party members (except for the "smartest kid on the short bus" Howard Dean) defending him?

I watched that interview. Kristol's theory is interesting, but I know body language, and Willie was clearly angry and uncomfortable. That was the real BillyBoy towering menacingly over Chris Wallace. He probably thinks he hit a home run with that invective-laced load of crap, but reality is that he made himself look very juvenile and petulant. I've never seen or heard of any former President of the United States acting in such a disgraceful way. I was half expecting him to bang his shoe and tell Chris Wallace "we will bury you."

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Where are all the Clintonoids that are supposed to rush to his defense?

*crickets*

Ask and ye shall receive Bush-ite...

If the Neocons did lay off the Lewinsky scandal and not made Clinton's going after Osama another Democrat "Wag the Dog" deal trying to distract media away from the Lewinsky, Osama might have been killed by Clinton and at least he has the integrity to say "I tried and failed", how often to do here a President admit failure these days? Having said that, Calabrio is right though, would Osama being killed back then have prevented 9/11 or another similar attack? Probably not.

Posted by: MonsterMark

If only he had a desk in front of him, he could have pounded his fist and looked into the camera and we would have had another Monica moment.

I missed the 'moment'. Caught Chris saying goodbye to Billy. Did see it on CBS site (most liberal propanganda website on the Internet) and that was Billy being Billy. He is so mad at (whom else -Karl Rove, LMAO) for succussfully exposing him. I just wish Wallace would have had the nads at that very moment to ask Bill if what Sandy Burglar, I mean Berger, put in his crotch had anything to do with the hunt for Bin Laden. Could have watched Bill have a heart attack live on T.V.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Osama might have been killed by Clinton

I think you need to read up on Michael Scheurer who headed Clinton's CIA division looking for Osama.

He has clearly stated again and again that Clinton passed on 8-9 opportunities to 'take' Bin Laden.

Billy didn't have the balls, and neither do the Democrats. They simply don't have what it takes to defend this Country. Oh, they'll lob some bombs and then go to their cocktail meetings and wack each other off, but that is about it. Plus, they'll only react AFTER the fact. Never, ever, before. And if is military personnel dying, they won't do a thing about it. The Dems and Libs in general hate the military. In their mind, they are the bad guys anyway, so seeing them die isa good thing in their sick, twisted minds.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Ask and ye shall receive Bush-ite...

I think this argument shows that Clinton's failure to kill Bin Laden had more to do with his failure as a leader than having anything to do with partisan politics. To say Clinton was distracted by republicans is merely an accuse. Considering everything that has been said about Clinton’s concern regarding his presidential legacy, it is more likely plausible that he balked at the notion of killing Bin Laden, fearing such an act may prove to be a mistake and ultimately tarnish whatever legacy he had hoped to leave as president. Whatever reason his decision to spare Bin Laden was based, it is clear Clinton failed to assume the responsibilities expected of a president by refusing to deal with the clear and present threat that Bin Land posed against the United States and the American people. Consequently, Clinton's leadership failures directly contributed to Bin Laden's success on 9/11. Though democrats wish to ignore this fact, it remains indisputable that Clinton is at least just as much to blame for 9/11 as President Bush.

Posted by: MonsterMark

From this To this In One Interview. Nice Job Billy.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Ask and ye shall receive Bush-ite...

You are ABSOLUTELY incorrect on every point. In fact, if Clinton had been able to keep his pecker in his pocket, there would not have BEEN a Monica scandal. In fact, if he had been focused on bin Laden instead of playing hide the cigar, he might have made different decisions. It's not the Republicans' fault that Clinton's "private affair" became public because he broke the law. In fact, the only reason there was a Monica scandal was because Clinton tried to use his Presidential power to suborn perjury and interfere with a legal trial, thus violating federal law.

In fact, Clinton knew that the CIA had bin Laden surrounded, and he refused to give the order to go in and take him. In fact, Clinton ON TAPE admitted that he had been offered bin Laden by the Sudanese but refused to take him (because he was a coward).

In fact, he doesn't have any integrity to say "I tried and failed" because he didn't actually try. He lied up and down in that interview. There was nearly nothing that he said that was true.

Posted by: fossten

Clinton Takes the Stage

John L. Perry
Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2006

Bill Clinton is both a personal and national tragedy, a grievously wasted talent who blew his chance at greatness, forever an impeachable witness to history.

His cannily contrived appearance on Fox News Sunday, where he stole the interview away from straight-arrow journalist Chris Wallace, was the former president's latest failed effort to reinvent, resurrect, or redeem himself and his self-ruined reputation.

Clinton has been pining to rebut the rap he has carried around with him as the president who failed to go after Osama bin Laden when he had a shot. It was crystal clear Clinton has been boiling about this deep, deep inside. It all came out like magma spewing from a volcano.

Blaming It on Bush

In rapid fire, he rattled off riposte after riposte, trying to make a case that it was really he, not George W. Bush, who was bin Laden's authentic nemesis.

Maybe every word Clinton uttered during the Fox News Sunday interview was the gospel truth. Who knows whether he was telling the truth or lying again this time?

It's important, too, whether it was lies or truth. This had to do with war or peace, and may well have had significant relevance to America's ultimate survival.

It isn't every day this nation — indeed, the whole world — has the opportunity to listen to a former president, especially one during his successor's tenure, recount details of critical historical events of such gigantic importance.

Search for Truth

You want to believe what you are hearing, because you yearn to hear the truth. No one wants to think he is being told rubbish, not about the nation's vulnerability to terrorism. And certainly not by a former president. Good news or bad, you want what you are hearing from such a source to be accurate, and thus believable.

With Clinton, though, you never know.

To put this in context, imagine a rather mundane, straight-forward trial, the kind that takes place every day in the courthouses of communities all across America.

The judicial process is at work. Prosecutors and defense attorneys are striving to get the truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth — spread out before a jury of the defendant's peers.

On the stand testifying is the defendant: a relaxed, affable, apparently sincere, well-groomed fellow (except for his short socks, which give him just the right homey touch).

Glib and Plausible

His presentation is articulate, dramatic, impressive, persuasive, his testimony devastating for the prosecution. The defense attorney sits down, satisfied with what the verdict will be.

On rebuttal, the prosecuting attorney rises and begins asking questions of the defendant, each one aimed at establishing him as an unreliable witness.

Then comes the closer:

"Is it not true," asks the prosecutor, "that you looked a television camera straight in the lens, took out a long index finger and waggled it, saying you never had sexual relations with a certain young woman?"

The defendant chews his lip.

"The witness will answer the question," the judge instructs.

"It is true," the witness finally admits.

The prosecutor continues: "And did you not admit later that this was a lie."

"Yes, and I also apologized. That made it all right. I said I was sorry."

"And is it not true that you were later held in contempt by a judge for lying under oath?"

"Yes, but . . ."

"Members of the jury, how are we to know when this witness is lying or when he is telling the truth?"

The same sort of tableau has to be playing out in the minds of all who saw Clinton's frankly masterful performance Sunday. Thanks to his actions in the Oval Office during his own presidency, how does anyone know when this fellow is lying or telling the truth?

Born to Act

You can't help liking the scoundrel.

What a star he could have been on the stage or the silver screen. As an actor he could have played almost any part — and had his audience wanting to believe every line.

Too bad for him; he opted instead for a slightly different theatrical venue. He determined to make his fame and fortune on the most exhilarating stage of all — presidential politics.

Heaven knows, Clinton has made a fortune, many times over, as the result of his tour of politics. As for fame, well, of that he has a gracious plenty, too. Trouble is, it is not the kind of fame you'd wish on your worst enemy.

By his own deeds, and from his own lips, orchestrated by his own digital baton, Clinton has doomed himself to an indelible reputation of "liar, liar, pants on fire."

The Blame Stops Here

The news media didn't do this to him. No vast, or not-so-vast, right-wing conspiracy or non-conspiracy did this to him. He did it to himself, all by himself.

And now he's stuck with himself, as he really is.

Whenever he opens his mouth — and especially when he double-clutches down into that "I'm sincere, I've been aggrieved, I'm a victim" gear of his — everyone who hears him has to be asking: "Yeah, but is this just another one of your whoppers?"

When he told something that turned out to have been not altogether accurate it was not because he had repeated what he had been told by experts who were supposed know better. Rather, it was because he had made up lies and knew better.

‘ . . . and the Truth Shall Make You Free'

The democracy could always use honest enlightenment about what really happened as history was in the making. Just one example: When former President Harry S Truman recounted why and how he fired Gen. Douglas McArthur and why he dropped the atomic bombs on Japan and how he felt about having done it, there was no credible reason not to believe his every word.

The saga of William Jefferson Clinton is at once a personal and national tragedy. He had so much to offer his country, its people and its history.

Instead, he chose, deliberately and cynically, to go down forever in history as an irredeemable liar — Clinton the unbelievable.

John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for NewsMax.com.

Posted by: Calabrio

additional point about Clinton-
He could have continued to screw around with interns, it only turned into a problem when he perjured himself and engaged in a conspiracy to have others engage in the cover up as well.

It wasn't about sex. The media covered it because of the sex, but that wasn't the real problem.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Heck, if I knew that was the issue with Klinton, (not getting laid), I would have hired hookers for him. Actually everybody in the world knew Klinton wasn't getting laid. He was married to Hillarity and who would poke that thing.

Anywho, to be President is a super stressful job. Probably the most stressful in the world. I want my President getting laid, just not in the Oval Office, defaming the very history that the office represents. But Klinton was so in love with Kennedy and the story goes that Kennedy wasn't Mr. Clean either, so I think that is where Bill got the idea for the Oval Office extra-curriculars.

Believe it or not, that is the only thing I am mad about. The Oval Office. I am not even mad about the lying to be truthful, especially in light of the fact of who he was married to when asked about it bt I am mad he went on T.V. on pounded his fist while looking us straight in the eye.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

[Edit by MonsterMark: personal attack] If you would just take the time to read the drivel that you post before you hit the submit button, you may once in a while be able to realize that you are talking out of your vertical mouth. You can't honestly believe that Clinton did not have the oppurtunity to get Osama on more than one occasion. He was just way to busy cigar banging interns to answer the question of whether or not the CIA ops that had Osama in their sites should pull the trigger. You need to take off those rose colored shooting glasses that you so proudly display and get new hearing aide batteries. [Edit by MonsterMark: Personal attack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Ask and ye shall receive Bush-ite...

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC1

Republicans blame current failures on Democrats all the time, saying the Democrats greed for power handicaps the Republicans effectiveness in protecting the country, scan around the threads, especially about a year ago.

I also agree with you that Clinton isn't without fault, but the nonsense that Clinton caused 9/11 by himself is just that, nonsense.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by bufordtpisser

[Edit by MonsterMark: personal attack] If you would just take the time to read the drivel that you post before you hit the submit button, you may once in a while be able to realize that you are talking out of your vertical mouth. You can't honestly believe that Clinton did not have the oppurtunity to get Osama on more than one occasion. He was just way to busy cigar banging interns to answer the question of whether or not the CIA ops that had Osama in their sites should pull the trigger. You need to take off those rose colored shooting glasses that you so proudly display and get new hearing aide batteries. [Edit by MonsterMark: Personal attack]

MonsterMark, no need to edit out anything he says, I'd rather hear what people post without censorship, even if it is a rant....

Bufordtpisser, once again you show yourself to be the clownshoes you are and a wanna-be bully. Keep at it though, it fits you well.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

The part between the edits is totally accurate, though.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I am the real thing. I am a bully. But then again I freely admit it. They can edit my posts all they want, because what I do post is what others would if they had the backbone to do so. I love people like you Deville, you all make the bully business so easy and profitable.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

On every point? Well, at least I scored 100%... I do not blame the Republicans for Clinton’s misdeeds, he had sex with Monica, it was his choice and it was wrong. But just as you have repeatedly blamed the Democrats for gimping Bush and cabinet for everything he does, therefore ultimately blaming the Democrats for our sh!t poor security, it works the same with the Clinton/Osama deal. Was Clinton only using the Osama issue during the MonicaGate trial as an attempted diversion? Sure, it's possible, but it is also possible that the Republicans going at Clinton’s jugular did distract him from the Osama issue, remember, it was a HUGE scandal, he was almost impeached.

If you are absolutely certain that Clinton could have killed Osama with a word, why didn't he then... What does being a "coward" have anything to do with it. He wasn't personally pulling the trigger, all he had to do was give the order, if you're going to say he was a coward even in that, he has given orders bomb and kill others during his Presidency, why so cowardly now with Osama?

Was Clinton the perfect president? Certainly not, but your bias clearly blinds you, the guy isn't the devil you make him out to be. Blame Clinton all you want, but killing Osama wouldn't have been a guaranteed deal that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. You also need to take into account when you hate on Clinton, 9/11/201, who was in the Oval office on that date? The blame needs to be shared if anything, the actions that lead to 9/11 didn't start the day Clinton took office, it goes back even further.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by bufordtpisser

I can imagine you sitting their, sticking out your chest in some sort of half-assed macho pose while you type that... Anyhow, I did ask MonsterMark to not edit your post directed at me in the future, hopefully he won't.

You do realize that to be an effective bully the person you're bullying needs to be intimidated, so far I am laughing at your pansyass, limp-wristed attempts. I'd ask for a refund from whichever Barnum & Bailey Bully School you attended, they failed in educating you in proper techniques. Then again, who do you blame for substandard products, the craftsmen or the piss poor material?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

MonsterMark, no need to edit out anything he says, I'd rather hear what people post without censorship, even if it is a rant....

Come on guys. I love the heavy hitting but I just don't think the personal attacks serve any purpose. What happens if I let everything go as far as the name calling? Barry has already shown what a grown up is willing to do when it comes to childish name calling of fellow members, and at least to me, I don't think it reflects well on us all.

Attack the left and right all you want, just try to steer clear of the gutter when it comes to fellow member name calling. Hope that is not too much to ask.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Sure, it's possible, but it is also possible that the Republicans going at Clinton’s jugular did distract him from the Osama issue, remember, it was a HUGE scandal, he was almost impeached.

Wrong. He WAS impeached, and it wasn't for playing hide the cigar. It was for interfering with a trial. He tried to get his secretary, Betty Curry, to lie for him. He tried to get Monica to lie for him. He lied on the stand before a judge, which got him a contempt citation and a disbarment. He lied in front of the American people, angrily and forcefully, just like he did Sunday, wagging his finger. The guy is a phony. If you can't see that then you're full of Kool-Aid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

If you are absolutely certain that Clinton could have killed Osama with a word, why didn't he then... What does being a "coward" have anything to do with it. He wasn't personally pulling the trigger, all he had to do was give the order, if you're going to say he was a coward even in that, he has given orders bomb and kill others during his Presidency [Yeah, he bombed an aspirin factory and some people in Kosovo. But he was unwilling to go in and invade Kosovo. He was a coward because he didn't want to take casualties.], why so cowardly now with Osama?

Good question. I'd like to know why, when the phone call was made to tell him that they had bin Laden in the sights of the CIA, he didn't answer the phone.

Well, that's an answer that Clinton was unwilling to give on Sunday. He was asked that question and he dodged it. Moreover, he lied about it. But if you want my opinion:

He didn't because he hated the military and was reluctant to use force. He also had hamstrung himself by adopting a crime posture against terror instead of a war posture. But that might be to complex for you to understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Was Clinton the perfect president? Certainly not, but your bias clearly blinds you, the guy isn't the devil you make him out to be. Blame Clinton all you want, but killing Osama wouldn't have been a guaranteed deal that 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

And yet all the Democrats and the media continue to vilify Bush because HE hasn't caught bin Laden yet. Hypocrites much? Self-explanatory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

You also need to take into account when you hate on Clinton, 9/11/201, who was in the Oval office on that date? The blame needs to be shared if anything, the actions that lead to 9/11 didn't start the day Clinton took office, it goes back even further.

I'm not defending Bush. You're trying to shift the blame off your boy Willie, who can't take the heat, because you can't take the heat either. He had years to get bin Laden, and Bush had months. Clinton admitted that he's the only person who had a legitimate shot at killing him, but he lied when he said he tried. He chickened out.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

It's your BBQ and I do respect your rules, but as far as I am concerned about post directed solely at me, I do prefer non-censorship.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

can be really good for business. I rarely post to this forum at all anymore. And it is because of the drivel that some posers are allowed to post. Playing nice is not an option with some. These are not attacks on his person, they are attacks on the half witted drivel that he spews each and every time someone points out Clintons faults. I honestly believe that he wishes that it was him in the blue dress instead of Monica. I apologize if I offended anyone on this forum with the exception of Deville. I intentionally try to offend him because he is just so damn offensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

It's your BBQ and I do respect your rules, but as far as I am concerned about post directed solely at me, I do prefer non-censorship.

In light of the above statement, I have a question arising solely from pure curiosity:

Do you sometimes pick up gauntlets you ordinarily wouldn't just because you know the act will generate controversy?

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

If he wasn't using it as a diversion, then he was so distracted by his own pitfalls that he couldn't concentrate. Either way, it's irresponsible and it contributed, along with his cowardice with the Cole and Black Hawk Down, to the boldness of bin Laden and the advent of 9/11.

Wrong. He WAS impeached, and it wasn't for playing hide the cigar. It was for interfering with a trial. He tried to get his secretary, Betty Curry, to lie for him. He tried to get Monica to lie for him. He lied on the stand before a judge, which got him a contempt citation and a disbarment. He lied in front of the American people, angrily and forcefully, just like he did Sunday, wagging his finger. The guy is a phony. If you can't see that then you're full of Kool-Aid.

Good question. I'd like to know why, when the phone call was made to tell him that they had bin Laden in the sights of the CIA, he didn't answer the phone.

Well, that's an answer that Clinton was unwilling to give on Sunday. He was asked that question and he dodged it. Moreover, he lied about it. But if you want my opinion:

He didn't because he hated the military and was reluctant to use force. He also had hamstrung himself by adopting a crime posture against terror instead of a war posture. But that might be to complex for you to understand.

And yet all the Democrats and the media continue to vilify Bush because HE hasn't caught bin Laden yet. Hypocrites much? Self-explanatory.

I'm not defending Bush. You're trying to shift the blame off your boy Willie, who can't take the heat, because you can't take the heat either. He had years to get bin Laden, and Bush had months. Clinton admitted that he's the only person who had a legitimate shot at killing him, but he lied when he said he tried. He chickened out.

I agree, Clinton isn't faultless in 9/11 happening, but I do disagree that he is solely to blame.

Correct... I made a grammatical error, you know what I meant, his b@lls were on the line, it wasn't a walk in the park he had to focus all his resources on defense.

Yes, thank you for the condescending tone. I do basically get what you mean with Crime/War posture. I am fully aware that you think Democrats would rather blame themselves and America for why terrorist do things than just blame the terrorist. I do not necessarily agree with you though.

Actually, that wouldn’t be hypocrisy. You're blaming Clinton for 9/11 because he failed to kill Osama BEFORE 9/11 and there is no guarantee in that. The Democrats blame Bush for failing to capture Osama AFTER he took responsibility for being a part of it. Also, as you remember, as Osama continued to evade death/capture, the Republicans played it off as at it being intentional since Osama wasn't deemed a threat anymore. I.E., He's just a face, he's has no more money, he's probably dead, he's stuck in a cave etc. etc. etc.

Yes, you are defending Bush when you fail to acknowledge that Bush had a hand in 9/11, he was acting President at the time. I am not shifting the blame off Clinton completely; I said I thought his actions were part of the problem that lead to 9/11. You seem to think Clinton flew the planes himself, that's just as retarded as the moonbat liberals who rant 'Bush engineered 9/11"

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

If you're asking if I am a troll, no. I will not debate an issue I feel is wrong and do not agree with, it's a waste of time in my opinion.

In this case, I strongly feel that the people in here that solely balme Clinton on 9/11 are wrong.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by bufordtpisser

can be really good for business. I rarely post to this forum at all anymore. And it is because of the drivel that some posers are allowed to post. Playing nice is not an option with some. These are not attacks on his person, they are attacks on the half witted drivel that he spews each and every time someone points out Clintons faults. I honestly believe that he wishes that it was him in the blue dress instead of Monica. I apologize if I offended anyone on this forum with the exception of Deville. I intentionally try to offend him because he is just so damn offensive.

So let me get this straight, it is alright to post how wonderful and perfect Bush is, but when someone post something positive about Clinton it is offensive; hypocritical much? (Both with the Bush/Clinton double standard and you calling someone else’s post drivel of course) I love it how you claim to not being attacking my person, but then imply that I want to suck off Clinton, that's a gem, even if it was a metaphor. I asked MonsterMark to not edit post directed at me, maybe he will oblige, I don't know, but bring it on Buford!

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

The Democrats blame Bush for failing to capture Osama AFTER he took responsibility for being a part of it.

Actually, I prefer to think that the Dems blame Bush for stealing the election in 2000 and 2004, and blame Karl Rove for tricking them.

You should read up on the story of Che Guevara. If you do, notice that for a long time the CIA didn't kill him, but rather stymied him, making him look ineffective, while denying him martyr status. Compare with bin Laden, who has been marginalized due to his ineffectiveness in mounting ONE SINGLE ATTACK on our homeland SINCE BUSH HAS GONE ON THE OFFENSIVE. That's the difference between Clinton and Bush. Clinton's mad because he'll always look like a candy ass President because he never accomplished anything except staining a blue dress, and both Bushes will look better than him because they both won wars.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

But it just seems to me and apparently to others that each and every time someone even hints that Clinton was to blame for anything, you go on the defensive and start to extol his virtues as if he is a saint.

And my references to the blue dress were to imply that you are as mesmerized with Billy as was Monica. If you wish to interpret it as you did, your perogative.

I agree that Bill Clinton was not the sole blame for the 9/11 attacks. I do however believe that things may have gone differently had Clinton done away with Osama when he had the chance. I believe that if Clinton had put Osama down he would have proven to all of the others within his organization that they were indeed not invincible as they seem to believe now. This is not a Bush VS Clinton debate. It is a debate as to why whenever someone points out the falacies of Billy Boy you get so angered. You seem to be the one person on this forum that takes it personally whenever Clintons name is mentioned. Maybe that is the reason that you have been the subject of so many personal attacks on this forum. You just make it so easy.

Posted by: fossten

Deville, I have to agree with the substance of Buford's argument. This thread is about Clinton's part of the blame and his behavior on TV, not a "Bush v. Clinton, who's more to blame" thread.

If you want to talk about the 9/11 Commission's assessments of Bush, fine, start a thread. But you're showing your ass when you leap in here and start yelling about Bush while not owning up to Clinton's obvious and intentional mistakes.

Posted by: pepperman

Evidence shows Clinton dropped ball on terror

09/26/2006

By Cal Thomas

"A wealth of information and evidence about the laxness of the Clinton administration can be found by Googling ‘‘Clinton failures to catch terrorists and bin Laden.’’ Some postings are from what might be regarded as right-wing Web sites, but others are from such left-wing sources as The Los Angeles Times."

Former President Bill Clinton shook his index finger at Chris Wallace during an interview on ‘‘Fox News Sunday,’’ denying charges he and his administration did too little to catch Osama bin Laden and ward off the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Leaning forward and appearing angry, Clinton said, ‘‘At least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They (the Bush administration) had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.’’

Clinton added that he authorized the CIA ‘‘to get groups together to try to kill (bin Laden).’’ He said he had drawn up plans to go into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and launch an attack against bin Laden after the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in the Yemeni part of Aden. Clinton suggested the plan was thwarted because Uzbekistan would not grant basing rights and only did so after 9/11.

Clinton apparently is coming out about this now because of the recently aired ABC film ‘‘The Path to 9/11,’’ which portrayed him and his top aides as indecisive at best, and incompetent at worst, when they failed to take advantage of an opportunity to kill bin Laden.

A docudrama is not necessary to counter Clinton’s claims. There is testimony from many sources that he and his administration blew chances to nail the al-Qaida mastermind.

One credible source is Michael Scheuer, a 22-year CIA veteran who used to head the Counterterrorist Center’s bin Laden unit. Scheuer, who is referred to as Mike in the 9/11 Commission Report, wrote a July 5 op-ed column in The Washington Times.

In it, he referred to former terrorism czar Richard Clarke and Clarke’s assertion in his book ‘‘Against All Enemies’’ that the CIA failed to put operatives in Afghanistan to kill bin Laden, relying instead on Afghan locals.
Scheuer writes, ‘‘In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that ‘it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden.’ I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.’’

The planning and plotting by the hijackers was done on Clinton’s watch and executed eight months into the Bush administration, which refused to heed warning signs that an attack was imminent.

A wealth of information and evidence about the laxness of the Clinton administration can be found by Googling ‘‘Clinton failures to catch terrorists and bin Laden.’’ Some postings are from what might be regarded as right-wing Web sites, but others are from such left-wing sources as The Los Angeles Times.

In a Dec. 5, 2001, op-ed for that newspaper, Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and chairman of an investment company in New York, wrote, ‘‘President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates. ... I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.’’

Ijaz says that from 1996 to 1998 he opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration, including National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Sudan’s president and national intelligence chief, ‘‘President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

‘‘Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.’’
When considering whether to take Clinton’s outrage seriously, it is helpful to revisit his notorious finger wagging when he forcefully denied having had sex with Monica Lewinsky. The Web site YouTube.com has juxtaposed the latest finger wagging with the previous one.

Viewers can judge for themselves whether Clinton’s latest claim and blame should be believed anymore than his previous denial of extramarital sex with an intern.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by bufordtpisser

You have a reading comprehension problem then, I am not now nor have I ever made Clinton out to be a saint. The fact that I have said Clinton isn't without faults in this very thread pretty much turns your accusation to doo-doo.

Yea, I got it, hence the reason I said "even if is was a metaphor"... Refer to the first seven words in the above paragraph.

Then we both agree on that part that Billie boy shouldn't be made out to be the scapegoat the Republicans are trying to make him? You can believe that killing Osama would have changed things completely and I cannot say you're wrong but I cannot say the killing Osama would have outright prevented 9/11 either. I do not get "angered" when people attack Clinton, if I see he is unjustly attacked, I defend, it has nothing to do with anger. That's one way to look at it, albeit a wrong one since I do not take Clinton personally, another is, this forum is filled with the "CLINTON DID IT!" crowd, so when I disagree with those views, I become a target and I do not let that dictate what I say.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Deville, I have to agree with the substance of Buford's argument. This thread is about Clinton's part of the blame and his behavior on TV, not a "Bush v. Clinton, who's more to blame" thread.

If you want to talk about the 9/11 Commission's assessments of Bush, fine, start a thread. But you're showing your ass when you leap in here and start yelling about Bush while not owning up to Clinton's obvious and intentional mistakes.

1) I never mentioned that Bush was more or less at fault or any kind of VS.
2) I am not "yelling" about Bush
3) I have said Clinton is at fault, I just reject Clinton being the Fall Guy for 9/11, thats where we clash.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

No, we clash where Clinton continually goes out and falsely tries to shore up his shabby record, and we informed people call him on it, and then people like you try to shift the issue onto Bush.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

No, we clash where Clinton continually goes out and falsely tries to shore up his shabby record, and we informed people call him on it, and then people like you try to shift the issue onto Bush.

Point out where I said 'Clinton isn't at fault, Bush is the one to blame' or "Bush did it!" as you think I am implying. This thread is about blaming Clinton solely on 9/11, and it just isn't so. On the contrary, people like you try to pass the burden strictly on Clintons shoulders, like he is the nexus for all of America's woes.

Posted by: bufordtpisser

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

None of us is trying to pass anything onto Clinton. What we, or at least I am trying to say is that things may have turned out very different if Bill Clinton had done his job. Clinton dropped the ball on Osama and there is all kinds of proof to that effect. Clinton was not then and is not now the nexus of America's woes, he was and still remains the catylyst. He was the match to their fuse. And as his interview proved he is now their never ending supply of gasoline that keeps their fire burning.

I am not a die hard vote straight party voter, and I do not back my candidates if I believe that they did not do their job or were incompetant at their job. But I can say with a clear conscience that Bill Clinton single handedly made the office of the president of the US a mokery around the world. And no one person, including Bush could possibly change that in the 8 years that he is allowed to be president.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I'm not going to fall for your silly straw man. What I actually said is very different from the words you're trying to put in my mouth.

Me: Clinton really blew it.
You: What about Bush?
Me: This thread is about Clinton.
You: Hey! I never said "Bush did it!"

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by bufordtpisser

I agree that it could have been different, but in the end who knows what would have happened for sure. I also believe (MY OPINION) that killing Osama pre 9/11 wouldn't have been a guarantee and it is more likely that 9/11 or a similar attack would have happened regardless. Maybe killing pre 9/11 would have scared terrorist groups around the world and nothing would have happened, then again, killing Osama pre 9/11 might have lead to a nuke being detonated in NY instead of planes flown into buildings. I certainly do not know with 100% guarantee, but America certainly wasn't safe pre Clinton, during Clinton and post Clinton. So I stand on the ground that making Clinton out to be the scapegoat is wrong.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Yep, that is exactly how it went down. Guilty!

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

So I stand on the ground that making Clinton out to be the scapegoat is wrong.

Essentially, you're right. Clinton should not be made the "scapegoat" and it's unreasonable to assess him using hindsight acquired a decade later. Apparently no one had clearly recognized the threat. But why? Why wasn't the threat identified, defined, and pursued? Clinton had a failed world view and his priorities were wrong. And despite what people think, intelligence isn't all knowing. They only watch what they are told to watch.

That flawed world view prevailed and guided his decisions. His "cut and run" policies through out the world. His inability to use military force to achieve military objectives, not just as a "meals on wheels." It needs to be noted how he radically slashed the military's budget- when people would talk about how the size of government fell under Clinton, they were telling the truth. All of those jobs were cut from military and security. Clinton dismantled our intelligence capabilities, he was one of the proponents of eliminating our dependce on human intelligence and instead wanted to rely almost soley on technology to collect intelligence. It was also under Clinton that the policy changed so that we could no longer collect, recruit, or retain intelligence sources who had criminal backgrounds. The arm twisting forcing the Israelis to arm the Palestinians. And, how can we forget, the Jamie Gurelick wall that made it impossible for the CIA to communicate with the FBI.

Posted by: fossten

And let's not fail to add that it was Clinton's policy of cutting and running or non-response in the cases of Somalia, The U.S.S. Cole, the Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombing, et al. that prompted bin Laden to say that he saw the US as a paper tiger and would not fight back. In his mind we were weak enough to attack on 9/11, and Clinton IS to blame for that.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

So I stand on the ground that making Clinton out to be the scapegoat is wrong.

What really needs to be pointed out is that Klinton had 8 or 9 instances of terrorism taken out on Americans and did nothing short of tossing a couple of cruise missiles.

Bush comes in office and tecnically doesn't have a 'dog-in-the-fight' so to speak. We hadn't been attacked while on his watch. Yes, Bush didn't immediately tend to Klintons dirty laundry but that is understandable from Bush's perspective. Ie, no dog in the fight. The economy was in recession and he needed to fix that first. The time to have acted on the terrorist attacks is 'when they happened' and by the guy sitting in the big desk.

So differentiate clearly. Klinton failed to act. Bush acted.

Simple to see the difference.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

It's not really Bush's fault anyway.

He spent the first 6 months establishing an office because Gore tried to contest the election, and Clinton colluded by preventing the Government Accounting Office from disbursing ready funds available to incoming Presidents before inauguration.

Since the beginning of this country's history, outgoing Presidents have ALWAYS made the transition smooth. Because Gore was Clinton's bud, Clinton broke the tradition and sleazily froze the money so Bush couldn't start the hiring and staffing process. He was six months behind and he hadn't even gotten started. So he had barely established a government before 9/11 happened.

So Clinton gets the blame for that as well in my book. I'm not ashamed to say that 99% of the blame for 9/11 lies with Clinton, and I'll post facts all damn day to back it up, and you moonbats can go pound sand.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

What really needs to be pointed out is that Klinton had 8 or 9 instances of terrorism taken out on Americans and did nothing short of tossing a couple of cruise missiles.

Bush comes in office and tecnically doesn't have a 'dog-in-the-fight' so to speak. We hadn't been attacked while on his watch. Yes, Bush didn't immediately tend to Klintons dirty laundry but that is understandable from Bush's perspective. Ie, no dog in the fight. The economy was in recession and he needed to fix that first. The time to have acted on the terrorist attacks is 'when they happened' and by the guy sitting in the big desk.

So differentiate clearly. Klinton failed to act. Bush acted.

Simple to see the difference.

This is why I don't bother coming around here much anymore. This site is full of people like you who's blood-shot eyes are so filled with hate towards Clinton and who's noses are so brown with BuSh's BS that you can't even see straight anymore and rely on double-standards when comparing the two (BuSh and Clinton) to prop-up your un-founded arguments.

There was only ONE "attack" on US soil by Muslim-Islamic terrorists during Clinton's 8 years, WTC-1. All those others you refer to were overseas. Yet when you make the comparison to the number of attacks on the US during BuSh's time in office you only count 9/11 and discount all the other attacks against the US that occurred overseas (the US embassy bombing on 9/12/06 being the most recent example, nearly 3000 fatal attacks on US soldiers in Iraq being the biggest example).

The only fair comparison between BuSh and Clinton is the number of American lives that were lost at the hands of Muslim-Islamic terrorists during their respective reigns in office. BuSh out-scores Clinton by an incredibly WIDE margin.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Look at the hater troll who only showed up to state that he's counting the deaths of our beloved servicemen who volunteered to give their lives for our country as SCOREKEEPING.

[Edit: personal attack]

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Here, I fixed your quote and made it accurately reflect your positions.

- This is why I don't bother coming around here much anymore. This site is full of people like ME who's blood-shot eyes are so filled with hate towards BUSH and who's noses are so brown with Clinton's BS that I can't even see straight anymore and rely on double-standards when comparing the two (BuSh and Clinton) to prop-up my un-founded arguments. -

You guys ONLY surface to point out negatives. Never do you point out anything positive that is occuring. Ever.

That makes you guys a joke.

Here's some good news....about the economy

DOW AT ALL TIME HIGH!

Job Creation Continues:

More than 5.7 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003
On September 1, 2006, The Government Released New Jobs Figures – 128,000 Jobs Created In August.

* The economy has created more than 1.7 million jobs over the past 12 months – and more than 5.7 million jobs since August 2003.

Our economy has now added jobs for 36 straight months. The unemployment rate is 4.7 percent – below the average of each of the past four decades.
Better than Clinton

NYT: WASHINGTON, July 8, 2006 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

From WAPO...
Tax Receipts Exceed Treasury Predictions

The Treasury Department this week reported there would be a $54 billion swing from projected deficit to surplus in the April-to-June quarter, after an unanticipated gush of tax payments poured into the Treasury before the April 15 deadline. That prompted private forecasters to lower their deficit projections for the fiscal year that ends in September.

From White House (Propaganda-I know) Site:

* Employment Increased In 48 States Over The Past 12 Months Ending In July.

* Over The First Half Of This Year, Our Economy Grew At A Strong 4.2 Percent Annual Rate – Faster Than Any Other Major Industrialized Country.

* Productivity Has Grown A Strong 2.4 Percent Over The Past Four Quarters, Well Ahead Of Average Productivity Growth In The Last Three Decades.

* Per Capita Disposable Income Has Risen 9.2 Percent In Real Terms Since The Beginning Of 2001

* Total Wage And Salary Income Increased In Real Terms At An Annual Rate Of 3.3 Percent In The Second Quarter. This follows an 11 percent surge in the previous three months.

* Manufacturing Production Has Risen 5.6 Percent Over The Past 12 Months. Manufacturing productivity has grown 3.8 percent over the past four quarters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil, here's the truth. On ANY political website that I've seen, the Liberals ALWAYS run for cover. When it comes to having constantly face the facts and the truth, liberals cannot stand up. They run for cover. Thus the advent of the lefty hater sites like KOS and Underground, and HuffPo. Every site you guys go on you get pummeled. I feel bad for you guys. I even thought about trying to take the liberal position on some topics to see how I would fair and I just can't. You guys are on the wrong side of almost EVERY issue. It really blows my mind that people from the Left can be so blinded by hate and brainwashed by media that they can't even think for themselves anymore. Truely staggers me.

Did you see the NYT big headline?

"New Hope For Democrats In Bid For Senate."

Time to take another big 'ol gulp of koolaid my friend.

Posted by: fossten

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

This is why I don't bother coming around here much anymore. This site is full of people like you who's blood-shot eyes are so filled with hate towards Clinton and who's noses are so brown with BuSh's BS that you can't even see straight anymore and rely on double-standards when comparing the two (BuSh and Clinton) to prop-up your un-founded arguments.

There was only ONE "attack" on US soil by Muslim-Islamic terrorists during Clinton's 8 years, WTC-1. All those others you refer to were overseas. Yet when you make the comparison to the number of attacks on the US during BuSh's time in office you only count 9/11 and discount all the other attacks against the US that occurred overseas (the US embassy bombing on 9/12/06 being the most recent example, nearly 3000 fatal attacks on US soldiers in Iraq being the biggest example).

The only fair comparison between BuSh and Clinton is the number of American lives that were lost at the hands of Muslim-Islamic terrorists during their respective reigns in office. BuSh out-scores Clinton by an incredibly WIDE margin.

There. I didn't attack him. He did it himself.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Look at the hater troll who only showed up to state that he's counting the deaths of our beloved servicemen who volunteered to give their lives for our country as SCOREKEEPING.

Oh, BIG suprise. Y'all respond with attacks, name calling and re-direction of the topic when you are confronted with FACTS. What's wrong?

TRUTH HURTS??

Who said anything about counting US troop losses against BuSh?? He doesn't even need those to win that contest. Your strawman just went up in flames.

Have fun in your little, meaningless psycho-RWW circle jerk.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Hey, we know you don't care about our troops. We know you only look at them as a number to be used as a bludgeon to attempt to discredit Bush. We know that you hate this country. We know you would rather see us lose the WOT as long as your lefty wacko buddies regain the power in the government.

Have fun in your lonely, pitiless, hate-filled life.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Look at the hater troll who only showed up to state that he's counting the deaths of our beloved servicemen who volunteered to give their lives for our country as SCOREKEEPING.

[Edit: personal attack]

Haha, I did it with a shorter paragraph....

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Haha, I did it with a shorter paragraph....

Even shorter.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Even shorter.

Shorter...

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Shorter...

LOL

Posted by: 97silverlsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Ok, I've got a question for bryan. I've seen it argued here that the current administration is reaping the rewards of the previous administrations economic policies, specifcally applied to statements about the economy being good under Bubba and Shrub suffering the downturn in 2001. Now if that is the case, then your trumpeting the great economy now would indicate proper economic policy during Bubba's term. Or, the current economic upswing is due to policies of the current administration, in which case the booming 90's were due to Bubba's policies at the time. Which is it, bryan?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

The current administration is currently reaping the economic benefits of the 2000-2004 administration's economic policies. Oh - wait a minute! That's George W. Bush's administration too! Nice try. Your premise is flawed because it typically takes about 2 years for an economic policy to show its effect.

If you want to see the effect of Clinton's economic policies, look at 2000-2002. Oh, wait, 9/11 happened during that time! Shoot, Clinton can't catch a break, can he?

Note that the recovery from 9/11 has taken a while, but the tax cuts that were enacted just a couple of years ago have generated this roaring, booming, surging economy.

I know you didn't pose this question to me, but I don't really give a crap. It's my thread anyway.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97silverlsc

Now if that is the case, then your trumpeting the great economy now would indicate proper economic policy during Bubba's term. Or, the current economic upswing is due to policies of the current administration, in which case the booming 90's were due to Bubba's policies at the time. Which is it, bryan?

Good question Phil. Now you're thinking.

In the 80's it was the tax cuts and military buildup that stimulated the economy. Reaganomics it was called. Let people keep more of their own money and they will spend it more wisely than the government will.

In the 90's, we had a new economic revolution, similar to the advent of the industrial age. Only this one was called the Internet age. People with little or no experience to get a job commanding $80,000 a year. Internet companies sprouted left and right. Money left the 'old' economy and chased after the quick bucks to made in the 'new' economy. Similar to having 4 pieces of bubble yum bubble gum in your mouth, to temptation to blow a bubble was overwhelming. Companies with no sales and no profits were suddenly worth tens of millions or even billions. People made money and gladly paid taxes on their profits. Tax rates werre increased, all leading to the inevitable crash and burn of the economy with the Internet bubble bursting along with it. In walks Bush to inherit the crash and all the corruption that came with it. Then 9/11 hit, totally tossing the economy for a loop.

So what is one to do. Raise taxes so the government has money or give it back to the people so they can reinvest in the very infrastructure that delivers those taxes every year?

Tax cuts work. Period. The Treasury has received $250,000,000,000 more this year than last. Record traxes are being paid by individuals and corporations.

Was Klinton's policies key to the growth of the 90's. No way. I would argur he did more harm than good. The country lost out on an opportunity to grow even faster and more securely.

The only thing the Democrats are successful is having the good fortune of being in the right place at the right time.

Remember, it was the Republican takeover in 1994 that led to the proper business environment. Had that not happened, which btw, saved the U.S. from the Klintons destroying it, the tax increases thrust upon the American people would have kept us down, as high tax rates always do.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Companies with no sales and no profits were suddenly worth tens of millions or even billions.

I know it happened, but explain how exactly this came to pass, it sounds utterly illogical on paper. Just a question, no political angle involved.

Posted by: 97silverlsc

back to the post subject:

Bushies can't handle a dose of truth
Bill Clinton fires back on Fox News Sunday