_WTF Happened to all the Bush Supporters?_

[mouse]

After Bush won the election with less than 49% of the American votes , This place had more Bush Supporters, than Military Drive has Mexicans on a Saturday night, And not only was this place full of Bush lovers? they were all posting Ha Ha we won you lost eat shit topics, Now where are they?

First sign of trouble and they run, You ass holes get back in this forum and show some Support for that piece of shit Prez you voted for,

[Ocotillo]

http://webpages.charter.net/micah/repjesus85.png

[Murphy]

http://alfter.us/graphics/BushCountry04Map.jpg
Dont worry mouse, we havent gone anywhere

[SA210]

Actually Mouse, the Military thing is on Sundays.

However you are correct, all the baloney the Republicans or Bush supporters tried to do is shove this administration down our throats saying that they were christian-like, The honest administration, and the only option for Americans, because who knows what would of happened if Kerry were President,

If Kerry were President, who knows how many US soldiers would have died, who knows how many of Kerry's administration would be indicted, who knows if Kerry would screw up during natural disatsers in saving lives, or maybe Kerry would've spent 7 minutes with kids after knowing the country was under attack, not knowing what to do as the leader of an entire country, who knows, maybe Kerry would have taken too many vacations, maybe Kerry would have apointed friends ands workers from Heinz and from his neighborhood to top positions that are supposed to protect America, who knows how much money Kerry would have spent, Kerry could have turned out to be the biggest spending president in US History..... :rolleyes

Bush backers were so happy for Gov. Bushs' 2nd term. But where are they now? Over the past couple of weeks I've heard them say, oh nothings gonna happen to Tom Delay, but what's going on with that? They said nothing with Karl rove, what's going on there?, now Dick Cheney implicated? I guess they were right, this was the GREAT administration.

If all these things were going on during a Clinton, Gore or Kerry presidency, you know how they'd be all over it. But with them, the blame is always elsewhere. And that's what the republicans are great at, spin, character assassination, and the humiliation of their opponents. They try to say that's what democrats do, come on. The Republicans are sooo much better at that game.

Thank you Gov. Bush. :rolleyes

[SA210]

http://alfter.us/graphics/BushCountry04Map.jpg
Dont worry mouse, we havent gone anywhere


Wow, for that much red space, they sure are quiet.

[Murphy]

we dont talk, we vote

[SA210]

^^^^The point was, that they DID talk, and talk and talk and talk and talk.

Now, just silence or blaming others.

[SWC Bonfire]

Bush has already accomplished replacing a Chief justice, now once Myers is shot down he'll slip the nominee he really wanted in. This is important if litigation is to be reduced in this country.

[Yonivore]

Wow, for that much red space, they sure are quiet.
Actions speak louder than words. Besides, watching Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan, and Al Franken all speak with one voice is helping the conservative cause more than anything at this point.

[boutons]

"if legislation is to be reduced in this country."

.... will NEVER happen.

The job of legislators (at any level) is to produce legislation, not repeal/cancel legislation.

Since 99% of the legislation, silly, harmful, corrupt, good, outdated, or whatever, is not unconstitutional (or not at least until it gets dragged before the SC), the composition of the SC will never reduce legislation.

[SWC Bonfire]

Sorry, buddy, I meant litigation, too many lawsuits.

Running low on the caffeine this morning.

[MiNuS]

I just hope the Fed guy he's appointing to replace Greenspan is a good choice.If he does any good it better be this.This will have lasting effects well after he's left the white house to spend all his oil money.

[MiNuS]

I voted for Kerry.We couldn't have anything worst that this Bush Administration.This first year of his 2nd term has been SHIT!

[xrayzebra]

I voted for Kerry.We couldn't have anything worst that this Bush Administration.This first year of his 2nd term has been SHIT!

How about this for the "anything Worst"

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."


STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.


PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.


OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.


JOURNALISTS

JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons' machine might have been quite different.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.

ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.

OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

SAM SMITH of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth and the Review developed a major database on the topic.

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. These rare exceptions cited above, and others unmentioned, deserve our deep thanks.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures perform their most important national function: drawing revised congressional districts based on the most recent census.

But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

[mouse]

http://alfter.us/graphics/BushCountry04Map.jpg
Dont worry mouse, we havent gone anywhere


Does each red box represent a family that lost a loved one in Iraq?

[SA210]

So basically people can't get over the fact that Clinton got a blow job. :rolleyes



How about this for the "anything Worst"

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."


STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.


PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.


OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.


JOURNALISTS

JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons' machine might have been quite different.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.

ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.

OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

SAM SMITH of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth and the Review developed a major database on the topic.

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. These rare exceptions cited above, and others unmentioned, deserve our deep thanks.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures perform their most important national function: drawing revised congressional districts based on the most recent census.

But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3

[Clandestino]

mouse, what are you doing in the political forum? there isn't any weed in here..

[MiNuS]

there's a difference between Clinton screwing Lewinski and W screwing the country!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

xrayzebra you comparing the clinton administration with the bush administration has so many flaws that keep it from being a legitimate comparison it's not even funny

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Are these days really as bad for the republicans and bush administration as they seem? I think both or at least the liberal side is overreacting....

Maybe its just because so many abercrombie kids and Evan Mariotts voted and blindly supported Bush and all his actions for the past 5 years....now with just a little speed bumps it seems like everything is falling down? I don't think so. But I sure hope so.

[Yonivore]

Are these days really as bad for the republicans and bush administration as they seem? I think both or at least the liberal side is overreacting....

Maybe its just because so many abercrombie kids and Evan Mariotts voted and blindly supported Bush and all his actions for the past 5 years....now with just a little speed bumps it seems like everything is falling down? I don't think so. But I sure hope so.
Trust your gut...it ain't falling apart.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But you and the Destino HAVE been awfully quiet lately.........

[Yonivore]

But you and the Destino HAVE been awfully quiet lately.........
What's to say? The left is having a field day making up rumors out of whole cloth. Fitzgerald's investigation has been water tight and pretty much leak proof. And, given all the things us on the right KNOW about Wilson that has been ignored by the left, I'm predisposed to believe Wilson, at the least, will be indicted.

But, as has been discussed, no one knows what Fitzgerald has planned.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Honestly man, I'm not gonna try and act like I know shit that I dont.

And for the most part, I don't know jack shit about what's going on that has the 'administration in trouble' other than the possible incompetence of Miers + The DeLay Scandal + The Rove Scandal.

And to be even more honest, I have tried to understand what the deal is behind the whole Karl Rove thing, but its just so god damned confusing.
Help me out here yonivore.

Sum up for me, what exactly is this Rove business about? So far, I got that he possibly leaked the name of a secret CIA Agent, which is bad, and therefore must be tried.

Is that right?

[Yonivore]

First of all, Miers is highly competent, as will be learned in the committee hearings.

Second, the Delay scandal is more of an Earle scandal than a Delay scandal.

And finally, Rove is being accused of outing a non-outable secret agent that wasn't secret...and, now that the left has pretty much been convinced Plame couldn't have been a secret agent, they've hung their hat on the possibility that Rove lied, under oath, about something he'd have no reason to lie about...since it wasn't a crime to begin with.

I hope that helps.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

First of all, Miers is highly competent, as will be learned in the committee hearings.

Second, the Delay scandal is more of an Earle scandal than a Delay scandal.

And finally, Rove is being accused of outing a non-outable secret agent that wasn't secret...and, now that the left has pretty much been convinced Plame couldn't have been a secret agent, they've hung their hat on the possibility that Rove lied, under oath, about something he'd have no reason to lie about...since it wasn't a crime to begin with.

I hope that helps.


What does outing and non-outable mean?

And how could we not know for sure if this Plame figure was or was not a secret agent? Why is the left convinced that she is not a secret agent (dont they want her to be?)

[Looter]

How about this for the "anything Worst"

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."


STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR

Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:

- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.

- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.


PUBLIC OFFICIALS

MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ was a prosecutor on the staff of Kenneth Starr. His attempts to uncover the truth in the Vincent Foster death case were repeatedly foiled and he was the subject of planted stories undermining his credibility and implying that he was unstable. Rodriguez eventually resigned.

JEAN DUFFEY: Head of a joint federal-county drug task force in Arkansas. Her first instructions from her boss: "Jean, you are not to use the drug task force to investigate any public official." Duffey's work, however, led deep into the heart of the Dixie Mafia, including members of the Clinton machine and the investigation of the so-called "train deaths." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports that when she produced a star witness who could testify to Clinton's involvement with cocaine, the local prosecuting attorney, Dan Harmon issued a subpoena for all the task force records, including "the incriminating files on his own activities. If Duffey had complied it would have exposed 30 witnesses and her confidential informants to violent retributions. She refused." Harmon issued a warrant for her arrest and friendly cops told her that there was a $50,000 price on her head. She eventually fled to Texas. The once-untouchable Harmon was later convicted of racketeering, extortion and drug dealing.

BILL DUNCAN: An IRS investigator in Arkansas who drafted some 30 federal indictments of Arkansas figures on money laundering and other charges. Clinton biographer Roger Morris quotes a source who reviewed the evidence: "Those indictments were a real slam dunk if there ever was one." The cases were suppressed, many in the name of "national security." Duncan was never called to testify. Other IRS agents and state police disavowed Duncan and turned on him. Said one source, "Somebody outside ordered it shut down and the walls went up."

RUSSELL WELCH: An Arkansas state police detective working with Duncan. Welch developed a 35-volume, 3,000 page archive on drug and money laundering operations at Mena. His investigation was so compromised that a high state police official even let one of the targets of the probe look through the file. At one point, Welch was sprayed in the face with poison, later identified by the Center for Disease Control as anthrax. He would write in his diary, "I feel like I live in Russia, waiting for the secret police to pounce down. A government has gotten out of control. Men find themselves in positions of power and suddenly crimes become legal." Welch is no longer with the state police.

DAN SMALTZ: Smaltz did an outstanding job investigating and prosecuting charges involving illegal payoffs to Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, yet was treated with disparaging and highly inaccurate reporting by the likes of the David Broder and the NY Times. Espy was acquitted under a law that made it necessary to not only prove that he accepted gratuities but that he did something specific in return. On the other hand, Tyson Foods copped a plea in the same case, paying $6 million in fines and serving four years' probation. The charge: that Tyson had illegally offered Espy $12,000 in airplane rides, football tickets and other payoffs. In the Espy investigation, Smaltz obtained 15 convictions and collected over $11 million in fines and civil penalties. Offenses for which convictions were obtained included false statements, concealing money from prohibited sources, illegal gratuities, illegal contributions, falsifying records, interstate transportation of stolen property, money laundering, and illegal receipt of USDA subsidies. Incidentally, Janet Reno blocked Smaltz from pursuing leads aimed at allegations of major drug trafficking in Arkansas and payoffs to the then governor of the state, WJ Clinton. Espy had become Ag secretary only after being flown to Arkansas to get the approval of chicken king Don Tyson.

DAVID SCHIPPERS was House impeachment counsel and a Chicago Democrat. He did a highly creditable job but since he didn't fit the right-wing conspiracy theory, the Clintonista media downplayed his work. Thus most Americans don't know that he told NewsMax, "Let me tell you, if we had a chance to put on a case, I would have put live witnesses before the committee. But the House leadership, and I'm not talking about Henry Hyde, they just killed us as far as time was concerned. I begged them to let me take it into this year. Then I screamed for witnesses before the Senate. But there was nothing anybody could do to get those Senators to show any courage. They told us essentially, you're not going to get 67 votes so why are you wasting our time." Schippers also said that while a number of representatives looked at additional evidence kept under seal in a nearby House building, not a single senator did.

JOHN CLARKE: When Patrick Knowlton stopped to relieve himself in Ft. Marcy Park 70 minutes before the discovery of Vince Foster's body, he saw things that got him into deep trouble. His interview statements were falsified and prior to testifying he claims he was overtly harassed by more than a score of men in a classic witness intimidation technique. In some cases there were witnesses. John Clarke has been his dogged lawyer in the witness intimidation case that has been largely ignored by the media, even when the three-judge panel overseeing the Starr investigation permitted Knowlton to append a 20 page addendum to the Starr Report.


OTHER

THE ARKANSAS COMMITTEE: What would later be known as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy actually began on the left - as a group of progressive students at the University of Arkansas had formed the Arkansas Committee to look into Mena, drugs, money laundering, and Arkansas politics. This committee was the source of some of the important early Clinton stories including those published in the Progressive Review.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SCANDALS E-LIST: Moderated by Ray Heizer, this list has been subject to all the idiosyncrasies of Internet bulletin boards, but it has nonetheless proved invaluable to researchers and journalists.


JOURNALISTS

JERRY SEPER of the Washington Times was far and away the best beat reporter of the story, handling it week after week in the best tradition of investigative journalism. If other reporters had followed Seper's lead, the history of the Clintons' machine might have been quite different.

AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD of the London Telegraph did a remarkable job of digging into some of the seamiest tales from Arkansas and the Clinton past. Other early arrivals on the scene were Alexander Cockburn and Jeff Gerth.

CHRISTOPHER RUDDY, among other fine reports on the Clinton scandals, did the best job laying out the facts in the Vince Foster death case.

ROGER MORRIS AND SALLY DENTON wrote a major expose of events at Mena, but at the last moment the Washington Post's brass ordered the story killed. It was published by Penthouse and later included in Morris' "Partners in Power," the best biography of the Clintons.

OTHERS who helped get parts of the story out included reporters Philip Weiss, Carl Limbacher, Wes Phelan, David Bresnahan, William Sammon, Liza Myers, Mara Leveritt, Matt Drudge, Jim Ridgeway, Nat Hentoff, Michael Isikoff, Christopher Hitchens, and Michael Kelly. Also independent investigator Hugh Sprunt and former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

SAM SMITH of the Progressive Review wrote the first book (Shadows of Hope, University of Indiana Press, 1994) deconstructing the Clinton myth and the Review developed a major database on the topic.

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. These rare exceptions cited above, and others unmentioned, deserve our deep thanks.

THE CLINTON LEGACY
The Hidden Election

USA Today calls it "the hidden election," in which nearly 7,000 state legislative seats are decided with only minimal media and public attention. The paper took brief notice because this is the year the state legislatures perform their most important national function: drawing revised congressional districts based on the most recent census.

But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans.

Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures:

- GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8
- GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254
as of 1998
- State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9
- Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became
president: 439 as of 1998
- Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3


Isn't it sad after all that you posted? Bush is still not the best choice :lmao

[Yonivore]

What does outing and non-outable mean?
It means the statute everyone is crying about doesn't -- and didn't -- apply to Valerie Plame at the time her identity was "leaked."

And how could we not know for sure if this Plame figure was or was not a secret agent?
Well, because she's been stationed Stateside since the mid 90's after being accidentally "outed" during the Clinton administration. And, she's been seen coming and going from the Langley headquarters of the CIA, accompanying her husband to Washington dinner parties, and (as has been stated in the press) was known by the press to be a WMD expert at the CIA. Clearly the statute does not apply...but, that doesn't stop the left from hoping.

Why is the left convinced that she is not a secret agent (dont they want her to be?)
I think the left believes (wants to believe) she's a secret agent because it supports the rest of their fantasy.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It means the statute everyone is crying about doesn't -- and didn't -- apply to Valerie Plame at the time her identity was "leaked."

Well, because she's been stationed Stateside since the mid 90's after being accidentally "outed" during the Clinton administration. And, she's been seen coming and going from the Langley headquarters of the CIA, accompanying her husband to Washington dinner parties, and (as has been stated in the press) was known by the press to be a WMD expert at the CIA. Clearly the statute does not apply...but, that doesn't stop the left from hoping.

I think the left believes (wants to believe) she's a secret agent because it supports the rest of their fantasy.


But why the mixup over her secret agent status? Can't the investigator or judge or whatever just ask the CIA 'was this lady an agent'

[Yonivore]

But why the mixup over her secret agent status? Can't the investigator or judge or whatever just ask the CIA 'was this lady an agent'
I'm sure they have...and, we'll find out the answer this week. Probably.

I've long thought the Fitzgerald investigation was about more than Valerie Plame's outing. For instance, why was Fitzgerald interested in the forged memos regarding the yellowcake uranium nonsense?

In fact, I'd be willing to bet Fitzgerald spent little time on the alleged violation of the secret identities act.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Cool, thanks.

[mouse]

The sad part about this Bush meltDown? is watching Yonnivore get Served :lmao

[Ocotillo]

First of all, Miers is highly competent, as will be learned in the committee hearings.

Second, the Delay scandal is more of an Earle scandal than a Delay scandal.

And finally, Rove is being accused of outing a non-outable secret agent that wasn't secret...and, now that the left has pretty much been convinced Plame couldn't have been a secret agent, they've hung their hat on the possibility that Rove lied, under oath, about something he'd have no reason to lie about...since it wasn't a crime to begin with.

I hope that helps.

Someone from the White House posts in this forum? :drunk

[mouse]

I vote for YonnieVore as the REP Politics poster of the year, he comes in here even though the Titanic is sinking to gloss his boy Bush, That alone is worthy of his props. :smokin

[SA210]

Yoni, where did u get this info? from the internets?

[Yonivore]

Yoni, where did u get this info? from the internets?
What information?

[Yonivore]

My predictions:

Delay will be exonerated.

Miers will be confirmed.

Wilson will be indicted.

[Ocotillo]

Ronnie Earle is the least of the Bugman's worries. When the Abramoff trial gets going, let the good times roll.

[Marcus Bryant]

My predictions:

Delay will be exonerated.


Probably.



Miers will be confirmed.

Not a chance. Bush needs to cut the rope.



Wilson will be indicted.

Looks like his wife got him some CIA business but unless he changed his story under oath instead of in the court of public opinion, I don't think he has any liability.

[xrayzebra]

xrayzebra you comparing the clinton administration with the bush administration has so many flaws that keep it from being a legitimate comparison it's not even funny

The question was ask:
know of a worst administration. Just showing him the worst. Clinton's. If it bothers you, so be it.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The question was ask:
know of a worst administration. Just showing him the worst. Clinton's. If it bothers you, so be it.


Uhhh...YEAH....If individual moral debates, and lying about a blow job constitute a worse administration than weakening the document on which our country is based, and instilling a constant veil of fear over the eyes of the typical Evan Mariott Voter.......

[Vashner]

I vote for Farrakan 08.. .that way next storm he can use Allajh Mohammed's mothership to beam up the surviors....

[xrayzebra]

Uhhh...YEAH....If individual moral debates, and lying about a blow job constitute a worse administration than weakening the document on which our country is based, and instilling a constant veil of fear over the eyes of the typical Evan Mariott Voter.......

If you think that that there was nothing involved but sex, then you really are a simpleton. Your observation of life is really looking thru the keyhole.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

All i know is that during the typical Clinton day, I would not find myself scared to answer the question "What does it mean to be American?"

[SpursWoman]

I don't know if that's all that impressive ... most 12 year olds have a pretty good (and canned) idea of how to answer that question regardless of the administration. :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

All i know is that during the typical Clinton day, I would not find myself scared to answer the question "What does it mean to be American?"

During the typical Clinton day no one thought we'd see thousands slaughtered in lower Manhattan...

[SpursWoman]

During the typical Clinton day no one thought we'd see thousands slaughtered in lower Manhattan...


It's much easier to ignore when it's happing to our guys overseas. We didn't see it, it must have not ever happened.

:fro

[SA210]

All i know is that during the typical Clinton day, I would not find myself scared to answer the question "What does it mean to be American?"

exactly

anyway, I'm much more concerned of a president lying about war that's killing thousands of ppl than about a blowjob.

[SpursWoman]

anyway, I'm much more concerned of a president lying about war that's killing thousands of ppl than about a blowjob.

So you guys don't care at all that Clinton let SEVERAL terrorist attacks happen against US interests and didn't lift a finger to retaliate ... which is largely the reason why 9/11 happened ... because they could without fear of consequence?

Man, ya'll are about some MMQB'ing mofos... :lmao

[Cant_Be_Faded]

So you guys don't care at all that Clinton let SEVERAL terrorist attacks happen against US interests and didn't lift a finger to retaliate ... which is largely the reason why 9/11 happened ... because they could without fear of consequence?

Man, ya'll are about some MMQB'ing mofos... :lmao


That's like 75% opinion and 25% random degree of causation

Yeah maybe a few steps back, that was a reason why 9/11 happened, but if you look a few more steps back, you see an ignorant US foreign policy as a whole to blame, which involves both parties, and no single person.

Clinton "let" ?
what do you mean by let?

By let do you mean he totally ignored them after they happened?
Had evidence they would happen and ignored this?
Failed to start a war based on bull shit biased evidence, in order to secure the general public's sentiment that the pre-emptive strike would be justified?
Did not take away civil liberties and "strongly urge" citizens in his state of the union to let him take away even more?

[Yonivore]

During the typical Clinton day no one thought we'd see thousands slaughtered in lower Manhattan...
The terrorists that perpetrated that atrocity all entered the country and learned to fly under the noses of the Clinton administration...facilitated, in large part, by Jamie Gorelick.

Can you say "Able Danger?" I knew that you could.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The terrorists that perpetrated that atrocity all entered the country and learned to fly under the noses of the Clinton administration...facilitated, in large part, by Jamie Gorelick.


But its not as if Clinton was solely responsible for that. With the sheer number of arabs that flock to this country every day, and nothing on the scale of 9/11 ever happening before, we just got totally owned.

Clinton's administration isn't (directly) responsible for incompetent intelligence.
Probably indirectly, but then anyone could point out to how Prescott Bush and the Rockefellars "inadvertantly" funded Hitler

[Cant_Be_Faded]

All I know is the economy had surplus under Clinton, and reagan-esque deficits under Bush.

All I know is George Herbert Walker Bush sold tanks, munitions, and other arms to IRAQ, then one of the things he said when trying to get Re-Elected was "the world's a dangerous place, you need a strong leader"
All I know is the parallels between that Bush re-election attempt and the recent one are very similar.

All I know is that with the population explosion there are a shitload more Evan Marriot's out there who buy into, deliberately eat, and love the taste of bull shit.

[Yonivore]

But its not as if Clinton was solely responsible for that. With the sheer number of arabs that flock to this country every day, and nothing on the scale of 9/11 ever happening before, we just got totally owned.

Clinton's administration isn't (directly) responsible for incompetent intelligence.
Probably indirectly, but then anyone could point out to how Prescott Bush and the Rockefellars "inadvertantly" funded Hitler
The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center would have been on that scale had the truck been positioned right.

What is it with you lefties and body counts? Just because only six people died in 1993, that was somehow less significant, in terms of being attacked by a terrorist element, than September 11th?

Just as the number of war dead has no relevance to the success or failure of an objective (except for attrition and, in that respect, we're way ahead of the enemy), the lack of dead doesn't lessen the insult of an enemy attack.

[SpursWoman]

"Let" = He didn't retaliate against the first WTC bombing or that against the USS Cole. By inaction he gave the terrorists CONFIDENCE in that the US was a bunch of pussies and they could impose their will without fear of any real loss. It's been awhile, but their attitude has been well documented.

The bully will continue to steal your lunch money until you kick his ass. That's about 98% causation, 2% opinion. It's very simple logic...more often that not sitting down and talking it over isn't going to do a damn thing. I'd say 100% causation, but there are always the really stupid ones that don't get it...so you have to leave some margin of error. :lol

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center would have been on that scale had the truck been positioned right.

What is it with you lefties and body counts? Just because only six people died in 1993, that was somehow less significant, in terms of being attacked by a terrorist element, than September 11th?

Just as the number of war dead has no relevance to the success or failure of an objective (except for attrition and, in that respect, we're way ahead of the enemy), the lack of dead doesn't lessen the insult of an enemy attack.


I'm not a leftie
But yes, the incident in 93 was less significant than 9/11. Killing 6 people is less significant than killing thousands. Please don't take me out of context and make me seem like i am saying those 6 people's deaths are to be ignored, those 6 people aren't important, etc. I think the entire 93 ordeal deserved a very strict investigation, and was a very very serious threat to our nation. But human life holds a certain value, and I feel that 9/11's death toll immediately puts it to higher significance than 93.

Both were important, both demanded serious investigations, reforms, actions.



the lack of dead doesn't lessen the insult of an enemy attack
Yeah i agree with this. It did not lessen that attack's significant at all. But the shitloads of dead in 9/11 increased that instances's significance.

[Yonivore]

I'm not a leftie
But yes, the incident in 93 was less significant than 9/11. Killing 6 people is less significant than killing thousands. Please don't take me out of context and make me seem like i am saying those 6 people's deaths are to be ignored, those 6 people aren't important, etc. I think the entire 93 ordeal deserved a very strict investigation, and was a very very serious threat to our nation. But human life holds a certain value, and I feel that 9/11's death toll immediately puts it to higher significance than 93.

Both were important, both demanded serious investigations, reforms, actions.



Yeah i agree with this. It did not lessen that attack's significant at all. But the shitloads of dead in 9/11 increased that instances's significance.

Okay, so why didn't Clinton take Sudan's offer to hand over the prick behind both the 1993 and the 2001 attacks?

[SpursWoman]

I'm not a leftie
But yes, the incident in 93 was less significant than 9/11. Killing 6 people is less significant than killing thousands. Please don't take me out of context and make me seem like i am saying those 6 people's deaths are to be ignored, those 6 people aren't important, etc. I think the entire 93 ordeal deserved a very strict investigation, and was a very very serious threat to our nation. But human life holds a certain value, and I feel that 9/11's death toll immediately puts it to higher significance than 93.

Both were important, both demanded serious investigations, reforms, actions.


Do you think their intent was only 6? Where's the WTC now?


Yeah i agree with this. It did not lessen that attack's significant at all. But the shitloads of dead in 9/11 increased that instances's significance.

No, not really. We were just extremely lucky the first time. Not so much so the second time, but it could still have been worse...they could have hit an hour later when there could have been 50,000 or more. :(

[Cant_Be_Faded]

"Let" = He didn't retaliate against the first WTC bombing or that against the USS Cole. By inaction he gave the terrorists CONFIDENCE in that the US was a bunch of pussies and they could impose their will without fear of any real loss.
I follow your reasoning, but let me ask you this:

Do you think arab terrorist organizations lack the information or intelligence to understand the changes involved with changing administrations? (in other words, do you think they're stupid or hasty enough to believe what applies under one president works under another, esp. given they're diff. parties)

In my opinion, they would have attacked us again regardless, just like they will attack us again in the future.

Also:
Did Clinton have "legitimate" (now we know it to be false) information of WMD's or terrorist harboring to declare war on another soveriegn state at the time of those attacks?
Because it seems to me by "not letting" you mean taking action, like, initiating a war.


The bully will continue to steal your lunch money until you kick his ass.
The reason they hate us could be that they see us as the bully...

[Yonivore]

Do you think their intent was only 6? Where's the WTC now?
In fact, had Clinton taken the first bombing more seriously and cleaned up the shit holes, in the middle east, that spawned these barbarians -- as President Bush is attempting to do now -- maybe September 11, 2001 would have never happened.

Nah, he was more interested in getting Saudi funding for his "Trailer-on-stilts" Presidential Library.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Do you think their intent was only 6? Where's the WTC now?



No, not really. We were just extremely lucky the first time. Not so much so the second time, because they didn't hit an hour later.


The intent obviously was not 6, and the 93 terrorist act was real fuckin serious. But ask anyone in the rest of the world, with no connection to united states politics, which is of more significance:

1) A terrorist attack that threatens your nations well being and kills 6 people
2) A terrorist attack that threatens your nations well being and kills (guess) 10000 people

I'd have to say they would go with the latter.
You can't just throw the value of human life out the window, and the typical old conservative married couple will agree with war much more readily when the latter happens.

Do you think Clinton would have the strong public backing to declare war during 1993? A ruler or politicans cannot just declare war because they want to, there is also the consideration of the public.

Bush was lucky enough to benefit from the sheer devestation and fear of thousands (not 6) people dying, to get strong public support for attacks on afghanistan, and when those were seen in a decent light, he went ahead with the Iraqi war.

[Yonivore]

"Let" = He didn't retaliate against the first WTC bombing or that against the USS Cole. By inaction he gave the terrorists CONFIDENCE in that the US was a bunch of pussies and they could impose their will without fear of any real loss. It's been awhile, but their attitude has been well documented.

The bully will continue to steal your lunch money until you kick his ass. That's about 98% causation, 2% opinion. It's very simple logic...more often that not sitting down and talking it over isn't going to do a damn thing. I'd say 100% causation, but there are always the really stupid ones that don't get it...so you have to leave some margin of error. :lol
It wasn't only the inaction either. Bin Laden has stated that he was emboldened by Clinton's retreat from Mogadishu. He felt the American people no longer had a stomach for dead soldiers and therefore were ripe for attack.

[Yonivore]

The intent obviously was not 6, and the 93 terrorist act was real fuckin serious. But ask anyone in the rest of the world, with no connection to united states politics, which is of more significance:

1) A terrorist attack that threatens your nations well being and kills 6 people
2) A terrorist attack that threatens your nations well being and kills (guess) 10000 people

I'd have to say they would go with the latter.
You're confusing significance with costly.

If China launched a nuclear missile that exploded in the middle of a Nevada desert, with no one killed, that'd be pretty fucking significant. More significant, I'd bargain, than 19 terrorists flying planes into two skyscrapers.

That terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 should have been significant enough for the freakin' President of the United States to get off his fucking ass, pull his penis out of Monica's pie hole, and start killing terrorists somewhere.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

You're confusing significance with costly.

If China launched a nuclear missile that exploded in the middle of a Nevada desert, with no one killed, that'd be pretty fucking significant. More significant, I'd bargain, than 19 terrorists flying planes into two skyscrapers.

That terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 should have been significant enough for the freakin' President of the United States to get off his fucking ass, pull his penis out of Monica's pie hole, and start killing terrorists somewhere.


Yeah, your last paragraph I totally agree with.

But, it still does have an effect on significance, insofar as the common man will commit himself to the cause of war when thousands have died, as opposed to just 6. Humans value human life, Democracy values human life. When you have the public support, or the public believes your ends are justified, then there are little obstructions to declaring a war. (ie the general public will accept the possibility that intelligence can be false much more readily)

[SpursWoman]

I follow your reasoning, but let me ask you this:

Do you think arab terrorist organizations lack the information or intelligence to understand the changes involved with changing administrations? (in other words, do you think they're stupid or hasty enough to believe what applies under one president works under another, esp. given they're diff. parties)

In my opinion, they would have attacked us again regardless, just like they will attack us again in the future.

Also:
Did Clinton have "legitimate" (now we know it to be false) information of WMD's or terrorist harboring to declare war on another soveriegn state at the time of those attacks?
Because it seems to me by "not letting" you mean taking action, like, initiating a war.


The reason they hate us could be that they see us as the bully...

I think during a changing administration it's the perfect time to strike ... I'm sure there's a higher degree of disorganization which would be normal during any personnel changes.

And they may still have struck anyway, but if there were any indication whatsoever that whatever they did would NOT go unpunished there may have been more hesitancy ... but that's just what I very strongly believe based on what I've heard over the years.

They hate us because of our gluttonous lifestyles, our freedom, our wealth and our power...we are the infidels. I believe their twisted interpretation of their religion says that they are supposed to wipe out everyone who does not believe as they do, which means we all need to die. I'm not too sure how much of that would be because we're a bully.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, your last paragraph I totally agree with.

But, it still does have an effect on significance, insofar as the common man will commit himself to the cause of war when thousands have died, as opposed to just 6. Humans value human life, Democracy values human life. When you have the public support, or the public believes your ends are justified, then there are little obstructions to declaring a war. (ie the general public will accept the possibility that intelligence can be false much more readily)
It's the President's job to make the case. Clinton wasn't willing, Bush was. Period.

[Clandestino]

But you and the Destino HAVE been awfully quiet lately.........

i've been busy.. sorry, you missed me..

[boutons]

"They hate us because of our gluttonous lifestyles"

Bullshit.

1. Because US is occupying sacred Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries, exclusively because of oil.

2. Becaause US supports Israel against the Palestinian Muslims.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

They hate us because of our gluttonous lifestyles, our freedom, our wealth and our power...we are the infidels. I believe their twisted interpretation of their religion says that they are supposed to wipe out everyone who does not believe as they do, which means we all need to die. I'm not too sure how much of that would be because we're a bully.


I'm sure some terrorist organizations do think this way, but some terrorist organizations that commit acts of terrorism are not brain-dead blind-faith kamikazee-men (whether or not al-qaeda or whatever fits this description requires a whole diff discussion)

But its my opinion that the 'normal' terrorist organization starts with a political end or goal, not religious. If we are talking a terrorist organization with a political goal, then ask why are they taking the terrorist route to achieve a political goal?
I would say because they have not been given a proper opportunity to be heard either in the national, or world-wide political forum.

What are these terrorists mad about? I'm no political science major, but if we ignore the idea that every young arab's desire and dream and influence is to destroy america, then I think we can find a starting point in a bunked up foreign policy.


I simply do not believe that the arab people grow up hating and despising and wanting to slaughter americans just because we are american. I don't believe it. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity. Maybe I think the current administration is trying to paint this picture in the minds of its voters for further public support.

What I do believe is the base reason these organizations are mad, are for political reasons.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It's the President's job to make the case. Clinton wasn't willing, Bush was. Period.


No way man, its not just the will.

No fucking way the american public allows an Iraqi War to drag on this long if 9/11 were exactly like the 1993 incident, theres just no way.

We're a democracy, a democracy set up to protect its people. To be raised in a democracy is to learn the value of people and their rights.

When the common man hears that thousands upon thousands have died, it pushes him further to the "initiate war" end of the spectrum than if only 6 died.

This is only just 1 issue, public sentiment, together with president's will, there has to be a plethora of other reasons affecting whether or not a nation will go to war.

Here's another: Intelligence

Did Clinton have the intelligence that Bush (thought he) had when he found it necessary to declare war.
If he didnt, then even a will to declare war may not have been enough.

[SpursWoman]

But its my opinion that the 'normal' terrorist organization starts with a political end or goal, not religious. If we are talking a terrorist organization with a political goal, then ask why are they taking the terrorist route to achieve a political goal?

Religion & politics aren't mutually exclusive over there, if I'm not mistaken. If we have a bunch of guys over there talking to them all like boutons does to us in this forum, though, Allahdamn right they hate Americans. :lol

[Yonivore]

I'm sure some terrorist organizations do think this way, but some terrorist organizations that commit acts of terrorism are not brain-dead blind-faith kamikazee-men (whether or not al-qaeda or whatever fits this description requires a whole diff discussion)

But its my opinion that the 'normal' terrorist organization starts with a political end or goal, not religious. If we are talking a terrorist organization with a political goal, then ask why are they taking the terrorist route to achieve a political goal?

I would say because they have not been given a proper opportunity to be heard either in the national, or world-wide political forum.

What are these terrorists mad about? I'm no political science major, but if we ignore the idea that every young arab's desire and dream and influence is to destroy america, then I think we can find a starting point in a bunked up foreign policy.

I simply do not believe that the arab people do not grow up hating and despising and wanting to slaughter americans just because we are american. I don't believe it. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity. Maybe I think the current administration is trying to paint this picture in the minds of its voters for further public support.

What I do believe is the base reason these organizations are mad, are for political reasons.
I partly agree with Spurswoman but for a different reason. They hate us becuase the Western influence on their "sheeples" is upsetting the caliphate apple-cart they've worked so hard to re-establish.

They hate our freedom because if it spreads to their oppressed, they've lost power.

Syria is about to be the first hard lesson in that reality. They've already lost their grip on Lebanon because of their taste of freedom. Now, Assad may lose Syria because of his retaliation on a Lebanese icon, Hariri.

[SpursWoman]

No fucking way the american public allows an Iraqi War to drag on this long if 9/11 were exactly like the 1993 incident, theres just no way.

People are already seriously divided. Is it going to take another attack killing 10,000 plus to have the support to finish the job?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I partly agree with Spurswoman but for a different reason. They hate us becuase the Western influence on their "sheeples" is upsetting the caliphate apple-cart they've worked so hard to re-establish.

They hate our freedom because if it spreads to their oppressed, they've lost power.

Syria is about to be the first hard lesson in that reality. They've already lost their grip on Lebanon because of their taste of freedom. Now, Assad may lose Syria because of his retaliation on a Lebanese icon, Hariri.

I find this reason much more plausible than them hating americans just cuz of the american lifestyle.

[SpursWoman]

They hate us becuase the Western influence on their "sheeples" is upsetting the caliphate apple-cart they've worked so hard to re-establish.

They hate our freedom because if it spreads to their oppressed, they've lost power.

Sorry, I was about to add something similar...thanks. :)

[Cant_Be_Faded]

People are already seriously divided. Is it going to take another attack killing 10,000 plus to have the support to finish the job?


Yeah, we are divided, but honestly spurswoman, do you see us withdrawing and ending this war prematurely? Part of me wants this so bad, cuz I could give a fuck about fighting for Iraqi freedom when mine is being eroded.

But I don't see us withdrawing from Iraq....and all i hear from the lefties is hope that we will withdraw...

We'll finish the job.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

People are already seriously divided. Is it going to take another attack killing 10,000 plus to have the support to finish the job?


I guess the question I'd have for you is: When did they reveal their plan to finish the job? Troop replenishment? Exit strategy?

The plan is that there is no plan...

[Yonivore]

No way man, its not just the will.

No fucking way the american public allows an Iraqi War to drag on this long if 9/11 were exactly like the 1993 incident, theres just no way.
Well, it wouldn't have if Clinton had gone ahead with it in 1993.


We're a democracy, a democracy set up to protect its people. To be raised in a democracy is to learn the value of people and their rights.

When the common man hears that thousands upon thousands have died, it pushes him further to the "initiate war" end of the spectrum than if only 6 died.

This is only just 1 issue, public sentiment, together with president's will, there has to be a plethora of other reasons affecting whether or not a nation will go to war.

Here's another: Intelligence

Did Clinton have the intelligence that Bush (thought he) had when he found it necessary to declare war.
Well, Clinton was convinced, as late as 2000, that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. If was Clinton, in 1998, that declared that regime change in Iraq was the U.S. objective.

If he didnt, then even a will to declare war may not have been enough.
War isn't waged on a poll.

[Yonivore]

I guess the question I'd have for you is: When did they reveal their plan to finish the job? Troop replenishment? Exit strategy?

The plan is that there is no plan...
You haven't been paying attention.

When Iraq is capable of handling it's own security, we leave. Or, if asked to do so by the Iraqi government.

The car bombing, yesterday, was a positive development in that direction. Yes, 20 people were killed but, were you also aware that it was Iraqi security forces that repelled the attempt, by the terrorists, to storm the hotel and take a bunch of foreign journalists hostage? American troops arrived after the intial combat was completed and all terrorists were dead or captured.

Quite a difference from what the Iraqi Security Forces were capable of just a year ago.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Well, it wouldn't have if Clinton had gone ahead with it in 1993.


Well, Clinton was convinced, as late as 2000, that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. If was Clinton, in 1998, that declared that regime change in Iraq was the U.S. objective.

War isn't waged on a poll.


Yeah, and over the course of the clinton administration and the bush adminstration, the congress/senate's authority of declaring war has lessened, while the executive branch's has increased.
Clinton did make attacks on several of hussein's strategic bases, I remember seein that shit on Channel One (lol)

[SpursWoman]

I find this reason much more plausible than them hating americans just cuz of the american lifestyle.



...because of the freedoms we have that enable us to prosper, like if they weren't living under the oppression they were living under they might eventually be able to enjoy the same freedoms and revolt was what I was getting at. Yonivore said it better, obviously.

I'm still pissed User got the UPS seat upgrade tonight at the game in my seats...so I've been a little distracted, sorry. :lol :oops

[Yonivore]

I find this reason much more plausible than them hating americans just cuz of the american lifestyle.
Well, gee, if you'd just listen to the President, this is what he's been saying...I didn't pull this out of my ass.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

But a state that feels threatened due to loss of power experiences a political threat, and what you seemed to say was the people as a whole + the state just hate america because it's against their national religion and they all want us dead.

[Yonivore]

Clinton did make attacks on several of hussein's strategic bases, I remember seein that shit on Channel One (lol)
Only when he needed a distraction from domestic "affairs."

[Yonivore]

But a state that feels threatened due to loss of power experiences a political threat, and what you seemed to say was the people as a whole + the state just hate america because it's against their national religion and they all want us dead.
No, the "people" hate us because we're told that do by al Jazeera and the rest of the biased media.

Talk to a few soldiers serving in Afghanistan or Iraq. They'll tell you the "people" love America. Did you see the posters of President Bush and the Iraq President, together, being held by voters last weekend?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Well, gee, if you'd just listen to the President, this is what he's been saying...I didn't pull this out of my ass.


It is plausible, but that doesn't make it right.

The only way we will win this war and be able to say that we won a "just" war is if the democracy we intend to set up actually works, which remains to be seen.

We are already "unjust" in the pre-emptive strike we engaged in, because the assumptions we made and gave to the public turned out to be false.

Lefties and skeptics pop up right around this area, when the Administration conveniently shifted the war's goal/reason when we found no WMD's.

[Yonivore]

But a state that feels threatened due to loss of power experiences a political threat, and what you seemed to say was the people as a whole + the state just hate america because it's against their national religion and they all want us dead.
Libya felt threatened and straightened up their act.

Syria felt threatened and left Lebanon...only to fuck that up by assassinating a national hero.

Saudi Arabia is being more cooperative.

Egypt is loosening it's grip on the political process there.

And on and on and on.

Do you remember who the big dog, in the middle east, was -- prior to 1990? Yep. Iraq, everybody was afraid of Iraq. Taking them down has created a vaccuum of power in that region. Iran is threatening to fill the void but only if we're unsuccessful in transforming the region.

If Iraq becomes democratic or self-governing, Iran is surrounded by Western-style governments that probably won't take their crap.

Yes, it's possible Iraq will be friendly with Iran, but it's more likely the hostilities are much deeper over the Iraq/Iran conflict than the compassion witnessed by Iraqis over our occupation/rebuliding of their infrastructure.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Only when he needed a distraction from domestic "affairs."

Possibly, but it was action nonetheless.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Libya felt threatened and straightened up their act.

Syria felt threatened and left Lebanon...only to fuck that up by assassinating a national hero.

Saudi Arabia is being more cooperative.

Egypt is loosening it's grip on the political process there.

And on and on and on.


the "you" in my post referred to SW

[Yonivore]

Possibly, but it was action nonetheless.
As the President so eloquently stated, he was "...tired of swatting flies."

[SpursWoman]

Yeah, we are divided, but honestly spurswoman, do you see us withdrawing and ending this war prematurely? Part of me wants this so bad, cuz I could give a fuck about fighting for Iraqi freedom when mine is being eroded.

But I don't see us withdrawing from Iraq....and all i hear from the lefties is hope that we will withdraw...

We'll finish the job.


I don't see us going anywhere with W. still president, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing when you think of what happened in Vietnam when we left prematurely. I do think Iraq has a much better chance though, of making it on their own.

Maybe I just don't see how I've lost any freedoms....?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Maybe I just don't see how I've lost any freedoms....?


And so divides the american people..

[Yonivore]

It is plausible, but that doesn't make it right.
Sure it does. As long as that region festered in it's 13th century caliphate mentality, it posed a security risk to the United States. For better or worse, 60 years of international diplomacy left nations inextricably bound to the region -- there was no picking up our toys and leaving. Particularly when the leaders of those nations were willing to abandon 13th century technology in order to destroy a Western culture.

If it was safe to assume they'd stick to 13th century weapons as well as 13th century sensibilities, then I'd say yeah, let them wallow in their own bassackwards nonsense. But, do you honestly believe that region would withdraw from the rest of the world if only we'd withdraw from them?

No.

The only way we will win this war and be able to say that we won a "just" war is if the democracy we intend to set up actually works, which remains to be seen.
Well, every milestone has been achieved so far...all over the cries of the left that it couldn't be done.


We are already "unjust" in the pre-emptive strike we engaged in, because the assumptions we made and gave to the public turned out to be false.
Not true.

Iraq continued with hostile acts against our pilots in the no-fly zone in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement.

Iraq was in violation of over a dozen UNSC resolutions.

Iraq was continuing to threaten its neighbors.

Iraq massacred Shi'ites in the South when we withdrew.

Iraq was draining the south wetlands to punish Shi'ite farmers in what is being described as the greatest environmental crime since -- yep, that's right -- Iraq set fire to the Kuwaiti oilfields.

And, even though the WMD's weren't found (and may not have existed), his WMD infrastructure was intact and there is testimony that he intended to reconstitute his WMD program as soon as the sanctions were lifted -- which, we now find out, he was bribing France, Germany, Russia, and the UN (along with Galloway in Britain) to get done. He's still never accounted for the thousands of pounds of WMD's that were known to exist in 1998 but were never accounted for.

Nah, I'm comfortable with the invasion of Iraq. It probably should have been done a long time ago.

Lefties and skeptics pop up right around this area, when the Administration conveniently shifted the war's goal/reason when we found no WMD's.
You need to go back and read the President's speech to the UN, he mentioned all those things during that speech and others, contemporary to the time.

[Yonivore]

And so divides the american people..
What freedoms have you lost?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

What freedoms have you lost?


Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II.

Its not that they're lost, they're being eroded. I see the values and human rights upon which our nation was founded as such that they should not be altered or shifted under any circumstance. I feel that the moment you allow for temporary or situational suspension or changing of the basic constitutional rights, you open the door for futher suspension or changing.

There is no "objective point" in which too much rights erosion becomes "too much" once we allow those basic rights to be changed more and more.

The only sure-fire, closest to objective standard we have, is to allow our constitutional rights to stand alone, not be changed, and find ways already within the framework of our government to deal with imminent threats, as opposed to opening new paths to dealing with threats that involve eroding rights.

[Yonivore]

Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II.

Its not that they're lost, they're being eroded. I see the values and human rights upon which our nation was founded as such that they should not be altered or shifted under any circumstance. I feel that the moment you allow for temporary or situational suspension or changing of the basic constitutional rights, you open the door for futher suspension or changing.

There is no "objective point" in which too much rights erosion becomes "too much" once we allow those basic rights to be changed more and more.

The only sure-fire, closest to objective standard we have, is to allow our constitutional rights to stand alone, not be changed, and find ways already within the framework of our government to deal with imminent threats, as opposed to opening new paths to dealing with threats that involve eroding rights.

I see. So Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War wasn't reversed? And, the Japanese Roosevelt threw into internment camps are still there?

Again, give me a concrete example of where you've experienced a loss of freedom.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I see. So Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War wasn't reversed? And, the Japanese Roosevelt threw into internment camps are still there?

Again, give me a concrete example of where you've experienced a loss of freedom.


I knew you'd bring up Lincoln.

I have not personally been denied any freedom, but the rights as a whole have been eroded....you can't deny that.

I wont say that it is impossible to erode rights to achieve a justified end, and then reverse them.

But if we don't have our rights as an unwavering benchmark for what our democracy means, then what do we have?

[Yonivore]

I knew you'd bring up Lincoln.

I have not personally been denied any freedom, but the rights as a whole have been eroded....you can't deny that.
Sure I can. Name one provision of the Patriot Act I or II that erodes my freedoms.

I wont say that it is impossible to erode rights to achieve a justified end, and then reverse them.

But if we don't have our rights as an unwavering benchmark for what our democracy means, then what do we have?
If we allow terrorists destroy every institution of society through fear or actual attack, THEN what do we have?

I'll give up carrying my boxcutters onto the flight, thank you very much.

[gtownspur]

Well i'm surprised to see CBF having a reasonable discussion. As for Clinton not responding:

U had that movie called black hawk down...except in real life it was called "mogadishu"

you had the bombing of the Nigerian embassy, USS COle, and the WTC in the early nineties.. and ofcourse you have the admission of BIll clinton that he turned down an offer from the sudanese to have OBL handed... and thats all up to you to judge.

[gtownspur]

Mouse, thats cool how like your sober now and you like watch the news and like... you care now... about... world stuff and current events.. and like you have a sean penn dildo which inadverdently made you hate bush.

[jochhejaam]

"They hate us because of our gluttonous lifestyles"

Bullshit.

1. Because US is occupying sacred Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries, exclusively because of oil.

2. Becaause US supports Israel against the Palestinian Muslims.

Bullcrap!
They hate us because they are subjected to a religiously indoctrinated brainwashing, engendered from birth where they are taught that the US is the Great Satan. When they exit their mosques they do so with the teachings of intolerance embedded intrinsically into their hearts, minds and souls.

They have zero religious freedom which means they are not allowed to explore options other than what they are taught within the confines of their mosques It's a radically intolerant philosophy and it's passed on from generation to generation.

A large portion hate us why, because we support the Israeli's right to exist? To hell in a handbasket for every verminous cretin on earth that feels that way!




Thread comment; I support the President. :)

[Dos]

a very good article...

Only when Americans realize that Islamists intend to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shari'a will they enter final era of war

By Daniel Pipes

President, off to a good start, is not there just yet


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | A courageous speech by George W. Bush last week began a new era in what he calls the "war on terror."

To comprehend its full significance requires some background. Islamists (supporters of radical Islam) began their war on the United States in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took power in Iran and later that year his supporters seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran.


For the next twenty-two years, however, Americans thought they faced merely a criminal problem and failed to see that war had been declared on them. For example, in 1998, when Islamists attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa, Washington responded by unleashing detectives, arresting the perpetrators, taking them to New York, assigning them defense lawyers, then convicting and jailing them.


The second era began on September 11, 2001. That evening, President Bush declared a "war against terrorism" and the U.S. government promptly went into war mode, for example, by passing the USA Patriot Act. Though welcoming this shift, I during four years criticized the notion of making war on a military tactic, finding this euphemistic, inaccurate, and obstructive. Instead, I repeatedly called on the president to start a third era by acknowledging that the war is against radical Islam.


Bush did occasionally mention radical Islam — in fact, as early as nine days after 9/11 — but not with enough frequency or detail to change perceptions. British prime minister Tony Blair also advanced the discussion in July, when, after the London transport bombings, he focused on "a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam."


But the third era truly began on Oct. 6 with Bush's speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. He not only gave several names to the force behind terrorism ("Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism"), but he provided ample details. In particular, he:

Presented this "murderous ideology" of Islamic radicals "the great challenge of our new century."
Distinguished it from the religion of Islam.
Drew parallels between radical Islam and communism (both are elitist, cold-blooded, totalitarian, disdainful of free peoples, and fatefully contradictory), then noted in how many ways the U.S. war on radical Islam, "resembles the struggle against communism in the last century."
Pointed out the three-step Islamist drive to power: ending Western influence in the Muslim world, gaining control of Muslim governments, and establishing "a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia."
Explained the "violent, political vision" of radical Islam as comprising an agenda "to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation."
Defined its ultimate goal: "to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world."
Observed that Muslims themselves have the burden of doing the "most vital work" to fight Islamism.
Called on "all responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing" this ideology and taking steps against it.

[mouse]

Mouse, thats cool how like your sober

who says you have to be sober to know this country is going to hell?


now and you like watch the news and like... you care now.

psssssssst! why don't you go to page 300 and look for when Kerry vs Bush debates where going on I was right here, or did you just think this forum only had two pages?



..
about... world stuff and current events..

Psssssst! this topoic is about folks who talk shit and then they hide, I do it to Spur fans aslo. Sorry if it just happens to be a current event, that part is out of my control brah







and like you have a sean penn dildo

I don't like Sean Penn, He is ok in the movies but I think he's kinda of a dick head off the screen, I vever said I was a Democrat, but if you would post here more often you would know that, I must say you bringing up the word Dildo in a politics forum is very disturbing maybe you have a fetish I am not aware of.




which inadverdently made you hate bush.

Trust me I never hated Bush, I still don't today . trust me, he makes a great GOV. I just don't want him as President of the country I live in, is that to hard for you to
understand? or shall I use a Dildo to make my point?

[Looter]

Thank you Bush for the free beer,

[Ocotillo]

The American people are not divided over the war on terrorism. No doubt the overwhelming majority support the pursuit and demise of Osama Bin Laden.

Iraq shows the utter incomptetence of Bush/Republicans. Rather than doing anything to help us against future terrorists attacks, Iraq has increased terrorism, hatred of America and lowered our moral authority.

If one goes back to 1993 when WTC 1 happened, the world was a different place. Terrorism was limited to the middle east, the IRA and the Red Brigade. We were not entirely sure who was behind the act. If it was a small group of anti-American militants, it is a law enforcement issue. There was no one advocating attacking sovereign nations at that time right or left.

If military retaliation was the simple answer to stopping Islamic terrorism, Israel would have quashed it a long time ago. I know you Busheviks don't like the word but, it is more nuanced than that.

Also, you show you have no real argument when every third word in your post is some wingnut mythology about Clinton. It's 2005 and G.W. Bush is supposedly the President of the U.S. In case you missed it, he has been for the past five years.

If I wanted to adapt your style of argument, I could harken back to Reagan and his turning tail and running out of Lebanon is the reason the middle easterners were emboldened.

Bush/Republicans have screwed up in their five year reign and the American people are wising up to the talking points that have been fed to them are just that, talk. OBL remains free and unpunished and now we even have an OBL lite that has come along in Zarqawi.

BTW, speaking of the transition between administrations being the time to attack. The U.S. Cole was attacked in October 2000. Clinton was on the verge of being a lame duck and was handing that off to the incoming administration.

Bush gave another speech yesterday and said the best way to honor the troops is to finish the job. I beg to differ. The best way to honor the troops is to remove G.W. Bush from the White House.

[SA210]

Oh Clinton got a blowjob, Clinton let killings happen, Clinton this, Clinton that, Liberals this, Liberals that...

Plain and simple, Clinton hade meetings about Bin laden and terrorist briefings every week.

Bush had NOT ONE before September 11. Not ONE. But he got the CIA briefing of Bin Laden planning to atack the US by hijacking planes. And didn't do anything about it. He was warned before thousands lost their lives. HE DID NOTHING about it , unless you count going on vacation as taking action.

Say what you want, Bush knew this and he did nothing to even attempt to prevent it. He had the opportunity to act, regardless of what you want to say about Clinton and liberals.
YOU can not argue that. Period.

[xrayzebra]

You stated: "Iraq shows the utter incomptetence of Bush/Republicans. Rather than doing anything to help us against future terrorists attacks, Iraq has increased terrorism, hatred of America and lowered our moral authority"

How about the following incompetence:


Clinton Has No Clothes
What 9/11 revealed about the ex-president.

By Byron York, NR White House Correspondent
From the December 17, 2001, issue of National Review



n June 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. When news reached Washington, Presi dent Bill Clinton vowed to bring the killers to justice. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," he said angrily. "Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished." The next day, leaving the White House to attend an economic summit in France, Clinton had more tough words for the attackers. "Let me be very clear: We will not resist" — the president corrected himself — "we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them."

As Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public's reaction to the bombing. "Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll," Morris recalls. "I was concerned about how Clinton looked in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him." The bombing happened in the midst of the president's re-election campaign, and even though Clinton enjoyed a substantial lead over Republican Bob Dole, Morris worried that public dissatisfaction with Clinton on the terrorism issue might benefit Dole.

Indeed, Morris's first poll showed less support for Clinton than he had hoped. But by the time Morris presented his findings to the president and top staffers at a political-strategy meeting a few days later, public approval of Clinton's response had climbed — something Morris noted in his written agenda for the session:

SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
It's not Clinton's fault 76-18

The numbers were a relief for the re-election team. But soon there was another crisis when, on July 17, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris. There was widespread suspicion that the crash was the result of terrorism (it was later ruled to be an accident), and Morris's polling found the public growing uneasy not only about air safety but also about Clinton's performance in the Khobar investigation. Morris found that the number of people who believed Clinton was "doing all he can to investigate the Saudi bombing and punish those responsible" was just 54 percent, while 32 percent believed he could do more. Morris feared that White House inaction would allow Dole to portray Clinton as soft on national security.

"We tested two alternative defenses to this attack: Peace maker or Toughness," Morris wrote in a memo for the president. In the "Peacemaker" defense, Morris asked voters to respond to the statement, "Clinton is peacemaker. Brought together Arabs and Israelis. Ireland. Bosnia cease fire. Uses strength to bring about peace." The other defense, "Tough ness," asked voters to respond to "Clinton tough. Stands up for American interests. Against foreign companies doing business in Cuba. Sanctions against Iran. Anti-terrorist legislation held up by Republicans. Prosecuted World Trade Center bombers." Morris found that the public greatly preferred "Toughness."

So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.

At the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his administration was just beginning, and he was embroiled in controversies over gays in the military, an economic stimulus plan, and the beginnings of Hillary Clinton's health-care task force. Khobar Towers happened not only in the midst of the president's re-election campaign but also at the end of a month in which there were new and damaging developments in the Whitewater and Filegate scandals. The African embassy attacks occurred as the Monica Lewinsky affair was at fever pitch, in the month that Clinton appeared before independent counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury. And when the Cole was rammed, Clinton had little time left in office and was desperately hoping to build his legacy with a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whenever a serious terrorist attack occurred, it seemed Bill Clinton was always busy with something else.

The First WTC Attack
Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president's reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against "overreacting" and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid."

From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government's most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. "Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access," says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. "It was all under grand-jury secrecy."

Another problem with Clinton's decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in the new administration was in turmoil. When the bomb went off, Clinton did not have a confirmed attorney general; Janet Reno, who was nominated after the Zoë Baird fiasco, was awaiting Senate approval. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration. The bombing barely came up at Reno's Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case. (Instead, Clinton praised Reno for "sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others to do better.") In addition, at the time the bombing investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing-out by Clinton. A new director, Louis Freeh, was not confirmed by the Senate until August 6.

Amid all the turmoil at the top, the investigation missed some tantalizing clues pointing toward a far-reaching conspiracy. In April 1995, for example, terrorism expert Steven Emerson told the House International Relations Committee that there was information that "strongly suggests . . . a Sudanese role in the World Trade Center bombing. There are also leads pointing to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, the ex-Afghan Saudi mujahideen supporter now taking refuge in Sudan." Two years later, Emerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same thing. In recent years, according to an exhaustive New York Times report, "American intelligence officials have come to believe that [ringleader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman] and the World Trade Center bombers had ties to al-Qaeda."

But the Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship. Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold — "I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful," Woolsey recalls — and some of the nation's most critical intelligence capabilities went unused. In the end, the U.S. tried six suspects in the attack. All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government. Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they will probably never know who was behind the attack.

Khobar Towers
"In June of 1996, it felt like an entire herd was converging on the White House," wrote Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos in his memoir, All Too Human. A herd of scandals, that is: In late May, independent counsel Kenneth Starr had convicted Jim and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker in the first big Whitewater trial; in June, the Filegate story first broke into public view, and Sen. Alphonse D'Amato issued his committee's Whitewater report recommending that several administration officials be investigated for perjury. It was also in June that the White House went into full battle mode against a variety of allegations contained in Unlimited Access, a book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

All these developments were heavy on the minds of Clinton, Dick Morris, and the other members of the re-election strategy team when the bomb went off at Khobar Towers on June 25. As it had after the World Trade Center bombing, a distracted White House gave the case to law enforcement. But there is significant evidence to suggest that the White House was even less interested in finding answers than it had been in the World Trade Center case. In the Khobar investigation, the Clinton administration not only failed to follow potentially productive leads but in some instances actively made the investigators' job more difficult.

From the beginning, the administration ran into significant Saudi resistance (the Saudis quickly identified a few low-level suspects and beheaded them, hoping to end the matter there). According to a long account of the case by Elsa Walsh published earlier this year in The New Yorker, FBI director Louis Freeh on several occasions urged the White House to pressure the Saudis for more cooperation. More than once, Walsh reports, Freeh was frustrated to learn that the president barely mentioned the case in meetings with Saudi leaders.

Freeh — whose own relations with the White House had deteriorated badly in the wake of the Filegate and campaign-finance scandals — became convinced that the White House didn't really want to push the Saudis for more information, which Freeh believed would confirm strong suspicions of extensive Iranian involvement in the attack. Walsh reports that in September 1998, Freeh, angry and losing hope, took the extraordinary step of secretly asking former president George H. W. Bush to intercede with the Saudi royal family. Acting without Clinton's knowledge, Bush made the request, and the Saudis began to provide new information, which indeed pointed to Iran.

In late 1998, Walsh reports, Freeh went to national security adviser Sandy Berger to tell him that it appeared the FBI had enough evidence to indict several suspects. "Who else knows this?" Berger asked Freeh, demanding to know if it had been leaked to the press. Freeh said it was a closely held secret. Then Berger challenged some of the evidence of Iranian involvement. "That's just hearsay," Berger said. "No, Sandy," Freeh responded. "It's testimony of a co-conspirator . . ." According to Walsh's account, Freeh thought that "Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing."

Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that "by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration." Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the "masterminds" of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment.

Both the Khobar investigation and the World Trade Center bombing presented Clinton with daunting challenges; there were sensitive political issues involved, and in each case it was not immediately clear who was behind the violence. But in neither instance did Clinton press hard for answers and demand action; Berger would not have taken the position he did if the president fully supported a vigorous investigation. In the coming years, Clinton would be faced with clear acts of terrorism carried out by an organization with undeniable state support. But again, busy with other things, he did little.

The Embassies
On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans. The morning of the attacks, Clinton said, "We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes. . . . We are determined to get answers and justice."

Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks. On August 20, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. But the strikes were at best ineffectual. There was little convincing evidence that the pharmaceutical factory, which admin istration officials believed was involved in the production of material for chemical weapons, actually was part of a weapons-making operation, and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies.

Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton's motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton's critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called "wag the dog" strategy. Some of Clinton's allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton's decision.

The accusations came as no surprise to the White House. "Everyone knew the 'wag the dog' charge was going to be made," recalls Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert on the National Security Council. But Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified. "I remember being shocked and deeply depressed over the fact that no one would take seriously what I considered a grave national-security problem," says Benjamin. "Not only were they not buying it, they were accusing the administration of essentially playing the most shallow and foolish kind of game to deflect attention from other issues. It was astonishing."

In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration's evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production. The attack came to be viewed, by consensus, as a screw-up. In a new article in The New York Review of Books, Benjamin suggests that that skepticism, particularly on the part of reporters, scared Clinton away from any more tough action against bin Laden. "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al-Qaeda threat," Benjamin writes. "That in turn meant there was no support for decisive measures in Afghanistan — including, possibly, the use of U.S. ground forces — to hunt down the terrorists; and thus no national leader of either party publicly suggested such action."

After the cruise-missile raids, the administration restricted its work to covert actions breaking up terrorist cells. Benjamin and others say a significant number of terrorist plots were short-circuited, preventing several acts of violence. "I see no reason to doubt their word on that," says James Woolsey. "They may have been doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes." But breaking up individual cells while avoiding larger-scale action probably had the effect of postponing terrorist acts rather than stopping them. Woolsey believes that such an approach was part of what he calls Clinton's "PR-driven" approach to terrorism, an approach that left the fundamental problem unsolved: "Do something to show you're concerned. Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking the ball down the field."

The Cole
The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.'s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk.

Clinton's reaction to the Cole terrorism was more muted than his response to the previous attacks. While he called the bombing "a despicable and cowardly act" and said, "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable," he seemed more concerned that the attack might threaten the administration's work in the Middle East (the bombing came at the same time as a new spate of violence between Israelis and Palestinians). "If [the terrorists'] intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly," Clinton said on the morning of the attack. The next day, the Washington Post's John Harris, who had good connections inside the administration, wrote, "While the apparent suicide bombing of the USS Cole may have been the more dramatic episode for the American public, the escalation between Israelis and Palestinians took the edge in preoccupying senior administration officials yesterday. This was regarded as the more fluid of the two problems, and it presented the broader threat to Clinton's foreign policy aims."

As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden's organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action. Yet he did nothing. Perhaps he didn't want to endanger the cherished goal of Middle East peace. Perhaps he didn't want to disrupt the 2000 presidential campaign, then in its last days. Perhaps he didn't know quite what to do. But in the end, the ball was kicked a bit farther down the field.

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.

================================================== =============

Seems a little "blow job" may have had a little more consequences than some on this board may think. Don't you just love the fact that he had to poll to find out what to do. Such a leader!

[Yonivore]

Some good those weekly meetings did.

[xrayzebra]

Oh Clinton got a blowjob, Clinton let killings happen, Clinton this, Clinton that, Liberals this, Liberals that...

Plain and simple, Clinton hade meetings about Bin laden and terrorist briefings every week.

Bush had NOT ONE before September 11. Not ONE. But he got the CIA briefing of Bin Laden planning to atack the US by hijacking planes. And didn't do anything about it. He was warned before thousands lost their lives. HE DID NOTHING about it , unless you count going on vacation as taking action.

Say what you want, Bush knew this and he did nothing to even attempt to prevent it. He had the opportunity to act, regardless of what you want to say about Clinton and liberals.
YOU can not argue that. Period.

And did absolutely nothing about it. Oh, I want to modify that a little bit, they did test some phrases to see how they would sit with the public.

[boutons]

"Some good those weekly meetings did."

But the best was done by dubya administratrion ignoring increasing "planes into buildings" chatter in the summer of 2001.

9/11 happened 9 month's dubya's watch, fully warned by the outgoing Dems about bin Laden, while he and his TalkTough-GoVacationing administration were responsible for protecting America.

The Repub spin that "nothing could have been done by dubya to prevent 9/11" has long ago been unmasked as lies, and that dubya-as-liar will be further emphacized by the Fitzgerald outcome and more credible whistle-blowers like Wilkerson and Scowcroft come forward.

[xrayzebra]

"Some good those weekly meetings did."

But the best was done by dubya administratrion ignoring increasing "planes into buildings" chatter in the summer of 2001.

9/11 happened 9 month's dubya's watch, fully warned by the outgoing Dems about bin Laden, while he and his TalkTough-GoVacationing administration were responsible for protecting America.

The Repub spin that "nothing could have been done by dubya to prevent 9/11" has long ago been unmasked as lies, and that dubya-as-liar will be further emphacized by the Fitzgerald outcome and more credible whistle-blowers like Wilkerson and Scowcroft come forward.

That's all BS and you know it boutons. Complete BS, you always say the same junk.

[Yonivore]

That's all BS and you know it boutons. Complete BS, you always say the same junk.
Not that I'll see your response unless someone is nice enough to quote you but, just how many planes, buildings, and Islamic extremists were in the U.S. on January 21st, 2001?

[xrayzebra]

Not that I'll see your response unless someone is nice enough to quote you but, just how many planes, buildings, and Islamic extremists were in the U.S. on January 21st, 2001?

You always want to confuse him with facts, don't do that, his walls are all beat up now from where he keeps butting his head.

He will never get his security deposit back.

[Oh, Gee!!]

the republicans are probably working and contributing to society

[Nbadan]

Not that I'll see your response unless someone is nice enough to quote you but, just how many planes, buildings, and Islamic extremists were in the U.S. on January 21st, 2001?

Muhammed Atta didn't re-enter the country until Feb or March of 2001, under the * administration's watch. Before then, Clinton had the FBI watching Atta.

[SpursWoman]

Bush had NOT ONE before September 11. Not ONE. But he got the CIA briefing of Bin Laden planning to atack the US by hijacking planes. And didn't do anything about it. He was warned before thousands lost their lives. HE DID NOTHING about it , unless you count going on vacation as taking action.

Say what you want, Bush knew this and he did nothing to even attempt to prevent it. He had the opportunity to act, regardless of what you want to say about Clinton and liberals.
YOU can not argue that. Period.

He knew the exact day, time and method of a potential attack and did nothing??!?!?? That bastard!


Link?

[Nbadan]

He knew the exact day, time and method of a potential attack and did nothing??!?!?? That bastard!


Link?

Well, the August 6th 2001 memo did say 'Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.' and various foreign intelligence agencies were telling the CIA that Al-Queda was planning to use airplanes as weapons, but I guess all this eluded the WH scrutiny machine.

[SpursWoman]

He knew the exact day, time and method of a potential attack and did nothing??!?!?? That bastard!

[MannyIsGod]

Bullcrap!
They hate us because they are subjected to a religiously indoctrinated brainwashing, engendered from birth where they are taught that the US is the Great Satan. When they exit their mosques they do so with the teachings of intolerance embedded intrinsically into their hearts, minds and souls.

They have zero religious freedom which means they are not allowed to explore options other than what they are taught within the confines of their mosques It's a radically intolerant philosophy and it's passed on from generation to generation.

A large portion hate us why, because we support the Israeli's right to exist? To hell in a handbasket for every verminous cretin on earth that feels that way!




Thread comment; I support the President. :)
I just skimmed through this thread and found this extremely funny. Carry on.

[Nbadan]

He should have knew the exact day, time and method of a potential attack and still did nothing??!?!?? That bastard!

[Dan Rather]

I just skimmed through this thread and found this extremely funny. Carry on.


Your known for that, why don't you stop and read all the facts?

[gtownspur]

Well, the August 6th 2001 memo did say 'Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.' and various foreign intelligence agencies were telling the CIA that Al-Queda was planning to use airplanes as weapons, but I guess all this eluded the WH scrutiny machine.


Oh really dan! Guess what i got some info for you. Osama is still determined to strike america. WHat can you do to stop the next specific attack with that kind of info.. Jack!

[Deadbeat Dad]

He knew the exact day, time and method of a potential attack and did nothing??!?!?? That bastard!


Link?



Pssssst! 1993 was not warning enough?

[Yonivore]

Oh really dan! Guess what i got some info for you. Osama is still determined to strike america. WHat can you do to stop the next specific attack with that kind of info.. Jack!
And, that PDB had the date, time, flight number, names of the terrorists, departure airport, targets, etc... Right Nbadan?

Gee, who the fuck needed intelligence to tell them al Qaeda was determined to strike in the United States? And, in addition to using planes, it was also reported they would use suicide bombers, truck bombs, ship bombs, shoe bombs, grenade launchers, hand-held rocket launchers, etc...

[SpursWoman]

Pssssst! 1993 was not warning enough?


:lol



Well, since apparently he's supposed to have some mystical extra-sensory perception...perhaps he can give me the exact time, location, and kind of shot Tim Duncan will make his next basket so I a can get a vBookie going. This is the first time I've been over $25 in several months and I'm ready for some action. :)

I think some of you guys are confusing not taking immediate action against someone/thing that has already waged violence upon you to expecting some sort of clairvoyance from the current administration. Not saying that they shouldn't have been expecting it from 1993, but almost 10 years later wouldn't really be considered "immediate", do you?

[xrayzebra]

I just skimmed through this thread and found this extremely funny. Carry on.


And your point being???

[xrayzebra]

Well, the August 6th 2001 memo did say 'Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.' and various foreign intelligence agencies were telling the CIA that Al-Queda was planning to use airplanes as weapons, but I guess all this eluded the WH scrutiny machine.

You again are full of BS, as always. He had OBL watched. Where, the empty tents he bombed or the factory he bombed. Was this after he had a poll taken or the focus groups told him which phrases would increase his chances of getting laid.

[SA210]

Oh really dan! Guess what i got some info for you. Osama is still determined to strike america. WHat can you do to stop the next specific attack with that kind of info.. Jack!

The question is, what is Bush doing about it?

[Dos]

I wonder what the ACLU and the left would have done had they rounded up 19 arab men before 911. Don't you think they would have gone bonkers, claiming bush is starting interment camps for innocent arabs... sheeesh...

[Yonivore]

The question is, what is Bush doing about it?
Well, since September 11, 2001, he's:

1) Preventing another attack,
2) Dismantling the organization behind the attack,
3) Dismantling other organizations of like character,
4) Toppling regimes (two, to date) that supported such organizations and engaged in other crimes against the peace and security of their respective regions, humanity, and the United States,
5) Forcing democratic reforms in several other countries (Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) that cesspools of Islamic extremism,
6) Exposing the U.N. for the corrupt body it has been for some time now,
7) Exposing France, Germany, Russia, and British elements for their complicity with Iraq in circumventing the UNSC resolutions and sanctions,
8) I'll think of something in a minute...

A bit more than Clinton did, I'd say.

[xrayzebra]

Well, since September 11, 2001, he's:

1) Preventing another attack,
2) Dismantling the organization behind the attack,
3) Dismantling other organizations of like character,
4) Toppling regimes (two, to date) that supported such organizations and engaged in other crimes against the peace and security of their respective regions, humanity, and the United States,
5) Forcing democratic reforms in several other countries (Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) that cesspools of Islamic extremism,
6) Exposing the U.N. for the corrupt body it has been for some time now,
7) Exposing France, Germany, Russia, and British elements for their complicity with Iraq in circumventing the UNSC resolutions and sanctions,
8) I'll think of something in a minute...

A bit more than Clinton did, I'd say.

damit Yoni, how many times I got to tell you. Quit confusing these people with facts. They have security deposits to protect and you keep making them beating their heads against the wall. They don't want facts they want the New York Times, ABC, and Time magazine to tell them what they want. Don't you understand?

[SA210]

I must ask again, really... What is Bush doing about it?

[Yonivore]

I must ask again, really... What is Bush doing about it?
"I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding." --Samuel Johnson

[SA210]

"Bush and the White House are crapping their pants right now. Yes, I believe they are."

Me

[mcornelio]

Go Dubya!! Ruin This Country Into The Ground!!! Ill Still Vote For U Over Kerry