The last time he got this angry...

[Yonivore]

...and wagged his finger this hard, he was lying to the entire country. Something about not having sexual relations with a chubby, pizza-eatin', intern or something.


http://www.drudgereport.com/bc.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ)
Click Image to view video at YouTube

[boutons_]

Yoni's boy dubya is gettin beat to shit on every front, so Yoni's gotta go back 10 years and drag out Clinton.

Won't work, Yoni, dubya's in the blinding limelight now, not because the Dem's are witchhunting dubya, but because dubya is one stupid, ignorant, murdering motherfucker surrounded by similar assholes who couldn't find their wives asses in the middle of the day.

[Yonivore]

Yoni's boy dubya is gettin beat to shit on every front, so Yoni's gotta go back 10 years and drag out Clinton.

Won't work, Yoni, dubya's in the blinding limelight now, not because the Dem's are witchhunting dubya, but because dubya is one stupid, ignorant, murdering motherfucker surrounded by similar assholes who couldn't find their wives asses in the middle of they day.
Uh, this was taped Sunday.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW09-20-06.jpg

[Clandestino]

Yoni's boy dubya is gettin beat to shit on every front, so Yoni's gotta go back 10 years and drag out Clinton.

Won't work, Yoni, dubya's in the blinding limelight now, not because the Dem's are witchhunting dubya, but because dubya is one stupid, ignorant, murdering motherfucker surrounded by similar assholes who couldn't find their wives asses in the middle of they day.

stupid and ignorant? yet, you always claim he rules everything in the world and concocts crazy conspiracies, rules world oil production, etc...

[Ozzman]

ooo burn.


well, the least I can say is, there is a time and a place for everything, and peace is not what I consider appeasing people. etc, etc, etc.

[SA210]

So basically,
Bill Clinton searched for Bin Laden, and "terrorism" was on his agenda,

but...

Bush, from the time he took office to September 11, 2001, NEVER had even one meeting on Bin Laden or terrorism at all, and cut terrorism funding.

And Bin Laden just isn't important to him anymore nowadays either.

Great thread :tu

[boutons_]

"you always claim he rules everything in the world and concocts crazy conspiracies, rules world oil production,"

link please.

dubya is an ignorant, befuddled puppet with wood for a brain, manipulated by Rove, dickhead, and his corporate owners. dubya is an ineffective wimp who plays, badly, a macho, jock dumbfuck.

[Ya Vez]

dubya is an ignorant, befuddled puppet with wood for a brain, manipulated by Rove, dickhead, and his corporate owners. dubya is an ineffective wimp who plays, badly, a macho, jock dumbfuck.

link please...

[boutons_]

"link please..."

been watching much TV these last 10 years?

[Yonivore]

"link please..."

been watching much TV these last 10 years?
Apparently not the networks received by tin foil hats.

[clambake]

Look, Clinton and Bush have one thing in common.

Clinton wouldn't own up to having sex with that woman, when we all know he did.

Bush won't own up to being a mass murderer, when we all know he is.

Our job is to consider which act is more hideous.

[johnsmith]

Apparently not the networks received by tin foil hats.


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Yonivore]

Kenny! What's the frequency?

[clambake]

Hey, guys, look, I know it's hard to accept. He tried to make up for his absence of 9/11 by going into Afghanistan. We all agreed, stood behind him, and joined together as a nation. Then he went and did the unthinkable. Now his actions have resulted in similar actions committed by bin ladan himself. Murder without just cause is something these 2 enemies share. Bush left us now choice but to go back and examine his character, and what was found is disturbing. How can any christain be an accomplace to murder committed by either one of these killers?

[01Snake]

Hey, guys, look, I know it's hard to accept. He tried to make up for his absence of 9/11 by going into Afghanistan. We all agreed, stood behind him, and joined together as a nation. Then he went and did the unthinkable. Now his actions have resulted in similar actions committed by bin ladan himself. Murder without just cause is something these 2 enemies share. Bush left us now choice but to go back and examine his character, and what was found is disturbing. How can any christain be an accomplace to murder committed by either one of these killers?


:rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

So basically,
Bill Clinton searched for Bin Laden, and "terrorism" was on his agenda,

but...

Bush, from the time he took office to September 11, 2001, NEVER had even one meeting on Bin Laden or terrorism at all, and cut terrorism funding.

And Bin Laden just isn't important to him anymore nowadays either.

Great thread :tu

Huh? Clinton searched for Bin Laden and terrorism was on his agenda.
Bin Laden was offered to him on a silver platter several times and the
CIA had him in their sights once and couldn't get the go ahead from
Mr. Clinton. He was busy coaching an intern more than likely.

You need to remember all the facts, not just the ones you have been
coached on.

[ChumpDumper]

Or the ones you make up, "most lkely."

[Ozzman]

"link please..."

been watching much TV these last 10 years?


wowsers.I always thought you were a web bot, but now I KNOW you're only a badly tempered sixth grader.

[Squid]

Look, Clinton and Bush have one thing in common.

Clinton wouldn't own up to having sex with that woman, when we all know he did.

Bush won't own up to being a mass murderer, when we all know he is.

Our job is to consider which act is more hideous.

Of course the blowjob is more hideous.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

anyone who gives clinton shit for getting a bj should be doused in cambodian bukkake then feathered

[Yonivore]

I think the guys at Powerline hit this nail on the head:

The fruits of an unserious presidency (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015357.php)


Bill Clinton is desperate to be remembered by history for something other than the Lewinsky affair, perjury, and impeachment. And he will be. It's becoming clear that the Clinton legacy will also include eight years of inaction, broken by rare instances of ineffectual action, towards the mounting threat posed by Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists that culminated in 9/11.

That this prospect horrifies Clinton is evident from the rough transcript (http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview) of the former president's interview with Chris Wallace. Clinton has no defense for his feckless response to the mounting terrorist threat other than the honest and very limited defense that he just didn't imagine these guys could successfully attack us on large-scale at home. Clearly that defense won't do, so instead he lashes out at Wallace, Fox News, ABC, and the "right-wing." Somehow, I don't think history will be very impressed with this sort of flailing, or with all of the meaningless inside baseball Clinton tosses around (e.g., "the CIA was run by George Tenet who President Bush gave the medal of freedom to and said he did a good job").

Nor will the fact that President Bush was slow off the mark help Clinton. First, failures by one administration do not excuse failures by another (although they would help support the honest defense that Clinton is unwilling to make -- that it was difficult to comprehend the true extent of the threat). Second, Bush was in a position to create a post-9/11 legacy of fighting terrorism and he'll be remembered for that legacy. Clinton's effort to pull Bush down with him is a fool's errand.

The inescapable fact is that Bill Clinton, for all of his strengths, gave the country an unserious presidency, and it turned out (not surprisingly) that we needed more. Clinton savored the popularity that came with that presidency, but now he must live with its unfortunate and unflattering legacy.

[boutons_]

dubya, object of ridicule world-wide, is a "serious" person?

dubya/Repug adminstration has been profoundly characterized by total inaction, lack of goverance, lack of policies other than cut taxes and protect the super-rich and corps, and above all destroyed by the humongous strategic "action" of the Iraq war.

[Yonivore]

anyone who gives clinton shit for getting a bj should be doused in cambodian bukkake then feathered
How 'bout if we give him shit for lying under oath, asking others to do so, and obstructing justice in an attempt to deny due process (something afforded us in the constitution he had sworn to defend as President) to a citizen who had filed suit against him. How 'bout then?

[Zunni]

How 'bout if we give him shit for lying under oath, asking others to do so, and obstructing justice in an attempt to deny due process (something afforded us in the constitution he had sworn to defend as President) to a citizen who had filed suit against him. How 'bout then?

Hilarious that Bush's digital pimp is bashing someone else for denying due process. Hint: when they release the Book of Presidents, Clinton's pic won't be under the "He Denied Due Process!!" caption. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

A bunch of bullshit. If Clinton was an unserious President, Congress was a veritable laugh riot.

[Yonivore]

Hilarious that Bush's digital pimp is bashing someone else for denying due process. Hint: when they release the Book of Presidents, Clinton's pic won't be under the "He Denied Due Process!!" caption. :lol
No, but when they release the book of Presidents, Clintons pic will be under the "He was Impeached for perjuring himself, getting others to perjur themselves, and then obstructing justice in an effort to deny someone their constitutional right to due process" caption.

[Zunni]

No, but when they release the book of Presidents, Clintons pic will be under the "He was Impeached for perjuring himself, getting others to perjur themselves, and then obstructing justice in an effort to deny someone their constitutional right to due process" caption.
That's a shorter, less negative caption than Bush the Younger will have.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Huh? Clinton searched for Bin Laden and terrorism was on his agenda.
Bin Laden was offered to him on a silver platter several times and the
CIA had him in their sights once and couldn't get the go ahead from
Mr. Clinton. He was busy coaching an intern more than likely.

You need to remember all the facts, not just the ones you have been
coached on.


on a silver platter? Please provide me with anything to back up Osama being offered...

[ChumpDumper]

No, but when they release the book of Presidents, Clintons pic will be under the "He was Impeached for perjuring himself, getting others to perjur themselves, and then obstructing justice in an effort to deny someone their constitutional right to due process" caption.:lol The caption will read "Republicans spent five years and $70 million of taxpayers' money to catch Bill Clinton in a lie about a blowjob, sounding the death knell for the much abused and comically-named Office of Independent Counsel. Only crazed douchebags and idiots who would prefer to avoid talking about current events that reflect poorly upon current leaders argue the $70 million was worth it."

[BeerIsGood!]

How can any christain be an accomplace to murder committed by either one of these killers?

You haven't studied much on the Holy Wars and Inquisition. More people have been killed in the name of "God" than for any other reason. "God" in this world has for centuries been relegated to a device to justify hideous acts of murder and genocide perpetrated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, and just about every other religion. If people really gave a shit what God thought there wouldn't be such a complete disregard for civility. Muslims have actually convinced themselves that "God" wants them to kill every non-Muslim on the planet. Fucking Great.

In the end it's going to come down to another Holy War - Us against Them. West vs. East. Radical Muslim vs. Western Christian. When can we break out the nukes? Might as well end this shit now... for all of us. Why delay the inevitable?

[jochhejaam]

:lol The caption will read "Republicans spent five years and $70 million of taxpayers' money to catch Bill Clinton in a lie about a blowjob, sounding the death knell for the much abused and comically-named Office of Independent Counsel. Only crazed douchebags and idiots who would prefer to avoid talking about current events that reflect poorly upon current leaders argue the $70 million was worth it." :blah :blah
He was partly sucessful. He didn't get the Man but he got the Mon. Thank you Bill for getting the one that brought you shame-fame.

The $70 million is on President Testosterone. If he had been a man of integrity it wouldn't have cost the taxpayers one red cent. But he wasn't... The Ifs and But(t)s are deeply imbedded in his legacy and that without remedy.

Quit defending that moronic act and subsequent lie.
Sex in the Oval Office...what the hail was he thinking!?!

[johnsmith]

You haven't studied much on the Holy Wars and Inquisition. More people have been killed in the name of "God" than for any other reason. "God" in this world has for centuries been relegated to a device to justify hideous acts of murder and genocide perpetrated by Christians, Jews, Muslims, and just about every other religion. If people really gave a shit what God thought there wouldn't be such a complete disregard for civility. Muslims have actually convinced themselves that "God" wants them to kill every non-Muslim on the planet. Fucking Great.

In the end it's going to come down to another Holy War - Us against Them. West vs. East. Radical Muslim vs. Western Christian. When can we break out the nukes? Might as well end this shit now... for all of us. Why delay the inevitable?


The last time there was an East vs. West battle, Rocky Balboa defeated Ivan Drago in a brutal 12 round fight that took place in Moscow. So don't worry about it, if we won then we can probably win again.
It's the eye of the Tiger baby.

[boutons_]

A Combative Clinton Defends Record on Fighting Terrorism

Former President Faults Neocons for Inaction on Bin Laden

By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 24, 2006; A09


http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/09/23/PH2006092301017.jpg


Former president Bill Clinton angrily defended his administration's counterterrorism record during a Fox News interview to be aired today, while accusing "President Bush's neocons" and other Republicans of ignoring Osama bin Laden until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

( The deafening silence from the normally spewing Repugs about the Repug dereliction of duty between Jan and Sep 2001 is absolute proof the that Regpus did fuck all on NatSec in that period, combined with Repugs loudly placing ALL blame for WTC on Clinton. The Repugs are 100% responsible for the WTC attack and they know it.)

Clinton had planned to discuss his climate change initiative during his appearance on "Fox News Sunday," but he turned combative after host Chris Wallace asked why he hadn't "put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business." Clinton shot back that "all the conservative Republicans" who now criticize him for inattention to bin Laden used to criticize him for over-attention to bin Laden.

Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base. By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."

"At least I tried," Clinton said. "That's the difference me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. [b]They (Repugs) had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, [Richard] Clarke, who got demoted."

( For whatever anti-terror strategy Clinton had in place when he left office, it's clear the Repugs completely ignored the terror question until 9/12/01. dickhead's thinking box, inside or outside, didn't include terror. )

Clinton seemed particularly irked by Wallace's reference to his decision in 1993 to pull troops out of Somalia, a move bin Laden later described as a sign of American weakness. Clinton argued that even though many Republicans demanded a withdrawal from Somalia the day after the downing of a Black Hawk helicopter, he kept a U.S. presence there for another six months to ensure an orderly transition to United Nations forces.

That's when the interview got testy, as a Fox transcript reflects:

Clinton : There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it, or even knew al-Qaeda was a going concern in October '93.

Wallace : I understand.

Clinton : No, no, wait. Don't tell me that -- you asked why didn't I do more to bin Laden, there was not a living soul, all the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day. You brought this up, so you get an answer. But you -- secondly,

Wallace : -- Bin Laden says, but it showed the weakness of the United States.

Clinton : Bin Laden may have said it -- but it would have shown the weakness if we left right away. But he wasn't involved in that, that's just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohamed Aideed, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission; we had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or keep anybody out. He was not a religious fanatic --

Wallace : Mr. President --

Clinton : -- there was no al-Qaeda --

Wallace : With respect, if I may, instead of going through '93 and --

Clinton : No, no -- you asked it. You brought it up.

Wallace, a 30-year broadcast veteran who worked at NBC and ABC before Fox, is not usually considered part of the network's conservative commentariat, but Clinton accused him of doing "Fox's bidding" by preparing a "conservative hit job."

He attacked Wallace for failing to ask Bush administration officials why Clarke was demoted from his counterterrorism job: "Tell the truth, Chris. Tell the truth, Chris. Did you ever ask that?" He also complained that Wallace had lured him to the interview "under false pretences," but when Wallace offered to discuss his climate change project, he replied: "No, I want to finish this now."

And so he did, attacking President Bush for focusing on Iraq instead of Afghanistan, urging Americans to read Clarke's book and accusing Republicans of "a serious disinformation campaign" to blame the Clinton administration for losing bin Laden.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," Clinton said. "And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. . . . You got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

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

Here we have President admitting he tried and failed.

While we have another "president" never admitting he ever failed at anything.

Which one is more credible?

The Repug lies and incompetence have been exposed repeatedly.
The Repugs have absolutely no credibility on any issues.
The Repugs have lost the majority of US citizens and the Repugs have lost Iraq.

Of course, Yoni and every other dubya sucker refuses to address Clinton's point that the Repugs didn't even try to make al Quaida and terrorism their priority before 9/11. They attack Clinton for a blowjob because the Repugs total failure of the Repugs on terror is indefensible.

[johnsmith]

Yes, and if Bill Clinton said it, it must be true

[George Gervin's Afro]

From the outset the some on the right immediately began to pass blame on CLinton. Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil said Bush decided that he was going to invade Iraq right after 9/11.. Both said some damaging things about Bush but they were dismissed as 'persons with an agenda'.. I'm glad Clinton is finally defending himself because the GOP talk radio circuit has been sreading half truths and misinformation about him..They can't stand that they are in the minority when it comes to Clinton being respected and admired by the majority in the world.. good I hope Clinton keeps fighting back and exposing what Bush and his buddies have done and not done...

[xrayzebra]

on a silver platter? Please provide me with anything to back up Osama being offered...

Look it up yourself. It happened.

[xrayzebra]

From the outset the some on the right immediately began to pass blame on CLinton. Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil said Bush decided that he was going to invade Iraq right after 9/11.. Both said some damaging things about Bush but they were dismissed as 'persons with an agenda'.. I'm glad Clinton is finally defending himself because the GOP talk radio circuit has been sreading half truths and misinformation about him..They can't stand that they are in the minority when it comes to Clinton being respected and admired by the majority in the world.. good I hope Clinton keeps fighting back and exposing what Bush and his buddies have done and not done...

Clinton was admired only by the village idiots like yourself, butons, Nbadan,
Sa210. He was a two bit whore monger who got rich off of politics, like
many of his kind. The only thing unique about Clinton was he got caught
by a blue dress and lied about it and everything else. Spreading half-truths,
means you even consider them half right, I guess. Nothing you folks
say about Bush is right, not even a little bit.

He is mad because once again, the truth about him is coming out and
he cant do jack to stop it, except cry, whimper and shout I worked
hard (or on one) to capture UBL. But the truth is out he handled that
situation as all others he faced, took a poll to see which way the wind
was blowing, did nothing to rock the boat and bask in the glory of his
press. Screw him, you and all the others like you. The truth is coming
out finally and you don't like it one bit.

[Rocky Balboa]

The last time there was an East vs. West battle, Rocky Balboa defeated Ivan Drago in a brutal 12 round fight that took place in Moscow. So don't worry about it, if we won then we can probably win again.
It's the eye of the Tiger baby.

Yo, it was 15 rounds, ya know!

[Drago]

Yo, it was 15 rounds, ya know!

I must break you.

[BeerIsGood!]

The last time there was an East vs. West battle, Rocky Balboa defeated Ivan Drago in a brutal 12 round fight that took place in Moscow. So don't worry about it, if we won then we can probably win again.
It's the eye of the Tiger baby.
:lol That was with the Solviets. They were as power hungry as we were and didn't want to die as much as we don't. Now we have these Muslims who want to die as long as they kill us... because they are fucking brainwashed lunatics. We could keep the Solviets in check and did for several decades. It's just a matter of time 'til one of these lunatics gets his grubby little sand encrusted hands on a nuke or dirty bomb... and uses it. Chances are we'll be sitting on our hands when that happens, just like we are now.


On a side note... that's why I'm buying that new Porche. Who needs an IRA during nuclear winter?? :lol :lol :lol j/k.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"At least I tried," Clinton said. "That's the difference [between] me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They (Repugs) had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.

:lmao

"I had eight years, he had eight months (editorial note: what would getting bin Laden in the eight months preceding 9/11 have done? The plot was already set in motion at that point and we still would have been attacked), the Republicans need to quit saying mean things about me."

Boo fucking hoo.

[ChumpDumper]

Quit defending that moronic act and subsequent lie. Quit defending that complete moronic waste of $70 million. You remember what the investigation was supposed to be about don't you?
Sex in the Oval Office...what the hail was he thinking!?!:lmao You think that's the first time that's ever happened?

[BeerIsGood!]

Quit defending that complete moronic waste of $70 million. You remember what the investigation was supposed to be about don't you?:lmao You think that's the first time that's ever happened?
I bet Grover Cleveland used to get his rocks salted all the time.

[ChumpDumper]

No shit.

Would we prefer never to have had Eisenhower as President or even Supreme Commander for D-Day because he was fucking his secretary?

Be honest.

[jochhejaam]

:lmao You think that's the first time that's ever happened?
The first time anyone was dumb enough to get caught.

Smooth Bill, very smooth...

[ChumpDumper]

The first time anyone was dumb enough to get caught.

Smooth Bill, very smooth...Nah, Ike and JFK's extracirricular activities were well known.

That Congress, led by Republicans with their own well-known trysts, was the only one to make a big deal out of it.

Smooth, very smooth.

[SA210]

:lmao

"I had eight years, he had eight months (editorial note: what would getting bin Laden in the eight months preceding 9/11 have done? The plot was already set in motion at that point and we still would have been attacked), the Republicans need to quit saying mean things about me."

Boo fucking hoo.

Well, let's speak truthfully around here and talk some real facts.

First off, I'm not a Democrat, so please stop calling it my party.

In those first 8 months that George W. Bush took office,
Bush never had a single meeting on Bin Laden or terrorism, and he cut terrorism funding. FACT!

He was warned in the CIA briefing a month before 9/11 that Bin Laden was planning an attack on the US, and still, Bush didn't have a meeting about it. FACT!

Richard Clarke from the time Bush took office through the intire eight months, continued to warn Bush about an attack from Al Qaeda, and Bush ignored it completely. FACT!

Clinton left an anti-terror strategy plan that Bush COMPLETELY ignored. Why?
They simply thought Clinton was too obsessed with Bin Laden. :lol FACT!

But elections are coming, so now Bin Laden is important again, and you guys need to throw blame back on the guy that warned This administration about Bin Laden to begin with.

I know you want to deny these facts. But please, where is you're loyalty?

To a man, or to your country?

Honestly, please tell the truth for once, because you guys seem to have more loyalty to a man than to your own country and it's sickening.

There is a huge difference between trying and NOT trying at all. Bill Clinton tried and Bush DIDN'T. FACT!

By the way..

It's been a whole 5 years that Bush has not caught Bin Laden after the 9/11 attack. FACT!

It's going on 6 years since he took office that Bush has not found Bin Laden. FACT!

6 years and Bush still hasn't caught Bin Laden? What?

But it's ok, he's spending over 300 Billion in Iraq. Huh? Iraq?

Maybe the corrupt, lying, murdering, un-Christian, Republicans are opening a can of worms they really shouldn't.

You guys are always lying and spinning and twisting what you can't win by truth, which is basically everything. Now I see that you want to blame Clinton on this interview because he says he couldn't get the C.I.A. or the F.B.I. to certify that Bin Laden was responsible for the USS Cole.

On Fox News they are spinning this as "Well wasn't he the Commander in Chief?" "Wasn't he the President and couldn't he just DO IT with or without the CIA or FBI certifying that Bin Laden was responsible?"

That's funny, because it reminds me of questions about why Bush just couldn't get help to the people of New Orleans despite his recurring arguements that basically there is a City/State response, then the Government comes in after the fact, it's how that works. :rolleyes

What was all this State stuff Mr. Bush and you Bush supporters were talking about? Why the death toll that you could have prevented? Oh, there were State guidlines? Oh, I see ...:rolleyes

Why couldnt he just go into New Orleans and save these people? He's a leader, he's Commander in Chief isn't he? Oh yea, it's ok, because it's Bush, and it was only black people, and his vacation was more important.

Here is some truth you want to ignore.



Clinton said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden, and even "contracted with people to kill him." He also said he had a plan to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban and hunt for bin Laden after the attack on the USS Cole, but the CIA and FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible, and Uzbekistan refused to allow the United States to set up a base. By contrast, Clinton said the Bush administration's neoconservatives "had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months," believing he had been "too obsessed with bin Laden."


1/7th of our effort overseas is in Afghanistan, after our death toll on 9/11 and after Bush's promise to capture Osama.

Besides our precious American losses, there are over 130,000 innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed because of this terrible corrupt murderous disaster.

130,000 innocent Iraqi civilians DEAD! and still going....

Defend this, and futher prove how you are more loyal to a single man than you are to the truth, justice, and to your own country. Sellout lying traitors you are to the precious people who died on 9/11.

Now you want to play the blame game after many times of not wanting to play the blame game? How interesting.

For a President so much for the people of America and capturing Osama, defend this, and show your loyalty. Shame on you.

These are your leaders words on Bin Laden. PERIOD!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_binladen.jpg

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Gee, I'm sure Clinton's bitching and moaning had nothing at all to do with a response to the ABC miniseries :rolleyes


Richard Clarke from the time Bush took office through the intire eight months, continued to warn Bush about an attack from Al Qaeda, and Bush ignored it completely. FACT!

Richard Clarke is a moron and a pacifist, and a mouthpiece of the Democratic party. There's no bias in what he says at all :rolleyes

[boutons_]

Clarke had 8 years as Clinton's al-Quaida guy, and was a much bigger hawk on al-Quaida than anybody in dubya's Admin.

Clarke's problem was that he was seen as a Clinton guy (it didn't matter than he was right about the al-Quaida threat), so he was demoted/buried and taken out of direct contact with dubya and top NatSec meetings.

The way the Repugs have exploited 9/11 for their own political gains makes me believe that they consider the WTC attack to have been a gift from OBL, eg, a justification for the phony Iraq war which had been a dickhead/wolfowitz pre-occupation even befoe dubya was elected.

[SA210]

Gee, I'm sure Clinton's bitching and moaning had nothing at all to do with a response to the ABC miniseries :rolleyes
Gee, I'm sure his human being reaction came from the question posed to him from this agenda to attack him because of the elections coming up. To take away and divert attention from this administration's responsibilities, actions, and inactions.


Richard Clarke is a moron and a pacifist, and a mouthpiece of the Democratic party. There's no bias in what he says at all :rolleyes
He's a pacifist? So, you'd listen to him more if he were a more "Christian-like" war monger?

And how much of a pacifist is he considering that he warned Bush and told him we need to go our "battle stations" to protect us from an attack that Bush ignored? Yea, a pacifist. :rolleyes

I think that you really just don't have an arguement.

He's a moron? Well, ok, that went nowhere.
A mouthpiece for Dems? He did work under Reagan and both Bush's by the way.

You have done exactly what I said in my previous post. You've ignored most of it, because you can't defend REAL truth, and spun the little bit that had nothing to do with it.

And you prove that you are more loyal to a man George W. Bush, than you are to your nation and to the precious people who died on 9/11.

That just sickens me beyond words. See you in November.

[01Snake]

STAND BACK!! SA210 just got back from seeing Bill Mauer and is loaded with new material!! God help us all! :lol

[SA210]

STAND BACK!! SA210 just got back from seeing Bill Mauer and is loaded with new material!! God help us all! :lol
Another post that ignores the facts of what was said. Why? For lack of a truthful arguement. Alot of people know the truth though, and they are sick of it too. There is no NEW material by the way.

These are things that have been said before, but always ignored and spun as you guys always do, evading responsibility.

[RandomGuy]

Gawd, we are re-hashing Clinton again.

The robots who defend everything Bush does are accusing Clinton of everything bad.

Yawn. The same people who accuse boutons of being a 'bot have the same knee-jerk reaction when it comes to Clinton.

(sighs)

[Nbadan]

Wallace falsehood: said in Clinton interview that he asked Bush admin officials "plenty of questions" about failure to catch bin Laden

Summary: During his interview with former President Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Clinton why he failed to "do more" during his presidency to put Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden "out of business," a question, Clinton said, Fox News "do not ask the other side." Wallace denied the charge, responding, "That is not true."

---

Here is a list of senior Bush administration officials interviewed on Fox News Sunday since September 11, 2001. (White House press secretary Tony Snow previously hosted the program. Wallace succeeded him in December 2003.):

* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; 9/10/06
* National Security adviser Stephen Hadley; 8/6/06
* Rice; 7/16/06
* Rice; 6/4/06
* Rice; 5/21/06
* Rice; 3/26/06
* Rice; 12/18/05
* Hadley; 12/4/05
* Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; 11/20/05
* Rice; 10/16/05
* Rumsfeld; 6/26/05
* Rice; 6/19/05
* Hadley; 5/15/05
* Then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card; 5/1/05
* Rumsfeld; 3/20/05
* Hadley; 3/13/05
* Vice President Dick Cheney; 2/6/05
* Rice; 1/30/05
* Rice (then-National Security adviser); 10/10/04
* Rice; 6/27/04
* Rice; 6/6/04
* Rice; 4/18/04
* Rumsfeld; 3/28/04
* Card; 12/7/03
* Rumsfeld; 11/2/03
* Rice; 9/28/03
* Rice; 9/7/03
* Rice; 7/13/03
* Rumsfeld; 5/4/03
* Rumsfeld; 3/30/03
* Rice; 2/16/03
* Card; 1/26/03
* Rumsfeld; 1/19/03
* Rice; 11/10/02
* Rice; 9/15/02
* Card; 6/9/02
* Rice; 5/26/02
* Cheney; 5/19/02
* Rice; 5/5/02
* Card; 4/14/02
* Rice; 2/3/02
* Cheney; 1/27/02
* Rumsfeld; 11/11/01

In the March 28, 2004, interview with Rumsfeld, Wallace did press him on whether the Department of Defense should have "been thinking more about" terrorism prior to 9-11 and asked him to respond to the "basic charge that, pre-9-11 ... this government, the Bush administration, largely ignored the threat from Al Qaeda." Referring to Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9-11 Commission regarding the Defense Department's anti-terrorism efforts, Wallace remarked, "it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."

But beyond this exchange, the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda...hummm..

Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002)

[BeerIsGood!]

how long did it take to dig that stuff up?

[JoeChalupa]

Way to go Bill. About time he started firing back. That is the way the Democrats must be. Enough of the PC bull crap.

[RandomGuy]

I think Clinton had a very good point.

He was roundly critized at the time by the con'bots for "obsessing" with bin Laden, and using military strikes to "distract" from the Lewinsky thing, or to make himself look more "presidential".

Clinton: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993, the next day after we were involved in Black Hawk Down, and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations"

I remember all of this very clearly. The rabid Clinton-haters did everything they could to drag him down and, in my opinion, began the real poisoning of the national debate.

I think the level of vitriol leveled at Bush is actually less than the level of vitriol hurled at Clinton. Bush has gotten a free ride due to 9-11 up until about a year ago.

Quite frankly from reading the whole exchange, I think Clinton said what needed to be said.


Why did the Bush administration demote Richard Clarke?


Former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke left the White House in January 2003, shortly after being demoted by the Bush administration. He subsequently criticized the administration's response to the alarming intelligence delivered prior to 9-11. During the September 24 interview, Clinton said that Clarke was "loyal" to former presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. Clinton then noted that despite Clarke's loyalty, the Bush administration "downgraded him and the terrorist operation," which prompted Clinton to ask Wallace, "I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?' " Clinton later said: "This country only has one person who's worked against terror, from the terrorist incidents under Reagan to the terrorist incidents on 9-11. Only one: Richard Clarke."

If con'bots were so concerned about terrorism they would have supported their Democrat president more. Instead they sought short-sighted poltical gain. They got what they wanted: the white house and congress, and we have been paying the price for that ever since.

The GOP simply can't be trusted with either domestic policy or our security. While I don't have 100% faith in current Democratic leadership, I think the balance of smart and pragmatic people in government and policy making tend to be in the progressive camp. Those progressives tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic. That is why I will throw my lot in with that party.

[johnsmith]

Regardless of Clinton's failure to get Bin Laden, I think his biggest mistake while in office was cutting the military budget so dramatically........oh, and lying under oath and all that stuff.........but that was more funny then anything else.

[RandomGuy]

I would further point out, without even reading any of the subsequent posts to the originating one, that conservatives here will/have without exception do little other than simply attack the man's character and completely fail to address anything he actually said.

I would love to be proved wrong, but I doubt I will be.

[johnsmith]

I would further point out, without even reading any of the subsequent posts to the originating one, that conservatives here will/have without exception do little other than simply attack the man's character and completely fail to address anything he actually said.

I would love to be proved wrong, but I doubt I will be.

Yeah, but a President's character is a very reasonable subject to debate. I mean, he does lead the entire country and has quite a bit of "stroke" throughout the rest of the world.

[johnsmith]

I just don't believe a word that comes out of Clinton's mouth.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, but a President's character is a very reasonable subject to debate. I mean, he does lead the entire country and has quite a bit of "stroke" throughout the rest of the world.

You are right on both points.

But this is more of a character assassination than a serious attempt to get at efficacy, and much of the language used by Yoni and others supports that thesis.

Clinton did what he could under the constraints he had to deal with, both at home and abroad. Unfortunately for the nation, the Lewinsky thing led conservatives to smell weakness and limit his hand at time where he needed support to effectively deal with this.

The only really truly effective thing he could have done to get at bin Laden and the Taliban, namely the invasion of Afghanistan simply wasn't politically possible before 9-11, either in a domestic sense or a foreign one.

[RandomGuy]

I just don't believe a word that comes out of Clinton's mouth.

Why do you say that?

[johnsmith]

You are right on both points.

But this is more of a character assassination than a serious attempt to get at efficacy, and much of the language used by Yoni and others supports that thesis.

Clinton did what he could under the constraints he had to deal with, both at home and abroad. Unfortunately for the nation, the Lewinsky thing led conservatives to smell weakness and limit his hand at time where he needed support to effectively deal with this.

The only really truly effective thing he could have done to get at bin Laden and the Taliban, namely the invasion of Afghanistan simply wasn't politically possible before 9-11, either in a domestic sense or a foreign one.


I agree, that's why I'm saying that Clinton's largest mistake while in office was to cut military spending, not his failure to get Bin Laden.
Without Bin Laden, Al Queda still hates America, the figure head is just that, a figure head, nothing more, nothing less.
They are proving it right now, Bin Laden is probably dead and yet we still are fighting a war on terrorism........why is that?

[RandomGuy]

The thing that I really can't get is how it can be said that Clinton "wasn't serious" about being president and running the country.

I personally watched a few (3 or 4) press conferences Clinton gave on CSPAN with no editing or commentary. Just the naked happening.

Clinton in each one of those instances was well prepared and briefed, and almost invariably spoke with some knowledge in an erudite way on what he was asked.

If Clinton wasn't a "serious" president, what can one call a president that spends more time on "vacation" than any other in modern history and sleeps through briefings? One who nominates a neophyte buddy to the supreme court? One who appoints a horse-show judge to run FEMA? One who fires Richard Clarke in favor of a loyalist?

Clinton was more concerned with competence than loyalty, and the fact that he actually had a republican in his cabinet, along with a habit of appointing republicans to his administration speaks volumes.

Clinton was far from perfect, but he was far from what many conservative ideologues paint him to be.

[RandomGuy]

I agree, that's why I'm saying that Clinton's largest mistake while in office was to cut military spending, not his failure to get Bin Laden.
Without Bin Laden, Al Queda still hates America, the figure head is just that, a figure head, nothing more, nothing less.
They are proving it right now, Bin Laden is probably dead and yet we still are fighting a war on terrorism........why is that?

Think about the point in history that Clinton was at.

Our largest military threat, the Soviet Union evaporated in front of our eyes.

We drew down several divisions at the time I was in the military, and that made a lot of sense at the time, and still does. Our whole military was structured around countering the Warsaw Pact's overwhelming numbers, and building a defense shield to counter Russian nukes.

With the easing of tensions neither was a priority, and NO ONE at the time thought what was happening didn't make sense. Other than the congress people who had bases that were scheduled for closing that is. :lol

As for why we are fighting even though bin Laden is dead, we were slow to realize how the "war" on terror is a PR war, with some military aspects, rather than the opposite.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I just don't believe a word that comes out of Clinton's mouth.


Well I don't believe George "stockpiles of wmds" Bush either..

[boutons_]

I think most administrations up to these motherfucking Repugs were serious in discharging their responsibility to actually RUN the fucking government, to make it function and serve the people.

There have been many commentaries about how dubya's Admin has NO policies, no actions, only inaction (eg, on terrorism prior to 9/11) no interest whatsover in actually governing, only in winning power to advance their pillaging of governement and gaming the system, and has used incompetent, political appointees parachuted into all deptarments (eg, Brownie/FEMA, Bremer/PA, oil lobbyists/BLM, etc) to play politics rather than make the govt operate as defined. The political hacks frustrate and drive away the career professionals/civil service who have always made the govt work. The Brits do a much better job in protecting their Civil Service from being raped by the specific political party in power.

The people dubya sent to Iraq under the Provisional Authority were vetted by a Repug political operative in the Pentagon for their views on homosexuality, gay marriage, global warming, enivorment, who they voted for, etc, but NOT for their competence and experience for the task they were being handed. A 24 year old kid was sent to set up the Iraq stock exchange.

As Krugman and many other have pointed out, when your Repug/neo-con ideology hates and distrusts government (at least those parts of govt that don't enrich the corps) as illegitimate and even illegal (libertarian nutcases), the Repugs running the govt badly is proof that govt really is bad, a willful, cynical, dishonest self-fulfilling prophecy.

[101A]

RG, you are right about Clinton's Press Conferences. As much as I often disagreed with him politically, I wish we had such an intelligent communicator to get America's message out into the world in these very difficult times. Unfortunately, I don't see any of the current presidential hopefulls, on either side, with that kind of charisma.

As for terrorism; be honest, people, neither Reagon, Bush Sr., Clinton OR GW took it seriously enough. The muslims have been dinging us for DECADES and all we've done is lob a few cruise missiles here and there.

Saddam should have been a non-issue 'cause we should have taken his ass out during Desert Storm- we had the world behind us, and he had the ire of damn near everyone because he had invaded another country! Legitimacy, opportunity? You bet.

Monday morning quarterbacking is easy now, however, that doesn't change the fact that things suck in the world right about now, and we need a bad-ass to pull us out, have novel ideas, sell those ideas to the country and the world - I just don't see that person. Unfortunately, the most charasmatic politicians in the world right now are bad-guys.

[johnsmith]

Well I don't believe George "stockpiles of wmds" Bush either..


Neither do I. Clinton was/is a liar and proved himself as such. I don't think Bush is a liar, I honestly don't. I do however think Bush is an idiot though and his pure jackassedness is sometimes mistaken for lies.

Dem's and Repub's both suck ass and can't accomplish anything because they just bicker back and forth like little women.

[01Snake]

Dem's and Repub's both suck ass and can't accomplish anything because they just bicker back and forth like little women.

EXACTLY! Whatever party is in charge means the other will work 24/7 to smear it and try to sway public opinion. I actually find it a fucking joke. Both parties do it and have been doing it for years. For some reason, I don't see this pattern chaging anytime soon.

[101A]

Neither do I. Clinton was/is a liar and proved himself as such. I don't think Bush is a liar, I honestly don't. I do however think Bush is an idiot though and his pure jackassedness is sometimes mistaken for lies.

Dem's and Repub's both suck ass and can't accomplish anything because they just bicker back and forth like little women.


I voted for GW twice, and given the chance, and the same opponents, I probably would again BUT...although he might not be a liar, I believe there are liars in decision making arms of the administration, and people with less than altruistic motives (or simply horrendous foresight).

[101A]

EXACTLY! Whatever party is in charge means the other will work 24/7 to smear it and try to sway public opinion. I actually find it a fucking joke. Both parties do it and have been doing it for years. For some reason, I don't see this pattern chaging anytime soon.

You are correct, but don't take it far enough. Each party is always trying to smear the other party, regardless of which is "in power".

If you think about it, ours being the only super-power in the world, and having only TWO parties; neither party is ever all that powerless; it behooves each to foster the system as it is so that each can remain as one of the two top dogs. It's worked for nearly a century and a half, hasn't it?

[johnsmith]

I voted for GW twice, and given the chance, and the same opponents, I probably would again


See, that's the worst part too, because it's the same for me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Neither do I. Clinton was/is a liar and proved himself as such. I don't think Bush is a liar, I honestly don't. I do however think Bush is an idiot though and his pure jackassedness is sometimes mistaken for lies.

Dem's and Repub's both suck ass and can't accomplish anything because they just bicker back and forth like little women.


I think Clinton lied buit I don't consider him a lair. I assume you have lied in the past but that does not make you a liar.. I have lied in my youth..does that make me a liar?


I agree with your second assessment 100%

[johnsmith]

I think Clinton lied buit I don't consider him a lair. I assume you have lied in the past but that does not make you a liar.. I have lied in my youth..does that make me a liar?


I agree with your second assessment 100%


Yeah, that's true. But still, Clinton is the biggest pimp ever to step foot in the oval office. You honestly have to respect a guy that cheated on his wife, lied to the entire country about it, got caught, and then convinced all of us that it really wasn't a big deal. Gotta love the guy.

[johnsmith]

Why is it do you suppose that this interview is getting so much press coverage? It doesn't really make anyone look bad, and even Clinton defends himself nicely and yet it is being shown constantly and was on every damn news channel for the entire weekend.

[101A]

I think Clinton lied buit I don't consider him a lair. I assume you have lied in the past but that does not make you a liar.. I have lied in my youth..does that make me a liar?


I agree with your second assessment 100%


Assuming Clinton got married in a Church, and does believe in god, he made vows before god and a large group of people to his wife that are about as serious of vows as you can take. He has broken THAT vow consistently throughout his marriage, by all accounts. If a man will lie about that, and to his wife, he will lie about anything, to anyone. He is, in fact, a liar, not simply one who lied.

The other notable falsehood off the top of my head:

When he claimed to have watched black churches burn as a youth. It never happened. There are many other fibs he was caught in (admittedly none took the country to war), but the man is a liar.

[RandomGuy]

Why is it do you suppose that this interview is getting so much press coverage? It doesn't really make anyone look bad, and even Clinton defends himself nicely and yet it is being shown constantly and was on every damn news channel for the entire weekend.


I think it is probably because this is the first time that Clinton has in a very public way, addressed his critics, as well as for the fact that he was a bit testy about it. Good for him. His detractors have been placed ever less substantiated assertions on him and it is about time he stood up to them.

[RandomGuy]

The biggest hole in the "blame Clinton but not Bush" thing, is something Clinton himself brought up:

The one guy in both administrations, Richard Clarke, who was MOST concerned about bin Laden and Al Qaeda, was effectively dissmissed and replaced with (surprise!) a loyalist with less credentials.

IF Clinton was unconcerned with Al Qaeda, AND Bush was VERY concerned, why was the most vocal proponent of strong action replaced by the Bush administration?

I don't really blame either that much. Until 9-11, most terrorist attacks agains US targets, didn't do a whole heck of a lot. Al Qaeda just wasn't that big a deal on anyone's priority list, Democrat or Republican.

I DO think that Bush was more unconcerned with the threat we faced. The replacement of Clarke and other evidence supports that. Bush didn't know much about the rest of the world, and obviously didn't care to know. Bush 2000 ran on the "morals" backlash against Clinton, and tax cuts.

[boutons_]

Repugs, neo-cons, right-wingers have been pissed off since Bush I, esp since 94, even after they won controlled WH, Senate, House, and stuffed the SC.

Clinton finally gets pissed off once and he's "lost it", "out of control", is a 24x7 news headline.

The fucking Repugs are wimps and really can't stand anybody pushing their feces back in their faces.

Clinton was badly distracted from doing his job by Repug/right-wing witch hunts, a job that included full concentration on al-Qaida and terrorism.

Whitewater (nothing) FLAG, Mellon Scaife, House impeachment (voted down), $Ms in legal fees, 100s of hours with attorneys.

But now Clinton is blamed for not doing enough on terrrorism, maybe he was busy defending himself from witchhunts, while the Repugs assume no blame for their total inaction before 9/11.


"first time that Clinton has in a very public way, addressed his critics"

nope:

"Clinton has on occasion scolded other interviewers, most notably in a 2004 sitdown with ABC's Peter Jennings, who drew this response after alluding to Clinton's personal misconduct: "You don't want to go here, Peter. . . . Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked."

Wallace said the surprise is not that he asked Clinton about terrorism but that no other television interviewer did during a round of appearances last week. Clinton, Wallace said, remained "upset" and "angry" after the interview."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

[101A]

... a job that included full concentration on al-Qaida and terrorism.


As much as you make some decent points (through all of the name calling), that right there is revisionist history. I thought you were just a "repug" hater, I didn't realize you were sometimes a shill for the democrats.

[johnsmith]

As much as you make some decent points (through all of the name calling), that right there is revisionist history. I thought you were just a "repug" hater, I didn't realize you were sometimes a shill for the democrats.


What a "Dimmocrat" he's proven himself to be..............I fucking hate Boutons with a passion that burns hotter then the flames of hell.

[boutons_]

Defending Clinton against Repug witchhunts and dissenting against Repug phony wars doesn't mean I'm a Democratic supporter, but your error is typical, repeated widely, and expected.

I blame dubya on the Democrats. That motherfucker never should have won in 2000, had the Democrats not had their heads up their asses (they still do).

[101A]

Defending Clinton against Repug witchhunts and dissenting against Repug phony wars doesn't mean I'm a Democratic supporter, but your error is typical, repeated widely, and expected.

I blame dubya on the Democrats. That motherfucker never should have won in 2000, had the Democrats not had their heads up their asses (they still do).


Where did I err? You stated in plain words that one of the Clinton adminstration's main focuses was terrorism and OBL. I think you are giving undue credit to that administration, and what I, and many, see as a lack of focus on terrorism. I have never considered you an apologist for any party, so that surprised me. Making proclamations on behalf of a party which are exagerations is generally reserved to those who are proponents (shills if you will) of that party.

[boutons_]

Clinton with Clarke, etc recognized the al-Quaida/terrorist threat and were trying kill OBL.

Clinton wanted to react militarily to the Cole bombing but CIA/FBI couldn't tie it to any particular group.

Clinton trying to assassinate OBL with a cruise missle got pilloried by the Repugs and right wing as a an attempt to distract from the Repugs witchhunt of Clinton.

Was Clinton aggresive enough? probably not, and certainly not effective, as Clinton himself admits (which is one more admission than you'll EVER hear from dubya) but at least he was trying and recognized the importance of a non-Democratic professional anti-terrorist expert like Clarke.

Although being president is enormously complicated, defending the country, esp after the first WTC attack, the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks (Reagan tucked his tail between his legs and got the fuck out ASAP. The terrorists were probably encouraged by Reagan NOT attacking Iran for the Tehran Embassy destruction, but St Ronnie gets a pass.), etc, etc must be one of the president's primary, most time-consumig (but behind the curtains jobs). It became so for dubya, ONLY AFTER 9/11. dubya dropped the anti-terrorist ball as handed off from the Clinton administration, refusing to take terrorism seriously.

Dubya just fucked it up by going into Iraq for totally ideological, non-terrorsist reaons, when he should have listened, as Clinton did, to the serious doubts from his intelligence branches.

How the Repugs conducted themselves against Clinton certainly had to distract Clinton and his staff from more important jobs, like focusing on NatSec on the terrorists.

Clinton's presidency baptized in fire with the WTC truck bombing only one month after Clintion took office.

dubya and his team of jokers figured they could ignore the entire NatSec/terrorist issue as defined by Clinton (which by their ideological definition was worthless and ignorable simply because it came from Democrats and the hated Clinton) until the Repugs "got around to it", which they still hadn't done on 9/11. The Repug priority, pre-9/11, was ramming through tax cuts, was not NatSec and terrorism.

Clinton tried and failed on NatSec, with plenty of vicious hindrance from the Repugs.

dubya didn't even try before 9/11 (and the Repugs haven't even tried to defend their non-activty before 9/11, knowing the record is absent, so they slime Clinton as weak on NatSec). Now dubya's major try has fucked up US security by destabilizing the ME in Iran's and terrorists favor by removing Saddam, who we can see now had a value as a non-threatening counter to Iran, as he was for the US in the 80s.

I don't see how any of the above is shilling for the Dems. As I've said here before, I don't fucking care who's in office as long as they do their job seriously, competently, responsibly. The Repugs clearly haven't serious or competent, by their own willful negligence, while starting a phony war, and blaming everything on Clinton.

[Yonivore]

http://static.flickr.com/94/250118125_6e92ef33b9_o.jpg

[Yonivore]

What a "Dimmocrat" he's proven himself to be..............I fucking hate Boutons with a passion that burns hotter then the flames of hell.
I think "Dhimmicrat" is more appropriate. Unless, of course, he's already converted to Islam.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni I've often wondered why you have not enlisted to fight in Iraq? The way you whore the war you would actually believe that you had the balls to sign up for the fight. I guess your like alot of republicans who sit state side and criticize anyone who dares stray from Bush's beliefs..even if they are wrong..

[Yonivore]

Yoni I've often wondered why you have not enlisted to fight in Iraq? The way you whore the war you would actually believe that you had the balls to sign up for the fight. I guess your like alot of republicans who sit state side and criticize anyone who dares stray from Bush's beliefs..even if they are wrong..
I bet you've often wondered.

[boutons_]

I've bagged JS, like shooting fish in a barrel.

And I've had the cretinous dumbfuck on IGNORE since about his 3rd post. :lol

[johnsmith]

I've bagged JS, like shooting fish in a barrel.

And I've had the cretinous dumbfuck on IGNORE since about his 3rd post. :lol


"I've bagged JS, like shooting fish in a barrel"..........pick a cliche and stick with it.

Also, how would you know I've been posting about you then if you had me on ignore?

[johnsmith]

Yoni I've often wondered why you have not enlisted to fight in Iraq? The way you whore the war you would actually believe that you had the balls to sign up for the fight. I guess your like alot of republicans who sit state side and criticize anyone who dares stray from Bush's beliefs..even if they are wrong..

Come on GGA. People like Yoni and any other conservative are free to address their opinions on the war just like you guys are free to express your dislike for it. He doesn't have to go to war in order to support it. My guess is that if there wasn't a war, he still wouldn't join the military, much like myself. Does that make us bad Americans, no, of course not.
If we want to use the logic you're using on this one then address the following: Why aren't you in Washington DC personally lobbying against the war efforts?

Obviously you aren't going to go to DC now, just like obviously Yoni won't join the military. So let's not throw things like this out there. I know you know better, your posts are always good one.

[johnsmith]

I've bagged JS, like shooting fish in a barrel.

And I've had the cretinous dumbfuck on IGNORE since about his 3rd post. :lol


However, this would be rather symbolic of your attitude towards life in general. "Someone doesn't agree with me? Well, then I'd better just ignore him and continue to throw out the same shit over and over again".

[CommanderMcBragg]

The Democrats need to fight back or else the republicans will ride America's fear once again.

[RandomGuy]

[picture of a guy with a sign]

That was funny, and good satire.

[ChumpDumper]

And suspiciously high-quality printing.

[RandomGuy]

The Democrats need to fight back or else the republicans will ride America's fear once again.

I think the dems are getting a bit more effective at it. Too bad it has taken them years to figure out how to beat Rove. It is a testimony to his craftmanship, even if he is evil incarnate.

[Nbadan]

I think the dems are getting a bit more effective at it. Too bad it has taken them years to figure out how to beat Rove. It is a testimony to his craftmanship, even if he is evil incarnate.

:lol

Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?

[Yonivore]

:lol

Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?
Wow! I must have missed the indictments for those crimes.

[101A]

:lol

Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?

Well, if you put it THAT way...with AL Capone.

[101A]

Well, if you put it THAT way...with AL Capone.

But what does all of that have to do with Karl Rove?

[Nbadan]

The Democrats need to fight back or else the republicans will ride America's fear once again.

hummm...are you afraid? I'm not.

Manufactured threats aren't the same thing as 911, and people aren't stupid, they see reports like the one that came out this weekend detailing how the war in Iraq has increased the chance of terra and they don't see a plan for getting out of Iraq, or even capturing Osama bin Laden or his co-leader Al-Zawhiri. Those are gonna be the two big issues going into Nov 7th for voters not fear.

[Yonivore]

hummm...are you afraid? I'm not.

Manufactured threats aren't the same thing as 911, and people aren't stupid, they see reports like the one that came out this weekend detailing how the war in Iraq has increased the chance of terra and they don't see a plan for getting out of Iraq, or even capturing Osama bin Laden or his co-leader Al-Zawhiri. Those are gonna be the two big issues going into Nov 7th for voters not fear.
That's the problems Dan. They haven't "seen" the report. They've only seen what one reporter cherry-picked from already cherry-picked information leaked from a classified NIE by an employee with unknown motives for doing so. Just because the headline says the war in Iraq has increased the chance of terror and just because the portions of a classified NIE that were leaked could be characterized to say that, doesn't mean those were the conclusions of the NIE or that the NIE was saying this affected legitimacy of the war in Iraq.

The headline of the Washington Post article, that started all this, reads, "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html)."

Neither you nor I have any idea whether the National Intelligence Estimate upon which the story relies actually says this, but Karen DeYoung's report gives one little confidence (a) that she is reporting fully and accurately on the NIE and (b) that our "spy agencies" have any sound basis for such a conclusion.

De Young's story conflates a number of different alleged phenomena: (1) terrorism is becoming more decentralized, (2) successful recruting of terrorists is on the rise, (3) terrorists are using the Iraq war as the centerpiece of their recruiting campaigns, (4) the sitation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position with respect to fighting terrorism.

De Young's confusion (or the confusion she induces in the reader) reaches its climax when she proclaims that the "conclusions and tone" of the NIE "have been reflected in a number of public statements by senior intelligence officials this year." De Young cites a statement by John Negroponte that "[m]y colleagues and I sill view the global jihadist terrorist movement, which emerged from the Afghan-Soviet conflict in the 1980s but is today inspired and led by al Qaeda, as the preeiminent threat to our citizens, homeland interests and friends." This statement may have some very slight connection to phenomena (1) and (2) cited above, but they do not "reflect" phenomena (3) and (4) at all.

De Young also cites a statement by CIA Director Michael Hayden that "threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide." Again, on its face this statement has no relation to the question of the impact of the war in Iraq on our overall efforts to combat terrorism.

It may be the case that the terrorists are recruiting more members than before, and it's likely that terrorists rely heavily on the war in Iraq when they engage in recruiting. But it does not follow that the war is hurting the overall terror fight or even that it's materially helping terrorists recruit. If we had not overthrown Saddam Hussein, the terrorists would hardly be without a sales pitch. They could cite the "crusade" in Afghanistan (which some liberals assure us would be intense if only we weren't bogged down in Iraq), our support of Israel including our support of its bombing campaign in Lebanon, our support of the Saudis, and the fact that we backed down in Iraq. These sorts of recruiting pitches fueled the rise of al Qaeda in the 1990s. If the NIE argues that this decade's Islamofascists need the war in Iraq on top of its traditional arguments in order effectively to recruit, I'd like to see its evidence.

One should also ask whether any alleged recruiting gains are offset by the fact that a state that supported terrorism and had significance experience and know-how with a variety of WMD is out of business. I wonder whether the NIE even gets into this subject, which undoubtedly is a sore one for our spy agencies.

Finally, one should ask what the impact on terrorist recruiting of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be. Past terrorist recruiting efforts are said to have fueled by the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s and Somalia in the 1990s, and of course by the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. It seems obvious that a U.S. pull-out in Iraq under present conditions would represent the mother of all recruiting opportunites. But maybe our spy agencies believe that a pull-out would cause would-be recruits suddenly to conclude that we're not evil infidels after all.

De Young glides around this whole issue by noting that the NIE does not offer policy recommendations. But don't our spy agencies consider the likely effects of changing our policies? If not, they have little to offer us when it comes to thinking about what our policies should be.

This is the latest cheap shot in the CIA's war against the Bush administration. As has been said before, one of the inherent vices of leaks of classified information is the selectivity of those leaks. When anti-Bush intelligence officials want to damage the President with a leak to the Washington Post, they relate certain features of, in this case, the National Intelligence Estimate, that they think will have the intended effect. But we don't get to see the whole report; just the reporter's spin on the spin she was given by the embedded Democrats in the agencies. We have no way of knowing, based on this kind of news story, what the report actually says, or how sound its reasoning is.

By the way, note that the report was completed in April. So the Democrats held their leak until it could be of service in the election campaign.

Sure enough, the White House says that the stories in the Post and the New York Times are "not representative of the complete document." That's very likely true, but we can't know without reading the whole report. And in all likelihood, the reporters who passed on the leakers' spin don't know either. And, neither do you or I.

This whole proposition, though, is analogous to saying the civil rights movement exacerbated racial discrimination and, therefore, should have been abandoned.

[xrayzebra]

Clinton is an absolute liar. Always was, always will be.
Once again someone in the know shows the way when
he lies.




Harry Smith Taken Aback as CBS Analyst Blames Clinton for bin Laden Failures
Posted by Michael Rule on September 25, 2006 - 10:28.
Despite Bill Clinton's angry protestations, the bulk of the blame for America's failure to catch or kill Osama bin Laden lies squarely on the Clinton administration, at least according to terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer.

Scheuer's words, delivered on today's edition of CBS's "Early Show," must have come as a shock for co-host Harry Smith since the liberal media's usual refrain on bin Laden is to blame Bush for the failure to kill him back in the early days of the Afghanistan campaign.

That just isn't the case, Scheuer argued, implicitly criticizing the press.

"The former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him," he said.

Video clip (1:34): Real (2.5 MB at 225 kbps) or Windows Media (2.9 MB at 256 kbps), plus MP3 audio (443 KB). Read on for transcript of the segment.

On Monday's "Early Show", co-host Harry Smith talked with Scheuer about the war in Iraq and the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Smith was shocked when Scheuer laid the blame at the feet of the Clinton administration, and attempted to put the focus back on failures of the Bush Administration. Smith highlighted president Clinton's defense of his administration:

"Let's talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?"

Scheuer refuted Smith’s portrayal of Clinton:

"No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

Smith couldn’t let these facts tarnish the Clinton legacy, so he attempted to change the subject back to the Bush Administration:

"All right, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"

Scheuer acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around for not getting bin Laden, but asserted that Clinton bears most of it:

"Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try..."

Scheuer continued his response and accused President Clinton of lying to the American people:

"...But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

Scheuer’s points may have hit at Clinton too hard for Smith, as Smith used his final word to assert that President Bush is responsible too:

"And, and, and with this also further revelation that, in fact, the war in Iraq has only exacerbated the terrorist situation."

Scheuer’s facts about the failures of the Clinton administration in catching bin Laden are largely ignored by the media, but keep them in mind the next time a reporter starts hammering the Bush administration because Osama bin Laden is still at large.

Transcript of the relevant portion of the interview follows:

Harry Smith: "Elizabeth Palmer live in Pakistan this morning, thank you. I'm going to go back now to Michael Scheuer once again. Let's talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?"

Michael Scheuer: "No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."

Harry Smith: "Alright, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"

Michael Scheuer: "Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."


Harry Smith: "And, and, and with this also further revelation that, in fact, the war in Iraq has only exacerbated the terrorist situation. Michael Scheurer, we thank you so much for your time this morning."


You saw Clinton as he really is: Someone who cant
take the blame for anything. He is a putting the move
on women, except when they say "no" and then he
reminds them: Put some ice on that.

Oh, thank goodness. The truth is coming out and
he and his bunch cant take it.

[clambake]

Now that i've read that, it's almost like Clinton is responsible for this war in Iraq. That criminal war starting, blowjob getting prick.

Don't take the side of either one of these guy's. I'm taking the side of the future and this guy makes it bleek. All politicians dance around the truth, but how much trouble can you allow one to cause before you replace him. Our problem is the replacement. Cheney? fuck no. Hastert? oh dear god.

[clambake]

How about Colin Powell. I just know this guy wants to make it up to us.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

How 'bout if we give him shit for lying under oath, asking others to do so, and obstructing justice in an attempt to deny due process (something afforded us in the constitution he had sworn to defend as President) to a citizen who had filed suit against him. How 'bout then?


How about we use the system against the president of the united states (a title equal to diety these days) for petty bull shit, to bog down alot of processes that mattered, and prevent the country moving forward, then blaming the man for being tied up in the bull shit you created?

[Nbadan]

There has to be more to this consorted effort by the Cons to pin Bin Laden still being alive on Clinton than what we are seeing...after all, it was the Pentagon under Pace and Rummy who let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, but the wing-nut press isn't talking about that. Perhaps as some have speculated, they plan to pull a dead bin Laden as the October surprise? It would make sense of these rumors that bin Laden is already dead, and as I've said before, the only way the Saudi family would give up Bin Laden is if he were already dead.

[Yonivore]

How about we use the system against the president of the united states (a title equal to diety these days) for petty bull shit, to bog down alot of processes that mattered, and prevent the country moving forward, then blaming the man for being tied up in the bull shit you created?
I'm not sure I'd call a U. S. Citizen's right to due process petty bullshit. But, that's just me.

And, as far as bogging down anything, the President had a team of lawyers and professional mouthpieces defending him, I doubt he was restrained, on many occassions, from doing his duty as President -- if he'd of just done it.

[clambake]

He said he tried. That's more than Bush did. Bin ladan is no fool. He knew Clinton was close. He can slip right through your fingers. But at least Clinton tried and failed. I'll bet Bin Ladan and Zawahiri discussed their options and decided to wait and see if Bush got elected.

Why couldn't Bush have done the same thing with Iraq? Why couldn't he ignore it the same way he ignored the first 8 months of his duty to America?

[clambake]

Hey Yoni. you never told me why there wouldn't be a successor if it weren't for Bush.

I truly want to know why you think that.

[Yonivore]

Hey Yoni. you never told me why there wouldn't be a successor if it weren't for Bush.

I truly want to know why you think that.
No, I answered it Mr. Dhimmi.

[clambake]

No you didn't but i'm stupid so could you repeat it? I've been waiting for a week. You said if it weren't for Bush there would be no successor. I don't blame you if you don't want to answer. That statement does seem silly.

[boutons_]

The war on terr phonily taken into Iraq caused the US to leave the real war on terror, in Afghanistan, at second priority, well before Afghanistan's govt, police, military were fully stable and credible of defending itself. In that undeniable sense, the phony Iraq war has seriously hurt the war on terror.

The US military admitted recently that in several towns and regions in Iraq, al-Quaida is functioning as the de facto government, meaning that al-Quaida is controlling more terrritory now than before the US invaded Iraq. Saddam was not into doing any power sharing with any signficant al-Quaida while he was in power.

The terrorists fighting the US military in Iraq is an excellent, even the best, training school for terrorists. We have 140K military in Iraq. Have they killed 140K terrorists in Iraq? 70K?

The US military tied down and exposed as stretched, exhausted, undermanned, under equipped certainly emboldens Syria and Iran, which are real sources of terror. How does emboldening the terror-provoking states NOT hurt the war on terror?

[clambake]

This endevour is stupid without more troops.

I'll check back on Tuesday for that answer Yoni....and the next day, and the next.....

[Nbadan]

Oh damn, Keith Olbermann must be stopped! (http://www.crooksandliars.com/)

:lol

[RandomGuy]

:lol

Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?

The dude has taken dirty politics to an art form. Like him or hate him, one has to admit he is good at what he does, that is get Republicans elected.

That said, I think he is very indicative of the moral rot in the GOP, and one of the biggest driving forces in the whole "ends justify the means" movement in Republican politics.

[xrayzebra]

He said he tried. That's more than Bush did. Bin ladan is no fool. He knew Clinton was close. He can slip right through your fingers. But at least Clinton tried and failed. I'll bet Bin Ladan and Zawahiri discussed their options and decided to wait and see if Bush got elected.

Why couldn't Bush have done the same thing with Iraq? Why couldn't he ignore it the same way he ignored the first 8 months of his duty to America?

Well you got it half right. Clinton failed at getting UBL like he failed at
everything except getting elected and chasing women.

[101A]

By Dick Morris (http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html)




The real Clinton emerges

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.

Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.

Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.

President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a “nice little conservative hit job on me.” But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.

The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.

One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?

[boutons_]

"It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing."

what?

Clinton gets skwereed because he didn't try enough, and/or failed, and admits it.

Clinton claimed "They (Repugs) didn't even try" to fight terrrorism and OBL before 9/11, they won't admit thay, but the Repugs get a pass.

[101A]

...By the way, note that the report was completed in April. So the Democrats held their leak until it could be of service in the election campaign.


A day after Clinton blows up at C. Mathews out of the blue. It's not like Mathews was grilling him; looked like Clinton planned this "spontaneous outburst". Democrats are pulling a Rove-esque coordinated attack.

[101A]

"It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing."

what?

Clinton gets skwereed because he didn't try enough, and/or failed, and admits it.

Clinton claimed "They (Repugs) didn't even try" to fight terrrorism and OBL before 9/11, they won't admit thay, but the Repugs get a pass.


I agree that Morris was reaching with that quote about what drove people to the right...

[boutons_]

"are pulling a Rove-esque coordinated attack."

When the Repugs do it, it's cool, but when the Dems do the same, it's .... ?

[101A]

"are pulling a Rove-esque coordinated attack."

When the Repugs do it, it's cool, but when the Dems do the same, it's .... ?

...looking succesfull.

[ChumpDumper]

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously.Who did?

And lmao at the neocons who can't stand Monday morning quarterbacks but love to be them. Hypocrites.

[RandomGuy]

By Dick Morris (http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html)







The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape?

Last I checked, firing missiles near a nuclear power is kind of a *touchy* subject.

Failure to notify Pakistan of missle strikes= possibility of Pakistan launching a retalitatory strike at India= Very Bad Things

This guys whole premise is flawed, but this is just what I noticed in a brief reading.

[johnsmith]

Who did?

And lmao at the neocons who can't stand Monday morning quarterbacks but love to be them. Hypocrites.


Give me a break. You throw out a quick "hypocrites" insult? Everyone on here are Monday Morning quarterbacks, and everyone on here doesn't like the other sides opinions, what's hypocritical about arguing back?
You hypocrite.

[RandomGuy]

Give me a break. You throw out a quick "hypocrites" insult? Everyone on here are Monday Morning quarterbacks, and everyone on here doesn't like the other sides opinions, what's hypocritical about arguing back?
You hypocrite.

I think you are being hypocritical when you call Chump a hypocrite for calling you a hypocrite. :angel

HA! :lol

[johnsmith]

I think you are being hypocritical when you call Chump a hypocrite for calling you a hypocrite. :angel

HA! :lol


This is sort of like the opposite day argument. How could it possibly be opposite day when the opposite of opposite day is no longer opposite..........now say "toy boat" out loud as fast as you can 10 times. Your head should explode any minute with the opposite day thing and combining the toy boat thing with it.

[101A]

I think you are being hypocritical when you call Chump a hypocrite for calling you a hypocrite. :angel

HA! :lol

Damned hypocrite.

[RandomGuy]

:smchode:
This is sort of like the opposite day argument. How could it possibly be opposite day when the opposite of opposite day is no longer opposite..........now say "toy boat" out loud as fast as you can 10 times. Your head should explode any minute with the opposite day thing and combining the toy boat thing with it.

[ChumpDumper]

I am not a hypocrite for calling other people hypocrites. I am all about Monday morning quarterbacking although in the case of Iraq I just happened to predict what would happen on this very board. So that's an "I told you so" situation. Not hypocritical. It's the Bush apologists on this board who hate having their noses rubbed in it every day who accuse people like me of Monday morning quarterbacking and desperately seek to avoid talking about how fucked up things are in Afghanistan and Iraq now. Their latest tactic is to bash Clinton for not reinstituting state-sponsored assassination -- Monday-morning quarterbacking his foreign policy a decade later.

Hypocritically.

[101A]

I am not a hypocrite for calling other people hypocrites. I am all about Monday morning quarterbacking although in the case of Iraq I just happened to predict what would happen on this very board. So that's an "I told you so" situation. Not hypocritical. It's the Bush apologists on this board who hate having their noses rubbed in it every day who accuse people like me of Monday morning quarterbacking and desperately seek to avoid talking about how fucked up things are in Afghanistan and Iraq now. Their latest tactic is to bash Clinton for not reinstituting state-sponsored assassination -- Monday-morning quarterbacking his foreign policy a decade later.

Hypocritically.

Actually, I believe it was a made for TV movie on ABC that brought the concept of Clinton not doing enough about terrorism to the forefront, not Bush apologists, per se. Also, it has been the Clintonista's response to that movie, and Clinton himself on Fox that has made it all front page news.

[xrayzebra]

So much for Clinton, I left them a comprehensive plan to
deal with UBL. And ask them why they fired Clarke.
Once again, Clinton's lies come back to haunt him.

Tuesday, Sept. 26, 2006 7:08 a.m. EDT

Rice: Clinton Left Us No Terror Plan

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue al-Qaida, saying in an interview published Tuesday that the Bush administration aggressively pursued the group even before the 9/11 attacks.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post.

The newspaper published her comments after Clinton appeared on "Fox News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the al-Qaida leader killed.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Rice disputed his assessment.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said.

Rice also took exception to Clinton's statement that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming officials when he left office.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," she told the newspaper, which is owned by News Corp. (NWSA), the same company that owns Fox News Channel.

In the interview, Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"

Rice portrayed the departure of former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke differently, saying he "left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security."

The interview has been the focus of much attention - drawing more than 800,000 views on YouTube and earning the show its best ratings in nearly three years.

Rice questioned the value of the dialogue.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion," she said. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said."

[Yonivore]

Actually, I believe it was a made for TV movie on ABC that brought the concept of Clinton not doing enough about terrorism to the forefront, not Bush apologists, per se. Also, it has been the Clintonista's response to that movie, and Clinton himself on Fox that has made it all front page news.
Bingo!

I think the Clintonistas wish they had just kept their mouths shut and let the "Path to 9-11" fade into television obscurity.

Oh well, I guess we do have Billy Boy to kick around for a while longer. I bet his wife is just as pleased as punch about all this.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, I believe it was a made for TV movie on ABC that brought the concept of Clinton not doing enough about terrorism to the forefront, not Bush apologists, per se. Also, it has been the Clintonista's response to that movie, and Clinton himself on Fox that has made it all front page news.

Gawd we're getting into circular logic.

Whatever the reasons for this it only serves to do exactly what chumpdumper says it is doing: distract from the present.

Since it distracts from the present, less than shining, circumstances that have put the conservative administration's approval in the toilet, the obvious counter to that is to rile up that same base in a time-tested way just before the election, just as it does here.

[xrayzebra]

Gawd we're getting into circular logic.

Whatever the reasons for this it only serves to do exactly what chumpdumper says it is doing: distract from the present.

Since it distracts from the present, less than shining, circumstances that have put the conservative administration's approval in the toilet, the obvious counter to that is to rile up that same base in a time-tested way just before the election, just as it does here.

The past is what caused the present. Clinton's
in-action let things progress to this point in time.
Bush takes the blame in a quite, reserved way and continues to do battle with the enemy. Not
the dimm-o-craps who have missed no
opportunity to oppose every nomination, action
by his administration. Just look at those on
here who call Bush and his administration every
name under the sun.

[ChumpDumper]

Bush takes the blame in a quite, reserved way:lmao

[Yonivore]

http://static.flickr.com/93/250593021_800d055b74.jpg

[Nbadan]

Hillary enters the fray...

Hillary Clinton Lobs Another Bomb at Condoleezza Rice Over Whose to Blame for Not Getting bin Laden


Clinton said that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for his successor's team to follow.

Rice told the Post: "We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda."

That's about as direct a denial as you could get. No mealy-mouthing there.

Now, the argument has ratcheted up another notch with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton entering the fray.

She told reporters on Capitol Hill: "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2493200&page=1)

[Yonivore]

She told reporters on Capitol Hill: "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."
I guess he didn't get a clue when al Qaeda actually DID attack inside the United States in 1993...he must have needed a report to tell him that bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States.

[insert Tammy Wynette's "Stand by Your Man" here]

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

She told reporters on Capitol Hill: "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

Yeah, that's why he blew up an aspirin factory with a couple of cruise missiles... OBL was giving Billary a headache :lol

[Yonivore]

http://static.flickr.com/120/253628954_fbef758636.jpg

[boutons_]

History will "middle finger", it's already well under way, dubya/dickhead/condi/rummy/wolfie/neo-cons for lying their way into a phony war and seriously decreasing USA's security.

Along with Yoni, there is actually a fantasist core of Repugs who believe that WMD have been found in Iraq. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

They're still translating the documents!

[xrayzebra]

History will "middle finger", it's already well under way, dubya/dickhead/condi/rummy/wolfie/neo-cons for lying their way into a phony war and seriously decreasing USA's security.

Along with Yoni, there is actually a fantasist core of Repugs who believe that WMD have been found in Iraq. :lol


Psssst boutons, they are still counting the hanging
chads. Pass it on.

And they did find a small amount of WMD, dummy.

[PixelPusher]

I had no idea the "hand of history" was so deformed and disproportionate. Not that I'd expect a political cartoon to be "even-handed".

[RandomGuy]

The past is what caused the present.

Remember that when we get hit by the next generation of fanatics inspired by Gitmo and Abu Gharaib. Whatever blame may be laid on Clinton will be tenfold for Bush's bungling and failed policies.

Don't take my word for it, fine. Don't take the intelligence community's word for it, fine.

It will happen whether you thing Bush is the best thing since sliced bread or not.
(insert head in the sand smiley here)

[boutons_]

"Remember that when we get hit by the next generation of fanatics inspired by Gitmo and Abu Gharaib"

ah, come on, RG. Be kind to the senile old fart. It's almost cruel to respond to him, he's such a turkey of a target. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[ChumpDumper]

The past is what caused the present.:lol You were completely dismissive of my historical points in the other thread, but if it suits your politics, you'll pay attention to history.

[smeagol]

The Bush lovers sucking Georgie's dick and bashing Clinton.

The Clinton lovers sucking Billy's dick and bashing Bush.

What's new?

[jochhejaam]

Remember that when we get hit by the next generation of fanatics inspired by Gitmo and Abu Gharaib. Whatever blame may be laid on Clinton will be tenfold for Bush's bungling and failed policies.

Blame their terroristic actions on whatever suits your politics, but the impetus for whatever hit we might take is grounded in the philosophy of fanatical Islam. Short of a massive Western conversion to Islam, future hits are inevitable.
Blind hatred ingrained in their black souls is their inspiration.

[101A]

Remember that when we get hit by the next generation of fanatics inspired by Gitmo and Abu Gharaib. Whatever blame may be laid on Clinton will be tenfold for Bush's bungling and failed policies.

Don't take my word for it, fine. Don't take the intelligence community's word for it, fine.

It will happen whether you thing Bush is the best thing since sliced bread or not.
(insert head in the sand smiley here)


These arguments do little to help your case. Jochejam's response points that out well.

It seems the left/Democrats can't handle momentum. As they start to gain some heading into the elections, they become emboldened. Their voices become more, not less, shrill. Their accusation's become more and more extreme, until they are left claiming things like you just did. The mainstream, which was moving toward them, all of a sudden pauses and says, "Well that's a bunch of B.S. - I don't believe THAT"- - and BOOM, all of a sudden voting for a democrat is tantamount to extremism, and becomes very distastefull.

Do you see the White House/Rove running around yelling about the couple of meaningless signs of WMD they have found in Iraq? Although "technically" accurate - it would be silly and would be seen for the "extreme" position it is. The public would turn away.

Instead, they are simply slowly throwing ideas, and concepts out there; reminding people of some things, putting new stuff into the mix. Bush's numbers are rising, the Senate is looking pretty safe, and the Republicans are just now loosing attacks on dems in close house races. Two months ago ain't no way I'd have bet that the Republicans would hold on to EITHER house in November; now I'd give even money that they'll hold both.

[RandomGuy]

Blame their terroristic actions on whatever suits your politics, but the impetus for whatever hit we might take is grounded in the philosophy of fanatical Islam. Short of a massive Western conversion to Islam, future hits are inevitable.
Blind hatred ingrained in their black souls is their inspiration.


It's not about the religion specifically. Even were we to convert, en masse, to Islam we would still be a target because of our simple power and the naked exercise of that power.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm really suprised so few people get it. This has nothing to do with Clinton's legacy or with what he did or didn't do while in office and everything to do with trying to stir the emotions of Democrats and to show them how to fight with the Republicans the way Republicans have been taking it to the Democrats.

Listen to what Paul Begala said. Listen to what Hillary Clinton said. Bill Clinton went on a right wing news network and did his best to show Democrats that at some point you better get in their face and call them out with some passion and determination if you ever plan on getting your voices heard.

6 years out of office and Bill Clinton is still by far - for better or for worse - the best leader the Democrats have and this is him leading.

[RandomGuy]

These arguments do little to help your case. Jochejam's response points that out well.

It seems the left/Democrats can't handle momentum. As they start to gain some heading into the elections, they become emboldened. Their voices become more, not less, shrill. Their accusation's become more and more extreme, until they are left claiming things like you just did. The mainstream, which was moving toward them, all of a sudden pauses and says, "Well that's a bunch of B.S. - I don't believe THAT"- - and BOOM, all of a sudden voting for a democrat is tantamount to extremism, and becomes very distastefull.

Do you see the White House/Rove running around yelling about the couple of meaningless signs of WMD they have found in Iraq? Although "technically" accurate - it would be silly and would be seen for the "extreme" position it is. The public would turn away.

Instead, they are simply slowly throwing ideas, and concepts out there; reminding people of some things, putting new stuff into the mix. Bush's numbers are rising, the Senate is looking pretty safe, and the Republicans are just now loosing attacks on dems in close house races. Two months ago ain't no way I'd have bet that the Republicans would hold on to EITHER house in November; now I'd give even money that they'll hold both.

I don't find it "shrill" to point out the obvious reality that our current administration can't find it's ass with both hands when it comes to effectivly fighting those who would do us harm.

It is simply my duty to make as effective a case for it as possible. It does irk me that 6 years into the Bush administration, Bush supporters will not take responsibility for his mistakes.

I will readily grant that Rove et al. always seem to be one step ahead in the political dogfight. It sucks that their skill and the Dems relative lack of it, causes my country such harm. :depressed

[RandomGuy]

I'm really suprised so few people get it. This has nothing to do with Clinton's legacy or with what he did or didn't do while in office and everything to do with trying to stir the emotions of Democrats and to show them how to fight with the Republicans the way Republicans have been taking it to the Democrats.

Listen to what Paul Begala said. Listen to what Hillary Clinton said. Bill Clinton went on a right wing news network and did his best to show Democrats that at some point you better get in their face and call them out with some passion and determination if you ever plan on getting your voices heard.

6 years out of office and Bill Clinton is still by far - for better or for worse - the best leader the Democrats have and this is him leading.

My feelings exactly. I think a lot of progressives are in the same mood.

[MannyIsGod]

I'll be quite honest, I think this time around the American public is going to be far more interested in listening to Bill's side of the story as opposed to Bush and companys. As much as the local conservatives hate to admit it, the country doesn't like whats going on in Iraq and thats the main subject on anyone's mind right now. No amount of talk about gay marriage or any other side issues is going to move that subject from the forefront.

I don't see what the current administration can point to. The American public has trusted them time and time again and they've been dissapointed time and time again. We've regressed so much as far as foriegn relations go over the past 4 years, and its so damn obvious to almost everyone out there that we're slamming our collecive head as a nation against a wall.

How many lives do Bush and the Republican's have? I'm no real fan of the Democrats by any stretch of the imagination, but my disdain for what the current Republican congress and administration have done leaves me no chioce but to believe that they are far worse. I think the majority of America feels that exact same way.

[101A]

It's not about the religion specifically. Even were we to convert, en masse, to Islam we would still be a target because of our simple power and the naked exercise of that power.

I think you are wrong. This is not socio-economic. This is religious: I believe the Jihadists.

[101A]

I don't find it "shrill" to point out the obvious reality that our current administration can't find it's ass with both hands when it comes to effectivly fighting those who would do us harm.


You quote wasn't shrill; I was actually talking about alot of the stuff I'm seeing/hearing from the left right now. Calling for Bush's arrest, calling him a religious extremist - basically making him the devil - ciding with Chavez. These views used to kind of be in the closet, spouted by the Boutons of the world. But now emboldened I have begun to see them get play from more mainstream sources. Those views DON"T help the Democrats. They make Bush a sympathetic figure (especially to people who voted for him - twice).

As much as the Democrats are CONVINCED the public has completely turned against Bush - dude, ultimately has won two presidential elections. That fact seems to get lost when the feeding frenzy gets going.

[RandomGuy]

I think you are wrong. This is not socio-economic. This is religious: I believe the Jihadists.

I think it is a bit of both. To ignore one factor or the other is to treat 1/2 the disease.

[xrayzebra]

As much as the Democrats are CONVINCED the public has completely turned against Bush - dude, ultimately has won two presidential elections. That fact seems to get lost when the feeding frenzy gets going.

Many facts seems to get lost to the boutons of the world.
:lol

[RandomGuy]

I'll be quite honest, I think this time around the American public is going to be far more interested in listening to Bill's side of the story as opposed to Bush and companys. As much as the local conservatives hate to admit it, the country doesn't like whats going on in Iraq and thats the main subject on anyone's mind right now. No amount of talk about gay marriage or any other side issues is going to move that subject from the forefront.

I don't see what the current administration can point to. The American public has trusted them time and time again and they've been dissapointed time and time again. We've regressed so much as far as foriegn relations go over the past 4 years, and its so damn obvious to almost everyone out there that we're slamming our collecive head as a nation against a wall.

How many lives do Bush and the Republican's have? I'm no real fan of the Democrats by any stretch of the imagination, but my disdain for what the current Republican congress and administration have done leaves me no chioce but to believe that they are far worse. I think the majority of America feels that exact same way.

There is actaully some evidence to support this. I heard about a poll the other day that said that 2/3 of our people don't really trust the government to do what it is supposed to do: govern.

I happen to agree. Whatever faults the Dems have, the GOP sucks even worse at running the government.

[boutons_]

"Those views DON"T help the Democrats"

The Dems are getting all the help they need directly the dubya and the blatant, numerous across-the-board failures of his 6 years in office, including his failure to top the WTC attack.

Support for the Iraq war is down 50%, and I bet a large portion of that is not primarily, explicitly pro-dubya, but pro-troops, and pro-USA-not-lose.

right-wing nut jobs can spout all they want against Dem candidates and it help the Repugs

but what you call left-wing nut jobs can spout all they want against dubya and it hurts the Dems.

It's always a one-way street with you right-wing motherfuckers. Right-wingers can be as extreme as hell and that's wonderful, but what you call extreme left wing (aka any opposition from the left) is not ok.

[RandomGuy]

As much as the Democrats are CONVINCED the public has completely turned against Bush - dude, ultimately has won two presidential elections. That fact seems to get lost when the feeding frenzy gets going.

Bush did indeed win (or not depending on who you ask :lol ), but one has to remember how thin his margin of victory was in both of those elections.

While I can't say what the exact percentage is, if something like 1% of the electorate had voted the other way, we would be having a very different conversation.

That slim margin of victory is not quite a ringing endorsement.

[MannyIsGod]

A lot of people need to realize what wins mid term elections in order to understand what the Democrats are doing as well. Midterms are much more about rallying your base and having them show up. It isn't a wide election where you appeal to the center because the turnout will be much less than a general election.

[101A]

There is actaully some evidence to support this. I heard about a poll the other day that said that 2/3 of our people don't really trust the government to do what it is supposed to do: govern.

I happen to agree. Whatever faults the Dems have, the GOP sucks even worse at running the government.


And when the Democrats had controlled Congress for 40 years? Those poll numbers have ALWAYS looked like that.

[MannyIsGod]

This is 1994 all over again except this time it is the Republicans who are on the other end of the disdain.

[RandomGuy]

You quote wasn't shrill; I was actually talking about alot of the stuff I'm seeing/hearing from the left right now. Calling for Bush's arrest, calling him a religious extremist - basically making him the devil - ciding with Chavez. These views used to kind of be in the closet, spouted by the Boutons of the world. But now emboldened I have begun to see them get play from more mainstream sources. Those views DON"T help the Democrats. They make Bush a sympathetic figure (especially to people who voted for him - twice).


Honestly, I half-heartedly believe he should be in jail as well for sheer negligence. I think his lack of engagement with this job has literally cost US servicemembers' lives, and that makes me angrier than words can express.

But I don't call for such a thing because I know it is not practical, nor helpful.

[RandomGuy]

And when the Democrats had controlled Congress for 40 years? Those poll numbers have ALWAYS looked like that.

Actually no.

In the middle sixties, before Vietnam, the numbers were actually reversed.

A majority trusted the government to do the right thing.

Remember the WW2 generation saw the tremendous good that our government did during WW2 and afterwards (marshal plan etc) and retained that optimism. The specter of Vietnam haunts their children, however.

[101A]

That slim margin of victory is not quite a ringing endorsement.

Nor did I claim it was. My point was there are as many people who voted for him as voted against him. Momentum seems to make Democrats forget this; thinking EVERYBODY hates him now, except for extreme repug sheeple and christian fascists.

There are many Americans who don't hate Bush, or believe he is the devil, who don't fit that description.

My point is that not fully understanding that could very well cost the Democrats the House and Senate this November.

[101A]

Actually no.

In the middle sixties, before Vietnam, the numbers were actually reversed.

A majority trusted the government to do the right thing.

Remember the WW2 generation saw the tremendous good that our government did during WW2 and afterwards (marshal plan etc) and retained that optimism. The specter of Vietnam haunts their children, however.

I would say that failed big government entitlement plans, pork, and out of control spending on EVERYTHING (including defense), requiring increased taxation AND a massive debt, has had a much more direct effect on people's distrust and distaste for government.

[RandomGuy]

Nor did I claim it was. My point was there are as many people who voted for him as voted against him. Momentum seems to make Democrats forget this; thinking EVERYBODY hates him now, except for extreme repug sheeple and christian fascists.

There are many Americans who don't hate Bush, or believe he is the devil, who don't fit that description.

My point is that not fully understanding that could very well cost the Democrats the House and Senate this November.


Amen to that. You pegged this 100% right.

[MannyIsGod]

Nor did I claim it was. My point was there are as many people who voted for him as voted against him. Momentum seems to make Democrats forget this; thinking EVERYBODY hates him now, except for extreme repug sheeple and christian fascists.

There are many Americans who don't hate Bush, or believe he is the devil, who don't fit that description.

My point is that not fully understanding that could very well cost the Democrats the House and Senate this November.
But it is undeinable that the number of those people are far lower than they were even in the 04 elections.

[gtownspur]

But it is undeinable that the number of those people are far lower than they were even in the 04 elections.


That's because the "he's not my president" and "One term" t-shirt's at the local hot topic/pseudo high school punk outfitters don't circulate such apparael for dumbass youths to wear.

[MannyIsGod]

That's because the "he's not my president" and "One term" t-shirt's at the local hot topic/pseudo high school punk outfitters don't circulate such apparael for dumbass youths to wear.That made complete sense. Props.

[101A]

But it is undeinable that the number of those people are far lower than they were even in the 04 elections.


Yeah, but those people don't REALLY start paying attention to politics until right before the election, and surprise, surprise, THIS is when things start turning for the Republicans. It also doesn't take a whole lot to change those people's minds. Ever see opinion polls before and after a staged, rehearsed, predictable presidential debate? Thing swings 5 or 6 points usually! How somebody can change their mind based on one of those things is beyond me, but it happens every time. Ain't democracy great?

[Yonivore]

More on Clinton's legacy of lies.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2496755&page=1) has jumped into the controversy over Bill Clinton’s hissy fit this past Sunday, stating that Clinton likely went into the interview predetermined to pick a fight:


"I think that as the most experienced professional in the Democratic Party, he didn't walk onto that set and suddenly get upset," Gingrich said. "He probably decided in advance he was going to pick a fight with Chris Wallace."
This, Gingrich said, may have been a good strategy.


"I think as a calculated political decision, it's reasonably smart."
Perhaps Clinton did calculate his response, but I don't know that by casting a light on the common post-9-11 perception that Clinton obviously didn't do enough to deter terrorism—a perception shared by Osama bin Laden himself—that he calculated wisely.

Senator Clinton attempted to defend her husband yesterday, saying that:


"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."
This is a categorical lie, easily disproven.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, financed by al Qaeda's Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, was the first—and to date only—WMD attack in America by al Qaeda and Iraq-affiliated terrorists (unless you count the anthrax attacks that are, as yet, unsolved and unattributed).

If you have never heard this before, it is because the Clinton Administration downplayed the facts of the case, and a compliant and overwhelmingly liberal mainstream media (http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf) still refuses to deliver the facts to the America people.

Ramzi Yousef, a Kuwaiti-born al Qaeda terrorist using an Iraqi passport, concocted a plan to detonate a large ammonium nitrate bomb in the basement-level parking decks of WTC 1. The primary intent was to have the foundation of Tower 1 compromised, toppling it into WTC 2, bringing both buildings down and killing as many as possible of the 50,000 people who worked there.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi bomb builder who retreated to Iraq after the attack and lived under Saddam Hussein's protection and with his financial support until the 2003 invasion (just ignore the explicit al Qaeda-Iraq link), created a massive 1,310 lb bomb.

Answers.com has the details about this bomb, which was not a conventional car bomb as we have often been led to believe, but a complex IED and chemical weapon (http://www.answers.com/topic/world-trade-center-bombing):


Yousef was assisted by Iraqi bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin [1] . Yasin's complex 1310 lb (600 kg) bomb was made of urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen. He added sodium cyanide to the mix as the vapors could go through the ventilation shafts and elevators of the towers. The van that Yousef used had four 20 ft (6 m) long fuses, all covered in surgical tubing. Yasin calculated that the fuse would trigger the bomb in twelve minutes after he had used a cigarette lighter to light the fuse. Yousef wanted the smoke to remain in the tower, therefore catching the public eye by smothering people inside. He anticipated Tower One collapsing onto Tower Two after the blast. The materials to build the bomb cost approximately US$300.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing), FAS (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm), and many other sources confirm both the use and the intent of this cyanide-laced weapon.

As any fan of spy movies and novels knows, cyanide salts are extremely lethal even in small doses of 100-200 milligrams. Wikipedia provides the effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_cyanide#Toxicity):


Once more than 100–200 mg of sodium cyanide is consumed, consciousness is lost within one minute, sometimes within 10 seconds, depending on the strength of the body's immunity and the amount of food present in the stomach. After a span of about 45 minutes, the body goes into a state of coma or deep sleep and the person may die within two hours if not treated medically. During this period, convulsions may occur. Death occurs mainly by cardiac arrest.
Yasin's bomb was designed to use both conventional blast mechanisms to attempt to topple the buildings and create a poisonous cyanide cloud to kill anyone inside Tower 1.

As we know, Yasin's bomb failed in both of its goals.

The World Trade Center Towers still stood despite the al Qaeda attack, and the cyanide, instead of being released as a gas as Yasin had designed, was instead vaporized by the explosion. The first chemical weapons attack by al Qaeda on the United States was a dud.

And so when I hear Hillary Clinton state that her husband would have taken the threat of an al Qaeda attack inside the United States "more seriously than history suggests," than the current President did, I have to laugh. Bill Clinton was President of the United States when lower Manhattan was the victim of an al Qaeda plot executed by an Iraqi bomb-builder who detonated a chemical/conventional weapon under tens of thousands of Americans. President Clinton later knew what the bomb was composed of, knew how it was intended to be used, and what threat al Qaeda posed.

Bill Clinton was President for another 7 years, 10 months, 25 days after this attack.

His record of "fighting" terrorism during that time period speaks for itself.

[Yonivore]

http://static.flickr.com/117/254243720_afd54e3271.jpg

[boutons_]

Yoni's boy dubya is fucking himself up beyond repair, so Yoni blames it all on Clinton.

[Yonivore]

Let's just keep hammering away at the lies:

Did the Republicans complain that Clinton was too aggressive, that he was "wagging the dog," in going after Bin Laden as the former President stated in his rant to Chris Wallace?

The record shows that most Republican leaders strongly supported Clinton's August 1998 missile attacks against Al Qaeda, and some actually called on him to act more aggressively. This August 21, 1998 Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm) documents the Republican reaction in detail. Consider the words of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, then the most powerful and prominent conservative Republican politician in the country:


"I think the president did exactly the right thing," House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said of the bombing attacks. "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists........"

Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the [Monica Lewinsky] scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing," Gingrich said. "It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind."
The Washington Post article recounts statements of support by other top congressional Republicans, including Senator Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Although it also notes that a few Republicans, such as Senators Arlen Specter and Dan Coats did question Clinton's motives, it summarizes the overall Republican reaction as "warm support for [Clinton's] ordering anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday from many of the same lawmakers who have criticized him harshly as a leader critically weakened by poor judgment and reckless behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal."

Even more interesting is the fact that some prominent Republican leaders, such as House Intelligence Committee Chairman and future CIA Director Porter Goss not only endorsed Clinton's actions but urged him to go further:


Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who in recent days has been very critical of Clinton on the Lewinsky matter, also supported the bombing raids, noting, "In the past I was worried that this administration didn't take this threat seriously enough, and didn't take Osama bin Laden seriously enough; I'm going to support him, wish him well and back him up."

And urge him on, a view supported bluntly by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.). "If anything, this was somewhat overdue, and I'm not talking days, but months and years. This needs to be the first punch we land. We need to land more."
Would that Clinton had taken Goss' advice! The article also quotes Senator John McCain as claiming that Clinton had unduly neglected the terrorist threat.

The seemingly contrary quotes in the Salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton_2/index.html) article Orin links to are either 1) criticisms of Clinton's December 1998 strike on Iraq or his 1999 war in Kossovo rather than the August 1998 attack on Al Qaeda, or 2) quotations from the small minority of Republicans who did indeed criticize the August strikes, but cited without noting the broader context of strong support for Clinton's actions by the the most powerful Republicans in DC.

It is simply not true that Republicans opposed Clinton's efforts to get Bin Laden or that most of them claimed he was just "wagging the dog." To the contrary, most Republicans strongly supported Clinton's August 1998 missile strikes and some actually claimed that he wasn't going far enough.

So, let's point out the contrast between the above record and what President Clinton said in his recent interview with Chris Wallace:


"I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much — same people.
Note that Clinton does not say that "a few" or even "some" conservative Republicans said he was "too obsessed" with Bin Laden, but that "all" of them had done so when, in reality, most Republicans supported Clinton's strikes against Al Qaeda and some urged him to go further. Even the minority who questioned Clinton's motives did not claim that he should have focused on Bin Laden less, but instead argued that he was overly focused on protecting himself from the fallout of the Lewinsky scandal.

[ChumpDumper]

Although it also notes that a few Republicans, such as Senators Arlen Specter and Dan Coats did question Clinton's motiveNot to mention you and every other AM radio listening douchebag. Of course now you're going to act like it never happened.

[Yonivore]

Not to mention you and every other AM radio listening douchebag. Of course now you're going to act like it never happened.
Well, it'd be nice if you produced support for you assertion that it was the case because, I just posted a source that contradicts what you're claiming.

Actually, I was in the camp that he was "wagging the dog" but only because of timing. I too wished he had done more with respect to terrorists and, particularly bin Laden.

I never said he was too focused on bin Laden. Just that his motives for taking some of his actions had less to do with any strategic policy and more to do with him wanting to distract from other issues.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, it'd be nice if you produced support for you assertion
Actually, I was in the camp that he was "wagging the dog"I can post a link to it if you like.

[Yonivore]

I can post a link to it if you like.
Sure, one that says the conservatives were complaining that, well here, I'll let Clinton tell you:


"I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden.
Find me those quotes.

Newt Gingrich was the biggest neocon of them all and he was saying the exact opposite.

I think the neocons still believed he wasn't doing enough but none of them ever claimed he was obsessed with bin Laden. Claiming he used bin Laden as a "wag-the-dog" diversion isn't the same as saying he was obsessed.

So, yeah, find me the links.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure, one that says the conservatives were complaining that, well here, I'll let Clinton tell you:


Find me those quotes.

Newt Gingrich was the biggest neocon of them all and he was saying the exact opposite.

I think the neocons still believed he wasn't doing enough but none of them ever claimed he was obsessed with bin Laden. Claiming he used bin Laden as a "wag-the-dog" diversion isn't the same as saying he was obsessed.

So, yeah, find me the links.I was talking about you, numbnuts. And you already gave the names of Republicans who did accuse him of wagging the dog. Thanks.

[Yonivore]

I was talking about you, numbnuts. And you already gave the names of Republicans who did accuse him of wagging the dog. Thanks.
But what about people accusing him of being too obsessed with bin Laden? That was his complaint.

[Mr. Peabody]

I was talking about you, numbnuts. And you already gave the names of Republicans who did accuse him of wagging the dog. Thanks.


It appears that Yoni is correct on this one --

CNN Archives (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/20/strike.react/index.html?eref=sitesearch)
Most Lawmakers Support Clinton's Military Strikes
But some Republicans raise questions about the timing of anti-terrorist attacks
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 20) -- President Bill Clinton's decision Thursday to order military strikes against alleged terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan received quick, but not universal, support from members of Congress.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich quickly sided with the adminstration, saying the president "did the right thing" by ordering the simultaneous attacks against facilities believed linked to terrorists suspected in the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa. (416K wav sound)

"Just a few days ago in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, we saw what happens when people who hate America and hate freedom decide to kill Americans," Gingrich said. "They did so in a way in which we have to respond.


Sen. Dan Coats
"We have every reason to believe that this terrorist organization will try to hurt other Americans," Gingrich said.

Other key members of Congress also quickly voiced their approval for the decisive military action, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), and Sens. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

[ChumpDumper]

It's nice when someone with resources asks the same question. Of course this article takes into account all the military actions of the times, but it's good for an overview.

Revisiting GOP attacks on President Clinton

The Internet makes it much more difficult than ever before to fabricate history because virtually everything is recorded and so easily discovered. Those developments, however, did not deter Jonah Goldberg from writing this demonstrably false historical claim in National Review: "The notion that conservatives opposed Clinton as Commander-in-Chief in the pre-war on terror or in other military ventures is simply unfair ... Sure, there were some wag the dog voices -- like noted rightwing trogs [sic] Arlen Specter and Christopher Hitchens -- but generally even the most partisan Republicans supported Clinton."

It is hard to overstate how false Goldberg's claim is, as even Byron York reported, in Goldberg's own magazine, National Review (emphasis added): "Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action [launching cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden] 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."

Leading GOP political figures and pundits repeatedly voiced such criticisms against Clinton:

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

Leading GOP senators, representatives, editorial boards, organizations and pundits repeatedly called into question Clinton's motives in taking military action, and thus attacked the commander in chief at exactly the time when troops were still in harm's way. The notion that such accusations were made only by a handful of isolated figures -- which Goldberg has the audacity to suggest were actually liberal -- and that the GOP largely supported Clinton's military deployments and refrained from criticizing his motives is just false. That is a fact that Goldberg would have discovered had he undertaken the most minimal amount of research before making those claims.

It is true that some Republican political figures supported some of Clinton's military decisions in Yugoslavia and the Middle East, but efforts to undermine those actions (as well as earlier ones) came from virtually every significant Republican precinct of influence throughout Clinton's presidency. That includes, most prominently, actions Clinton took against Iraq and Osama bin Laden, which were routinely attacked by Republicans as unnecessary.

The claim that Clinton paid insufficient attention to terrorism was one that virtually no Republicans made during the Clinton presidency. To the contrary, terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism were barely on their radar screen, and when they were, it was most prominently to use those issues as a weapon to attack Clinton politically and to suggest that he was deploying the military not for any legitimate reason (such as the terrorist threat) but only to distract the country's attention from the far more pressing sex scandal engulfing our government.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton_2/index.html

[Yonivore]

It's nice when someone with resources asks the same question. Of course this article takes into account all the military actions of the times, but it's good for an overview.

Revisiting GOP attacks on President Clinton

The Internet makes it much more difficult than ever before to fabricate history because virtually everything is recorded and so easily discovered. Those developments, however, did not deter Jonah Goldberg from writing this demonstrably false historical claim in National Review: "The notion that conservatives opposed Clinton as Commander-in-Chief in the pre-war on terror or in other military ventures is simply unfair ... Sure, there were some wag the dog voices -- like noted rightwing trogs [sic] Arlen Specter and Christopher Hitchens -- but generally even the most partisan Republicans supported Clinton."

It is hard to overstate how false Goldberg's claim is, as even Byron York reported, in Goldberg's own magazine, National Review (emphasis added): "Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action [launching cruise missiles at Osama bin Laden] 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."

Leading GOP political figures and pundits repeatedly voiced such criticisms against Clinton:

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

Leading GOP senators, representatives, editorial boards, organizations and pundits repeatedly called into question Clinton's motives in taking military action, and thus attacked the commander in chief at exactly the time when troops were still in harm's way. The notion that such accusations were made only by a handful of isolated figures -- which Goldberg has the audacity to suggest were actually liberal -- and that the GOP largely supported Clinton's military deployments and refrained from criticizing his motives is just false. That is a fact that Goldberg would have discovered had he undertaken the most minimal amount of research before making those claims.

It is true that some Republican political figures supported some of Clinton's military decisions in Yugoslavia and the Middle East, but efforts to undermine those actions (as well as earlier ones) came from virtually every significant Republican precinct of influence throughout Clinton's presidency. That includes, most prominently, actions Clinton took against Iraq and Osama bin Laden, which were routinely attacked by Republicans as unnecessary.

The claim that Clinton paid insufficient attention to terrorism was one that virtually no Republicans made during the Clinton presidency. To the contrary, terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism were barely on their radar screen, and when they were, it was most prominently to use those issues as a weapon to attack Clinton politically and to suggest that he was deploying the military not for any legitimate reason (such as the terrorist threat) but only to distract the country's attention from the far more pressing sex scandal engulfing our government.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/09/25/clinton_2/index.html
I skimmed over it, could you please point out where a republican criticized Clinton for being "too obsessed" with bin Laden?

I've already stipulated I, and many others, believed his attack was one of convenience and diversion -- "wag the dog" -- but, I'm interested in you defending or validating his specific complaint that he was too obsessed with bin Laden.

[ChumpDumper]

I skimmed over it, could you please point out where a republican criticized Clinton for being "too obsessed" with bin Laden?Had I ever made that point, i would feel compelled to support it.

I didn't.

[Yonivore]

Had I ever made that point, i would feel compelled to support it.

I didn't.
Ah, but the thread is about Clinton's appearance on Fox and his whining about what Republicans were saying. Who cares what you think?

[ChumpDumper]

Who cares what you think?Since you've stopped ignoring me -- you.

[Nbadan]

Looks like the wing-nuts were for the bombing before they were against it.

:lol

[Yonivore]

Since you've stopped ignoring me -- you.
I think you've confused amusement with interest.

So, I guess you're not going to find any links that support Clinton's lie...er, assertion...that Republican neocons were accusing him of being too obsessed with bin Laden.

You'd rather divert this to some personal attack thread now, right? Of course, you could just admit Clinton lied in this instance and let the thread die.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, who knows whom he was talking about, and if any of these critics spouted those words into a microphone. If that's the only point you can hang onto, it's a decidedly weak one.

[Yonivore]

Hey, who knows whom he was talking about, and if any of these critics spouted those words into a microphone. If that's the only point you can hang onto, it's a decidedly weak one.
Okay, whatever. But, let's move on to the next lie in Clintons' calvalcade of lies:


"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."
Ooops! Wrong again. (But, here's the secret, she knew she was lying)

Warning Signs (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/746wewfh.asp)


Hillary Clinton attempts to rewrite history.

09/27/2006 1:45:00 PM


"The Intelligence Community has strong indications that Bin Laden intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the United States."

-Classified document signed by President Clinton in December 1998

YESTERDAY, in the wake of President Clinton's interview on Fox News, Senator Hillary Clinton defended her husband's counterterrorism track record. Reacting to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's assertion that the Bush administration "was at least as aggressive" in the eight months preceding September 11, 2001 as the Clinton administration was in the years prior, the former first lady remarked:


"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."
Apparently referring to the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, which was entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," Senator Clinton suggested that her husband did not receive the same type of warnings that President Bush did.

In fact, President Clinton signed a similar classified document--which contained an explicit warning from the U.S. Intelligence Community that bin Laden intended to strike inside the United States, more than two years prior to leaving office. And the U.S. intelligence community collected numerous pieces of intelligence concerning bin Laden's determination to strike inside the United States during President Clinton's tenure. In addition to the failed plot against the World Trade Center in 1993 and the failed al Qaeda plot against LAX airport in 1999, there were clear indications that bin Laden's terror empire intended to strike targets in the continental United States.
Read the rest, it's interesting.

[Nbadan]

Fox Chief Ailes defends the sand-bagger Wallace


From ABC 7 News:
Fox Chief: Clinton Response an 'Assault'
Location: NEW YORK



NEW YORK (AP) - Fox News chief Roger Ailes says former President Clinton's response to Chris Wallace's question about going after Osama bin Laden represents "an assault on all journalists." Ailes said Clinton had a "wild overreaction" in the interview, broadcast on "Fox News Sunday." Hundreds of thousands of people subsequently watched clips over the Internet, with Fox foes rallying behind Clinton.

"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, 'hold on a second.'"

(snip)

"They're out there saying (Wallace) was savage, he sandbagged (Clinton), he was taking orders on the question," Ailes said. "Chris Wallace has never taken orders on questions in his life. There's never been a discussion of that. I frankly think the assault on Chris Wallace is an assault on all journalists."

Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio and Television New Directors Association, said she worked with Wallace at NBC's "Meet the Press," where she was once executive producer. Wallace, who left ABC News to become "Fox News Sunday" host in 2003, was always a professional who asked tough questions and was not partisan, she said.

But Cochran said she would not comment on the larger question of what this meant for all journalists.

WJLA (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0906/364620.html)

When did propagandaist turn into mild-mannered reporters?

[BIG IRISH]

I know some are going to like this because of who is saying it but

I think this hits the nail on the head.

The idea of trying to cast blame on President Clinton is just wrong for many, many reasons, not the least of which is I don't think he deserves it," Giuliani said in response to a question after an appearance with fellow Republican Charlie Crist, who is running for governor. "I don't think President Bush deserves it.

The people who deserve blame for Sept. 11, I think we should remind ourselves, are the terrorists — the Islamic fanatics — who came here and killed us and want to come here again and do it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_us/giuliani_clinton

[RandomGuy]

Not to mention you and every other AM radio listening douchebag. Of course now you're going to act like it never happened.

All you have to do is find a quote from Rush Limbaugh at the time.

Congressional republicans were limited in their derision at the time, as they had to work with the president. You can bet double or nothing on the federal debt that they said very different things behind closed doors.

[RandomGuy]

The funny thing is that the administration, through Rice's testimony said that it didn't get a "plan" from the Clinton administration, who if Yoni is to be believed was completely ignoring the whole issue.

It got a "series of ideas" and "actionable items", also know to anybody with common sense as a "plan".

The blame game continues 'round and 'round, and is nothing but a smoke screen that Yoni and other politicos are hoping is a big distraction from how poorly our "war" on terror is going.

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't supposed to mention that. I guess I am just giving the non-administration-cheerleading media, er "liberal" media a nod.

[boutons_]

Clarke presented a plan, basically what he had developed under Clinton, on 25 Jan 2001.

( Giulani's quote is way beyond stupid. Does he think he talking to dubya's kindergarten class? )

[101A]

Clarke presented a plan, basically what he had developed under Clinton, on 25 Jan 2001.

( Giulani's quote is way beyond stupid. Does he think he talking to dubya's kindergarten class? )

...and Clarke was a vehement defender of the Bush administration in '02; saying they had continued with all operations regarding Al Queda, and had a 5 fold increase in funds scheduled to be iimplemented ~10/01/2001; he cast NO blame on the Bush adminstration.

You're like Clinton; citing Clarke doesn't help your position.

(now call me some names)

[RandomGuy]

...and Clarke was a vehement defender of the Bush administration in '02; saying they had continued with all operations regarding Al Queda, and had a 5 fold increase in funds scheduled to be iimplemented ~10/01/2001; he cast NO blame on the Bush adminstration.

You're like Clinton; citing Clarke doesn't help your position.

(now call me some names)

All of which supports the thesis that terrorism wasn't an overwhelming priority before 9-11, for either President.

[boutons_]

"for either President."

Except there was only one president/Exec that igored all the warnings in July/Aug 2001, doing nothing, as the PC/watered-down 9/11 report made extremely clear.

[101A]

All of which supports the thesis that terrorism wasn't an overwhelming priority before 9-11, for either President.


A theory which is very legitimate and defensible because 9/11 ACTUALLY HAPPENED!

[boutons_]

"overwhelming"

pejorative. Clinton actually took action, tried to kill terrorists.
Enough? no, as he admits.

dubya took no action against terrorists.
Playing bureaucratic shell games is not taking action.
Ignoring the extremely high chatter in jul/aug 01 is not taking action.

The Repugs KNOW they fucked up bad in months before 9/11.
That's why they are lying their asses off NOT to get pinned with the responsibilities the failed to discharge. Absolute derelection of duty.

Then the Repugs lie that USA is safer with Repugs in charge of NatSec.

[101A]

"overwhelming"

pejorative. Clinton actually took action, tried to kill terrorists.
Enough? no, as he admits.

dubya took no action against terrorists.
Playing bureaucratic shell games is not taking action.
Ignoring the extremely high chatter in jul/aug 01 is not taking action.

The Repugs KNOW they fucked up bad in months before 9/11.
That's why they are lying their asses off NOT to get pinned with the responsibilities the failed to discharge. Absolute derelection of duty.

Then the Repugs lie that USA is safer with Repugs in charge of NatSec.


Richard Clark disagrees with you. He says that the Bush White House was increasing funding, but the new budget year hadn't begun yet; the Bush White House, was running under Clinton's budget until October, when priorities WERE going to change.

It's easy to know that all of the chatter now meant something, but then it wasn't so easy; especially since Clinton had made damn sure the different branches of the intelligence community and law enforcement were completely out of the habit of sharing information; there's only so much bureacratic mess than can be cleaned up in 7 short months - especially when the first several days in office were spent replacing all of the "W" keys on the White House computers because of the very childish behavior of the previous occupants.

Boutons, you are WRONG on this. BOTH administrations have culpability for these attacks; but primarily the ridiculous bureacracy of our overblown government is to blame - because it hampers EVERYTHING regardless of who is "in charge".

[boutons_]

"BOTH administrations have culpability for these attacks;"

but only one admits it.

The one that doesn't admit any culpbaility is lying.

None of the Repug principals (pres, vice, state, NSA, defense) addressed terrorism and al Quaida AT ALL before 9/11. Nothing stopped them except their own lack of interest and concern. They were extremely motivated as their first priority to push through tax cuts. Apart from that, they accomplished nothing before 9/11

Clinton, his NSA, etc, etc were concerned with and trying to kill terrorists.

The two Exec branches simply are not comparable on terrorism.

[101A]

The two Exec branches simply are not comparable on terrorism.

On this we agree.

One of them did something to begin solving the problem after we were attacked on their watch.

[boutons_]

"after we were attacked"

too late. The Repugs were lackadaisical on terrorism and Al-Quaida before 9/11.

When they "woke up", they exploited terrorism to start a phony, unncessary war that has seriously compromised US security.

[101A]

too late. The Repugs were lackadaisical on terrorism and Al-Quaida before 9/11.


No moreso than the previous administration, as documented in this thread....and repeat...

[DarkReign]

On this we agree.

One of them did something to begin solving the problem after we were attacked on their watch.

I mean, you do realize that Clinton had to work with a Republican controlled Congress for 6 out of 8 years, 3 of which they spent trying to find out if he banged some intern.

Amazingly, the current President is receiving no Congressional equivalent for possibly lying to Congress (obviously he wasnt under oath) in an effort to start a war. That, you know, costs lives.

Yet no investigation, no hoopla...nothing. God help him (or not) if the Dems get majority in Congress this November.

[101A]

... God help him (or not) if the Dems get majority in Congress this November.

I agree; in fact, with the current partisan climate, god help ANY president who has to deal with a congress controlled by the opposition party. 'Probably better that way, actually.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, I think it's no coincidence the retroactive war crimes immunity was brought up when it looked like the Democrats had a chance of winning Congress.

[Yonivore]

I mean, you do realize that Clinton had to work with a Republican controlled Congress for 6 out of 8 years, 3 of which they spent trying to find out if he banged some intern.
Clinton had him in his sights on at lease one occassion, after the 1998 PDB in which he was informed that bin Laden was planning to use hijacked planes to commit a terrorist attack on the United States. I doubt he would have a) consulted the Republican-controlled Congress before making the decision to pull the trigger and, indeed, he didn't, and I doubt the Republican-controlled Congress would have raised a stink...particularly after reading Speaker Gingrich's comments on when he "wagged the dog" in the Afghani desert.

I guess you missed the NBC program that showed bin Laden filmed by a Predator Drone in 2000. All Clinton had to do was give the order and a second volley of Tomahawks could have been on the way. Of course, there weren't any court appearances coming up so, no distraction was needed at the time I guess.


Amazingly, the current President is receiving no Congressional equivalent for possibly lying to Congress (obviously he wasnt under oath) in an effort to start a war. That, you know, costs lives.
Which lie is that again? And, please, do be specific as to when and where this lie took place. Quotes would be nice. Thank you.


Yet no investigation, no hoopla...nothing. God help him (or not) if the Dems get majority in Congress this November.
I really hope Americans are paying attention to the Democrat platform for the upcoming elections.

We will abandon Iraq.

We will raise your taxes.

We will immediately start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

And, we will do all of this before we develop a cogent plan to prosecute the ongoing war against global terrorism or ensure homeland security.

Yeehaw! Now, that's a winning strategy!

[101A]

I mean, you do realize that Clinton had to work with a Republican controlled Congress for 6 out of 8 years, 3 of which they spent trying to find out if he banged some intern.

Actually, we all knew he banged the intern, what they were investigating is if the president lied about banging the intern to save his ass in a law suit from a woman who he waved his dick in front of when he was her employer.



(Just to get Boutons riled up)

[101A]

...We will abandon Iraq.

We will raise your taxes.

We will immediately start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

And, we will do all of this before we develop a cogent plan to prosecute the ongoing war against global terrorism or ensure homeland security.


Pretty much sums it up, as far as I can tell.

But, Yoni, you do realize that when the democrats take office, and we pull out of Iraq, there won't be any more terrorists, so they won't need a plan.

[Yonivore]

Oh, I almost forgot!

We will socialize all medical care in America.

And, we will further socialize retirement plans.

[boutons_]

The Repugs don't have plan for Iraq, not now, and not before or after the invasion.

"stay the course" is very deep thinking for dubya.
He refuses to admit that "staying the course" is failing miserably.

The Repugs broke Iraq.
The Repugs don't want put the several 100K more troops in there to fix it.
The Repugs are losing Iraq.

Iraq will be lost by the time dubya leaves office,
and the Dems will have had nothing to do with losing Iraq.

[RandomGuy]

I really hope Americans are paying attention to the Democrat platform for the upcoming elections.

We will abandon Iraq.

We will raise your taxes.

We will immediately start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

And, we will do all of this before we develop a cogent plan to prosecute the ongoing war against global terrorism or ensure homeland security.

mmm So many straw men, so little time.

This guy is like the instructions for shampoo.

[work yourself into a] lather, spin, repeat. :madrun

:spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin

and he wonders why I don't take him seriously...

[RandomGuy]

I really hope Americans are paying attention to the Democrat platform for the upcoming elections.

We will abandon Iraq.

We will raise your taxes.

We will immediately start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

And, we will do all of this before we develop a cogent plan to prosecute the ongoing war against global terrorism or ensure homeland security.

Yeehaw! Now, that's a winning strategy!

Fallacy: Straw Man



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[valluco]

mmm So many straw men, so little time.

This guy is like the instructions for shampoo.

[work yourself into a] lather, spin, repeat. :madrun

:spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin :spin

and he wonders why I don't take him seriously...
Heh... I don't take him seriously either. I mean, how can you?

[valluco]

Fallacy: Straw Man



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[johnsmith]

Fallacy: Straw Man



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


Like Boutons

[johnsmith]

Fallacy: Straw Man



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


In fact, I would argue that this is much more of an accurate description of Boutons compared to Yoni. We have witnessed Yoni at least agree with others when it comes to other subjectes besides politics. Boutons on the other hand makes stupid comments and attacks every single post.

[Yonivore]

Well, let see, I've got the time at the moment.

"We will withdraw from Iraq."

The Murtha plan. And, to varying degrees, every other Democrats' plan as well. Timetable arguement.

"We will raise your taxes."

The persistent complaint that this is no time to be cutting taxes and the objection to making the current tax cuts permanent. Not to mention the fallacy that the tax cuts has hurt the economy. Does anyone doubt they will be both raising them and rolling back those already in place?

"We will immediately start impeachment proceedings agains President Bush."

I believe that's Charlie Rangel's promise.

"And, we will do all of this before we develop a cogent plan to prosecute the ongoing war against global terrorism or ensure homeland security."

Please, point me to a Democratic strategy for prosecuting the war on terror that doesn't completely consist of complaints about how President Bush is doing it all wrong.

Those aren't strawmen arguements. Those are conclusions drawn from the statements of leading Democrats on what they will do if they take control of the Congress.

They've held mock hearings they hope will become real hearings and they've been surprisingly candid about their intentions while at the same time being predictably vaccuous about what they'd do differently.

[ChumpDumper]

"We will withdraw from Iraq."

The Murtha plan. And, to varying degrees, every other Democrats' plan as well. Timetable arguement.So the Republican plan is to never withdraw from Iraq?

[valluco]

In fact, I would argue that this is much more of an accurate description of Boutons compared to Yoni. We have witnessed Yoni at least agree with others when it comes to other subjectes besides politics. Boutons on the other hand makes stupid comments and attacks every single post.
Eh...

Dude, what's this obsession with buotons? Yeah he can be annoying and too leftist but STFU already. You say that you have him on ignore, so ignore him. We all know how you feel about boutons.

Stop annoying the rest of us by constantly talking about him.

Grow a pair.

[101A]

"We will raise your taxes."



Is actually being run by at least one democrat: Casey here in PA. Runs an add which says, "I will fight to roll back the tax cut Bush gave to multi millionaires."

I called Casey's campaign and asked which tax cuts, specifically, they were going to roll back - I was told "all of them - because they only went to multi-millionaires."

When I question the campaign worker further, they went and got their supervisor. She told me that, in fact, Bob Casey was for rolling back ALL of the Bush tax cuts - because they only benefitted the super rich. I told them that I was pretty sure the tax cuts were accross the board. She told me not to believe everything I heard.

Anyway, Casey IS going to try to raise your taxes if he gets elected = Not a Straw Man.

[Yonivore]

So the Republican plan is to never withdraw from Iraq?
When the job is done and not on any stupid and arbitrary time-table as is being proposed by the Democrats.

Again, that is a party platform. We will withdraw from Iraq. No qualification, no equivocation. It doesn't apparently matter to the Democrats that circumstances could change to where they might want to keep a force in Iraq.

Their mantra appears to be, "It was a mistake based on lies and we'll bring the troops home by X date."

What more do the terrorists in Iraq need to know in order to just keep low, keep their powder dry and, when the Democrats gain power, we will have free reign.

[Yonivore]

Eh...

Dude, what's this obsession with buotons? Yeah he can be annoying and too leftist but STFU already. You say that you have him on ignore, so ignore him. We all know how you feel about boutons.

Stop annoying the rest of us by constantly talking about him.

Grow a pair.
Why don't you put johnsmith on ignore if it bothers you so much?

[ChumpDumper]

When the job is doneWhat does that mean? What is the metric for finishing the job in Iraq?
Their mantra appears to be, "It was a mistake based on lies and we'll bring the troops home by X date."Depends on which Democrat is talking. I haven't really seen a party consensus.

[RandomGuy]

Like Boutons

Much.

I will give Yoni this:

His reasoning/writing skills do surpass Boutons'.

As much crap as I may give Yoni, he does have some modicum of respect from me for taking the time to read and provide some reasoning for most of what he says. Even if a good chunk of that "reasoning" comes in the form of ill-substantiated op-ed pieces.

[Yonivore]

What does that mean? What is the metric for finishing the job in Iraq?
I guess we'll know it when we see it. But, I can tell you it's not done now. I expect that when the Iraqi government and security forces are capable of maintaining peace in their own country, we'll be done there.


Depends on which Democrat is talking. I haven't really seen a party consensus.
Exactly. They don't have a plan but, cutting and running is floating on the surface of their scummy pond.

[RandomGuy]

Well, let see, I've got the time at the moment.

"We will withdraw from Iraq."

The Murtha plan. And, to varying degrees, every other Democrats' plan as well. Timetable arguement.

"We will raise your taxes."

The persistent complaint that this is no time to be cutting taxes and the objection to making the current tax cuts permanent. Not to mention the fallacy that the tax cuts has hurt the economy. Does anyone doubt they will be both raising them and rolling back those already in place?

"We will immediately start impeachment proceedings agains President Bush."

I believe that's Charlie Rangel's promise.

"And, we will do all of this before we develop a cogent plan to prosecute the ongoing war against global terrorism or ensure homeland security."

Please, point me to a Democratic strategy for prosecuting the war on terror that doesn't completely consist of complaints about how President Bush is doing it all wrong.

Those aren't strawmen arguements. Those are conclusions drawn from the statements of leading Democrats on what they will do if they take control of the Congress.

They've held mock hearings they hope will become real hearings and they've been surprisingly candid about their intentions while at the same time being predictably vaccuous about what they'd do differently.

You actually have some back-up on a fair part of this, but I think the strawman charge sticks to most of it.

I have come to believe that withdrawal from Iraq is a good thing, but that deserves its own thread. The official stance of the party is that we should withdraw sooner than the GOP would like, but both parties think that our end goal should be to leave. Perhaps not a strawman, but certainly a half-truth.

I support tax increases to reduce overall federal debt. If we simply balance the budget and go no further, I would support whatever tax level this requires. If fiscal responsibility were a GOP plank, I would support them in that. At least with increased taxes, we aren't bankrupting the government.

As far as impeachment goes, I don't really think that will be a political reality, as much as individual dems might wish it otherwise. It backfired on the GOP when they tried it, and would do so if the Dems tried it. I *do* believe Bush's negligence in his job borders on the criminal, but doubt it could be made into a solid, convictable case. Nonetheless it is hardly the official position of the party is it? Therefore that DOES qualify as a strawman argument.

You might be right about the last bit. I think that is the most valid thing that the GOP has said about the Dems in the last political cycle. Don't bitch if you don't have an alternative. This goes both ways tho'. I remember saying the same thing when Clinton was in office. :angel

[ChumpDumper]

I guess we'll know it when we see it.What?
I expect that when the Iraqi government and security forces are capable of maintaining peace in their own country, we'll be done there.Wouldn't peace first have to be established for it to be maintained? I have never heard that language used by the administration.
Exactly. They don't have a plan but, cutting and running is floating on the surface of their scummy pond.How many members of Congress promote it? Enough to make it happen?

[Yonivore]

What?
I expanded on the answer. It's not like we're at war with a sovereign nation with a leader that can sit down at a table and sign a surrender.

But, I do believe Iraq can be pacified and that it will be and, further, that we'll know it when it happens.

Wouldn't peace first have to be established for it to be maintained?
Yes.


I have never heard that language used by the administration.
I know you haven't because a) you don't listen to the administration, you listen to biased and critical characterizations of the administration and b) you play word games in here all the time so you probably lack the skill to discern when something isn't being quoted back to you verbatim.

Sorry, I'm not in the tutoring business.

How many members of Congress promote it? Enough to make it happen?
I don't know, Democrats are a pretty devious bunch. I think it's telling that any of them have actually proposed such an idiotic idea to begin with.

Let's just hope the American people are smart enough not to want to find out, eh?

[ChumpDumper]

Show me an administration quote that says the mission of the US forces is to remain until the entire country of Iraq is completely pacified.

[Yonivore]

This just in:

AP reports (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_AUDIOTAPE?SITE=NCJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) that al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri) has produced an audiotape in which he says that 4,000 foreign insurgents have been killed in Iraq. According to the AP, the Arabic word al-Masri used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops.

Al-Masri also offered "amnesty" to Iraqis who have cooperated with coalition forces. Such cooperation has been instrumental in making life so difficult for al-Qaeda, where polls show that it to be massively unpopular.

Finally, al-Masri urged explosive experts and nuclear scientists to assist al-Qaeda. Noting that al-Qaeda is in "dire need" of these services, he suggested that U.S. bases would make a fine subject for their "experimentation." Clearly, al-Qaeda needs some sort of "big bang" to create more pressure to induce an exit by the U.S.. Apparently, their collaborators in the Left-wing Democratic party aren't getting it done fast enough.

How 'bout that! The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that to the extent terrorist insurgents leave Iraq carrying the taint of defeat, it will slow the momentum of the jihad movement. If AP's report is reliable, there's good reason to believe that 4,000 such terrorist insurgents have left the Iraqi theatre with extreme taint.

[Yonivore]

Show me an administration quote that says the mission of the US forces is to remain until the entire country of Iraq is completely pacified.
See, these are the types of semantic games you play.

Where did the word "entire" enter into the argument.

I mentioned two principles. So, pay attention. I believe (and, no, I'm not on the President's foreign policy team or a decision-maker in the administration) U. S. Military forces will remain engaged in Iraq until the country is;

1) pacified (read that as "sufficiently" pacified if it makes you feel better
because not even the United States is "entirely" pacified.) and,

2) The Iraqi security forces are able to maintain that status.

I know, I said it just a little different. But, I'm saying the same thing over and over and over again.

[MannyIsGod]

All I know, is that Yonivore has been predicting a victory for years now. Theres a reason the country is pissed off. I wonder what world dude lives in sometimes.

[ChumpDumper]

Show me an administration quote that says the mission of the US forces is to remain until the entire country of Iraq is sufficiently pacified.

[101A]

... If AP's report is reliable, there's good reason to believe that 4,000 such terrorist insurgents have left the Iraqi theatre with extreme taint.

:lmao

[Yonivore]

All I know, is that Yonivore has been predicting a victory for years now. Theres a reason the country is pissed off. I wonder what world dude lives in sometimes.
What is your answer Manny?

Seriously, what would you do now?

[Yonivore]

Show me an administration quote that says the mission of the US forces is to remain until the entire country of Iraq is sufficiently pacified.
This is why I'd like to put you on ignore. You play stupid semantics games.

I think it is abundantly clear that when the President of the United States says we're not going to leave Iraq until the job is done and goes on to say that means when Iraqi forces are able to provide for their own security without our assistance, then he's saying we'll leave when the country is sufficiently pacified for the Iraqi forces to maintain the peace.

Seriously, you're a sophomoric idiot. You don't want to debate you want to argue nuance points taken out of the context of larger arguments to the point that the original debate is no longer recognizable.

[ChumpDumper]

This is why I'd like to put you on ignore. You play stupid semantics games.I ask simple questions you are afraid or unable to answer.
I think it is abundantly clear that when the President of the United States says we're not going to leave Iraq until the job is done and goes on to say that means when Iraqi forces are able to provide for their own security without our assistance, then he's saying we'll leave when the country is sufficiently pacified for the Iraqi forces to maintain the peace.Why do you think that? It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing at all.
Seriously, you're a sophomoric idiot. You don't want to debate you want to argue nuance points taken out of the context of larger arguments to the point that the original debate is no longer recognizable.Not at all. I want to know what "getting the job done" means. All I've heard from the administration is about handing off the fight to the Iraqis when they're ready, not establishing peace first than handing off responsibility. It's a very important distinction and one you have failed to prove when asked directly -- so you start whining about the ignore function again. You had your chance.

[101A]

I ask simple questions you are afraid or unable to answer.Why do you think that? It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing at all.Not at all. I want to know what "getting the job done" means. All I've heard from the administration is about handing off the fight to the Iraqis when they're ready, not establishing peace first than handing off responsibility. It's a very important distinction and one you have failed to prove when asked directly -- so you start whining about the ignore function again. You had your chance.

You are, in fact, belaboring the point, CD.

Yoni is right about the conclusion we can all draw by what the administration has said.