A bunch of bull . If Clinton was an unserious President, Congress was a veritable laugh riot.
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 cons utional right to due process" caption.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.
That's a shorter, less negative caption than Bush the Younger will have.
on a silver platter? Please provide me with anything to back up Osama being offered...
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 bags and idiots who would prefer to avoid talking about current events that reflect poorly upon current leaders argue the $70 million was worth it."
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 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. ing 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 now... for all of us. Why delay the inevitable?
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!?!
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.
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
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 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 [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. 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. head'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.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-24-2006 at 08:23 AM.
Yes, and if Bill Clinton said it, it must be true
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...
Look it up yourself. It happened.
Clinton was admired only by the village idiots like yourself, butons, Nbadan,
Sa210. He was a two bit 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.
Yo, it was 15 rounds, ya know!
I must break you.
On a side note... that's why I'm buying that new Porche. Who needs an IRA during nuclear winter??
"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.
"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 ing hoo.
Quit defending that complete moronic waste of $70 million. You remember what the investigation was supposed to be about don't you?Quit defending that moronic act and subsequent lie.Sex in the Oval Office...what the hail was he thinking!?!You think that's the first time that's ever happened?
I bet Grover Cleveland used to get his rocks salted all the time.Quit defending that complete moronic waste of $70 million. You remember what the investigation was supposed to be about don't you?
No .
Would we prefer never to have had Eisenhower as President or even Supreme Commander for D-Day because he was ing his secretary?
Be honest.
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.
Well, let's speak truthfully around here and talk some real facts.
"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 ing hoo.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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!
Last edited by SA210; 09-24-2006 at 04:15 PM.
Gee, I'm sure Clinton's ing and moaning had nothing at all to do with a response to the ABC miniseries
Richard Clarke is a moron and a pacifist, and a mouthpiece of the Democratic party. There's no bias in what he says at allRichard 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!
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 head/wolfowitz pre-occupation even befoe dubya was elected.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
