Reply With Quote
STAND BACK!! SA210 just got back from seeing Bill Mauer and is loaded with new material!! God help us all!
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.Gee, I'm sure Clinton's ing and moaning had nothing at all to do with a response to the ABC miniseries
He's a pacifist? So, you'd listen to him more if he were a more "Christian-like" war monger?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
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.
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.
Last edited by SA210; 09-24-2006 at 05:20 PM.
STAND BACK!! SA210 just got back from seeing Bill Mauer and is loaded with new material!! God help us all!
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.STAND BACK!! SA210 just got back from seeing Bill Mauer and is loaded with new material!! God help us all!
These are things that have been said before, but always ignored and spun as you guys always do, evading responsibility.
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)
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 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
how long did it take to dig that stuff up?
Way to go Bill. About time he started firing back. That is the way the Democrats must be. Enough of the PC bull crap.
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.
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.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 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."
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.
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.
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.
I just don't believe a word that comes out of Clinton's mouth.
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.
Why do you say that?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-25-2006 at 08:48 AM. Reason: edited for clarity
Well I don't believe George "stockpiles of wmds" Bush either..
I think most administrations up to these mother ing Repugs were serious in discharging their responsibility to actually RUN the ing 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 sexuality, 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.
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.
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.
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 ing joke. Both parties do it and have been doing it for years. For some reason, I don't see this pattern chaging anytime soon.
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).
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?
See, that's the worst part too, because it's the same for me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions