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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ing 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...041100587.html
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 ing hate Boutons with a passion that burns hotter then the flames of .
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 mother er 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.
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 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 ed 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 ed 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 ing 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.
I think "Dhimmicrat" is more appropriate. Unless, of course, he's already converted to Islam.
Yoni I've often wondered why you have not enlisted to fight in Iraq? The way you 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.
I've bagged JS, like shooting fish in a barrel.
And I've had the cretinous dumb on IGNORE since about his 3rd post.
I've bagged JS, like shooting fish in a barrel.
And I've had the cretinous dumb on IGNORE since about his 3rd post.
"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?
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.
I've bagged JS, like shooting fish in a barrel.
And I've had the cretinous dumb on IGNORE since about his 3rd post.
However, this would be rather symbolic of your at ude 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 over and over again".
The Democrats need to fight back or else the republicans will ride America's fear once again.
That was funny, and good satire.
And su iously high-quality printing.
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.
Testimony to his craftsman-ship? When did intimidation, threats, political black-balling, burglary, wire-tapping, fraud, and treason morph into a craft?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
