Reply With Quote
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.
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.
That made complete sense. Props.
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?
More on Clinton's legacy of lies.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich 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:
This, Gingrich said, may have been a good strategy.
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:
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 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:
Wikipedia, FAS, and many other sources confirm both the use and the intent of this cyanide-laced weapon.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.
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:
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.
Yoni's boy dubya is ing himself up beyond repair, so Yoni blames it all on Clinton.
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 do ents 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:
The Washington Post article recounts statements of support by other top congressional Republicans, including Senator Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Majority Leader 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:
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 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:
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.
Not to mention you and every other AM radio listening bag. Of course now you're going to act like it never happened.Although it also notes that a few Republicans, such as Senators Arlen Specter and Dan Coats did question Clinton's motive
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.
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:
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.
But what about people accusing him of being too obsessed with bin Laden? That was his complaint.
It appears that Yoni is correct on this one --
CNN Archives
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 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).
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. Armey, GOP majority leader: "The su ion 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 cir stances, 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 su ious 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_ro...n_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.
Had I ever made that point, i would feel compelled to support it.I skimmed over it, could you please point out where a republican criticized Clinton for being "too obsessed" with bin Laden?
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?
Since you've stopped ignoring me -- you.Who cares what you think?
Looks like the wing-nuts were for the bombing before they were against it.
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.
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:
Ooops! Wrong again. (But, here's the secret, she knew she was lying)
Warning Signs
Read the rest, it's interesting.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 do ent 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:
Apparently referring to the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, which was en led "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 do ent--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.
Fox Chief Ailes defends the sand-bagger Wallace
WJLAFrom ABC 7 News:
Fox Chief: Clinton Response an 'Assault'
Location: NEW YORK
- 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.NEW YORK (AP)
"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.
When did propagandaist turn into mild-mannered reporters?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
