Yes, Clinton lied, and I
Posted By: PK on 2005-08-26
In Reply to: So lying is okay when it benefits your side - Reality check
thought it was terrible when he did.
But Clinton's lies didn't result in a war. Clinton created a surplus. Bush squandered it all and created a huge deficit with his war. I'm amazed that you can't see the huge difference between the two lies. Bush's lies are placing every single American in danger of a terror attack because he refuses to do anything about the borders. This is here. This is now. Why don't you care about TODAY and the futures of your children and their children? We're living in the most dangerous era that America has known, yet you're more concerned about the sexual practices of a former President? I truly don't understand your way of thinking.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
IMO, he has already lied about
plenty of things, but so many people are just willing to overlook that because they still believe his rhetoric.
No lobbyists would have a place in Washington when he is president.....although I believe he has 12 now.
He would go line by line to take out pork in bills, would leave them online for so many days so it could be reviewed by all, etc. What a big lie and joke that was.
Taking a doctor's freedom away by refusing to allow him the option to refuse to perform an abortion. People grumble and gripe about taking their freedom away and for government to stay out of their uterus and yet they have no problem with taking away the free will of a doctor. Funny how it is wrong to take free will away from one group but it is okay to take it away from others who disagree with them. A doctor should have a right to refuse any procedure. The patient would just have to go to another doctor.
I don't care what Obama says or doesn't say.....I don't agree with him period. I do not want more government programs. I do not want more government control. I do not want the spreading of wealth by taking it away from hardworking tax payers and giving it to moochers and illegal immigrants. I do not want cap and trade.
You cannot buy your way out of debt and that is what our government is trying to do. I guess when it is all said and done, we can all turn in our guns and call each other comrade.
I never thought he lied. And I still don't. SM
Yep! Either lied or is incompetent...sm
One fact that's left out is that the head UN inspector urged to allow the inspections to continue and that the WMD that had been reported in the 90's had been mostly destroyed. Why do you think there is none to be found?
So the things the American public was bamboozled about in Iraq (not me) are:
1) Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. It is now in the wake of the war than ever. More of a threat that it was under Saddam.
2) There were WMD. They should have listened to the UN inspectors. Clinton bombed a good deal of the sites in Iraq that had WMD in his term.
3) Connection to 9-11. I'm still waiting on a sound theory for this.
2)
Course it matters. He lied.
VA's have a policy. No demonstrating or protesting on their grounds. It's what laws are for. He said he wasn't protesting but he was lying. Now, in those VA beds are soldiers who were probably wounded in battle. This kind of this does not belong in the VA. Period. Rules are rules.
Bush lied
Bottom line still remains that SADDAM HUSSEIN, himself, could have stopped the whole thing by simply abiding by the U.N. resolutions.
He also lied to Cindy about his age.
He's 17 years older than her. A stupid thing to lie about. He lies just to lie. He lied when he said he would pick a VP who could step into the presidency. (Of all the women in the GOP, this was the best he could do?) He lies about drilling and how that will help the people with gas prices....laughable, but he keeps lying about that too.
Like when SP lied and said her teleprompter
didn't work and it didn't work for like 2 seconds, but she wanted to sound good so she said she didn't have the teleprompt and just winged the speech. Yep, like that.
Obama just sat that and lied through his
Obama also says he hasn't had anything to do with Ayers and that Ayers hasn't been involved with him. AYERS is the very man who jump started Obama's campaign fundraiser. He started the whole thing going! Does he have a conscience?
I didn't and don't like being lied to
and that is exactly what we got from George W. Bush. I was speaking of the events of 9/11 period. What part of that did you not understand?
plumber lied about
his plans to buy a business as he had no money. No plumbing license. Owed back taxes. Was on welfare. He was a fictious dupe who tried to grab the spotlight for his own fortune. How's that book and record deal going?
The story isn't that he lied. (sm)
After the last eight years, some of us EXPECT Republicans to lie. The story is that he ADMITTED to lying. Won't he get thrown out of the GOP for daring to tell the truth? 
As far as this being a one-sided story, it is what it is. I doubt that you would withhold posting a story about Obama lying...if you had a legitimate one that could be documented as being truthful. Instead, you guys invent negative stories about Obama with no corroboration, and when asked for a link to your "story," instead of providing one, you hurl personal negative insults at the poster.
When I heard this whole "once upon a time" story, it reminded me of Hillary's fake story about dodging snipers.
Jindal and Hillary Clinton. Both politicians, different parties. Both liars who invented entire life experiences that were lies, and both who should have been smart enough to know they would eventually get caught.
As far as whether it's okay for one to lie and not the other, I happen to believe it's NOT okay for ANY OF THEM to lie, regardless of party affiliation.
When you've been lied to
why watch more of the lies. It's obvious on this board that there are a lot of elitist who think that all crats are "brilliant" yet they have no desire to find out the truth of what is happeneing. I already know what is tryng to be accomplished. I don't appreciate being lied to about it. There is no intelligence they are spewing, just more hate, fear-mongering and paranoia upon their supporters. If I want intelligence I will read and watch every single piece of information I can get my hands on from both sides and make up my own mind whether or not I believe it.
Yes, we do want socialism/communism to fail. If you can't understand that, well that my dear is very sad and pathetic in itself.
And calling us un-American because we don't agree with you? Well that statement in itself it un-American. Maybe you should read up on history because you evidently don't know the history of our country and what our founding fathers fought for and died for.
so you don't think pelosi lied?
You think she's above board, an asset to her party?
Still think Bush lied about Iraq?
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Still think Bush lied?
thanks for the link...yep, she flat out lied
Lying seems to be the whole premise of the McCain campaign and she jumped right on board!!!
Obama once again lied - see message
Henry Kissinger was just interviewed. He said he never said to sit down with "no preconditions". Once again another reason I don't trust Obama.
You have lied to the wrong person here.
someone who has familiarity with the Quran, please cite the verses (ayat) and chapters (sura) where you find this information. Do not cite rightwing blogs or hate chambers.
There are so many ways to expose your ignorance here, it is hard to know where to start. Here's a clue for you. There is a distinction in the Quran between Believers (Muslims), People of the Book (Dhimmi), Disbelievers (Kafiroon) and Infidels (Kaafir). You general term of "non-Muslims" applied to the second group....the People of the Book. Bottom line here is that the Quran teaches tolerance and respect for Dhimmi. Not unlike the Christian Bible, it is also riddled with contractions and passages can be found where adversarial relationships are described.
I have lived in a Muslim country. I was treated with nothing but respect, kindness, friendship and hospitality. My sister has lived in a Muslim country for 14 years now. She has enjoyed the same experience.
The only hatemongering going on here is spewing from your own mouth. Whatever it is you have been reading or watching is making a liar out of you. If you care, do something about it. If not, then bone up on your own Holy Book and check out what the Bible has to say about the liars and give it some careful consideration.
ALL Americans are being lied to and screwed over -
by government, utilities, oil companies, tobacco industry, healthcare industry, insurance industry, auto industry, food industry, etc. The list is so long, that probably the easier way to do it would be to list who ISN'T screwing Americans:
1. Ummmm..... hmmmm.....
Let me get back to ya on that one; I can't find anyone who isn't screwing us.
okay, I read them, but I do not see where Obama lied??? nm
x
Obama lied about smoking too....... sm
Are you going to be watching for what else he lied about?
Barack Obama was on Meet the Press Sunday, and moderator Tom Brokaw put the president-elect's feet to the fire: MR. BROKAW: Finally, Mr. President-elect, the White House is a no-smoking zone, and when you were asked about this recently by Barbara Walters, I read it very carefully, you ducked. Have you stopped smoking? PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: You know, I have, but what I said was that, you know, there are...
http://www.eaglevuedaily.com/?p=224
The real story isn't that he lied. (sm)
After the last eight years, some of us EXPECT Republicans to lie. The real story is that he ADMITTED to lying. Won't he get thrown out of the GOP for daring to tell the truth?
As far as this being a one-sided story, it is what it is. I doubt that you would withhold posting a story about Obama lying...if you had a legitimate one that could be documented as being truthful. Instead, you guys invent negative stories about Obama with no corroboration, and when asked for a link to your "story," instead of providing one, you hurl personal negative insults at the poster.
When I heard this whole "once upon a time" story, it reminded me of Hillary's fake story about dodging snipers.
Jindal and Hillary Clinton. Both politicians, different parties. Both liars who invented entire life experiences that were lies, and both who should have been smart enough to know they would eventually get caught.
As far as whether it's okay for one to lie and not the other, I happen to believe it's NOT okay for ANY OF THEM to lie, regardless of party affiliation.
I know...they lied through the teeth....we had to switch channels....and they were on....sm
everywhere else too. Only dems, only one rep that I saw.
Tell a lie (and/or a bunch of lies) often enough, and it becomes the truth according to them, as reported and supported by the media.
Sickening really.
Obama lied, economists cried...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/obama_lied_economists_cried.html
Bush lied and thousands died!
Reaping the rewards.
*Gasp!* Jindal LIED???? LOLOLOLOL - thanks!!!
nm
So you have no problem that he put his hand on a Bible and lied under oath? nm
Anita Hill lied - there were two sides to the case
Only Thomas and Hill know what really happened. When this case was ongoing I was a democrat, yet I believed Thomas. People need to read the case and decide for themsleves. Just because Anita Hill said there was sexual harrassment doesn't mean it's true. I was on jury duty for a full week for a girl who said her boyfriend raped her. With her crying on the witness stand and carrying on I believed she was. On the fifth day we were all dismissed from duty, the girl told her lawyer that he really did not rape her and she made it up because she was made at him. Please don't go by just the link below either. Do some more researching, but from what I read of this article I don't think it's leaning towards one or the other side. All I'm saying is there are two sides of the story. By your post I'm sure if he was a democrat who wasn't getting ready to look over the info about the O you would praise him as a great judge.
http://volokh.com/posts/1191302418.shtml
If they hadn't lied - we wouldn't be in this war with a faceless enemy....nm
x
of course he lied - but no one died - he had a young daughter to protect...
All men would lie - when, in fact, it was nobody's freakin' business........that was Hillary's problem
Obama lied to the country. "No earmarks"
nm
Bush lied and our brave patriotic soldiers died..PERIOD
Of course Bush lied about WMD and the threat of Iraq..He needed a reason to invade Iraq..If you would do some research you would find many papers that document meetings between Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and others who devised a way to take over the Middle East in the 1990's..all they needed was a way to present it to the American people, as we would not allow our children to die for no reason. With 9/11, they got the reason and tried to tie up 9/11 with Iraq..I, frankly, think they also had a hand in 9/11..For any who poo poo this..I ask you to do some surfing on the Northwoods Operation..same kind of thing, only in the 1960's..Let a few CIA Hispanic/Cuban operatives invade a few curise ships on Floridas coast, kill a few Americans and we would definitely agree to invading Cuba and killing Casto..Our govt did not agree to it, however, 9/11 seems to me like an updated plan..there are many who also wonder was this an inside job..
clinton
You mean wonderful super intelligent President Bill Clinton and his lovely super intelligent lawyer wife, Hiliary? So much better than the dufus warmonger and Stepford wife in the WH right now..Jerks, both of them, backward thinking monsters, Bush and Stepford.
clinton
I think Clinton should have been impeached. He is to be a role model? Please, what kind of a role model is that cheating on his wife.
No on Clinton as VP
No way can Obama offer VP to Queen Hillary. He should remember what happened to JFK (with Johnson being involved). What a better way for the Queen to annoint herself to the presidency by getting rid of him. Don't put it past her either - just remember Ron Brown, Vince Foster, Eric Fox, Sandy Hume, Danny Casolaro, Ronald Rogers, John Wilson, Gandy Baugh, Mary Mahoney, Suzanne Coleman, Judy Gibbs, Gary Johnson, Kathy Ferguson, Bell Shelton, Sally Perdue (didn't mysteriously die but was told if she didn't keep her mouth shut they would break her legs), Jon Walker, Johnny Franklin, Ed Willey, Barbara Alice Wise, Jerry Parks, C. Victor Raiser, L.J. Davis, Herschel Friday, Ron Brown, and the list goes on and on an on....
So no, I would not put it past either of them that something would happen and she would swear herself in as the anointed queen. Lets just hope Obama has more sense - which I believe he does.
Clinton
Where do I start? I love Bill Clinton. Hs is very intelligent, he can talk about anything and knows what he is talking about. He did what the first person posted. He was impeached but he could not be removed from office because he was impeached for was not govenment and it has to pertain to the government to be removed from office. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he earned everything he got. He has worked very hard. Funny, but I get the same sick feeling in my stomach whenever I see George Bush's face on TV and the man cannot even speak so how he can do anything else. The trillion dollar debt, people with no jobs, and the list goes on and on. Put us in a war we had no business being in. He has never done anything on his own that turned out good. Whatever he did was with the help of his father or someone else doing it for him. He will not return to Crawford, they are going to build a house, but I forgot the location, and he will not be traveling around the world working to get meds for AIDS patients, starving children, etc. Maybe he can help bring back other countries to like us again like they used to until Bush told just about everyone of them he did not need their help and made them angry with us. I could go on and on but I am tired and going to bed.
This has been going on even when Clinton
was in office. This has been going on for years. Shoot, I lived in Arizona for 25 years and illegals were everywhere. Finally, Arizona will NOT hire anyone that is illegal. The companies have to hire people who show BC and if the employees do not, they are not hired. So most illegals moved to other states. Also the companies are audited and have to show proof that each employee is legal or the company will be fined. Arizona has border patrol that runs along Mexico and Arizona and that should have been up years ago. Even tried putting up border control when Clinton was in office, but everyone ignored her plea until a few years ago. Also work for a company that outsources to India. This has been going on for years and years. When the O takes over, he will probably sell our country out and will be worse. He says he will help the the middle class yet cause electricity rates to skyrocket and so on. I do not trust O with ANYTHING. He is a smooth talker, the ones I do not trust. If McCain wins, at least I know he will try to make our country safe from nukes of Iran.
Again I will say it. Clinton and his
cronies cooked the books. There was no surplus. It came out after an audit after Bush got in office.
I really do wonder how Clinton will
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480126,00.html
U.S. Obtains New Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue
Friday, January 16, 2009
Iran Presidency Office
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inspects the Natanz nuclear plant in central Iran.
WASHINGTON — U.S. security and law-enforcement officials say they have fresh evidence of recent efforts by Iran to evade sanctions and acquire metals from China used in high-tech weaponry, including long-range nuclear missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
Iran's efforts are detailed in a series of recent emails and letters between Iranian companies and foreign suppliers seen by The Wall Street Journal. Business records show one Iranian company, ABAN Commercial & Industrial Ltd., has contracted through an intermediary for more than 30,000 kilograms (about 66,000 pounds) of tungsten copper — which can be used in missile guidance systems — from Advanced Technology & Materials Co. Ltd. of Beijing. One March 2008 email between the firms mentions shipping 215 ingots, with more planned.
The United Arab Emirates has informed the U.S. that in September it intercepted a Chinese shipment headed to Iran of specialized aluminum sheets that can be used to make ballistic missiles. A month earlier, UAE officials also intercepted an Iran-bound shipment of titanium sheets that can be used in long-range missiles, according to a recent letter to the U.S. Commerce Department from the UAE's Washington ambassador.
Evidence of Iran's efforts to acquire sensitive materials also is emerging from investigations by state and federal prosecutors in New York into whether a number of major Western banks illegally handled funds for Iran and deliberately hid Iranian transactions routed through the U.S. One focus of the inquiries is the role of Italy, including the Rome branch of Iran's Bank Sepah and Italy's Banca Intesa Sanpaolo Spa. Banca Intesa said it is cooperating in the inquiries.
Iran Produces Enough Uranium to Build Nuclear Weapon
The developments could present President-elect Barack Obama with an early test in responding to what many Washington security officials now say is a rapidly growing threat to the region, including U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.
All of the high-performance metals Iran has been acquiring also have industrial uses such as commercial aviation and manufacturing, making it difficult for intelligence agencies to be absolutely certain how the materials are being used.
"We can't say we know it would, or would not, be used for military purposes," said proliferation expert Gary Milholland of the nonprofit Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, noting that broad economic sanctions on Tehran led by the U.S. mean Iran has to go to unusual lengths to find high-grade materials for industrial use as well as weapons.
Still, he added, "There doesn't seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb or whether Iran is using front companies to import things. Everyone agrees on that around the world."
Officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency said they believe Iran could have enough fissile material for an atomic weapon sometime this year, though it would need to be further processed into weapons-grade uranium. That assessment was echoed Thursday by Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael V. Hayden. U.S. and European governments have grown increasingly alarmed in recent months at the speed they believe Iran is developing ballistic-missile and nuclear capabilities. Last year the United Nations Security Council, which includes China, formally imposed sanctions on Iran's military and most of its banks for nuclear proliferation activities.
A spokesman for Iran at its U.N. mission in New York declined to comment. China "has been strictly implementing" U.N. proliferation sanctions on Iran, said a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry in Beijing. The export of restricted items such as high-grade metals, which include specialized aluminum and titanium, is prohibited, he added.
Wow, Clinton
Probably had Monica hiding under the desk. LOL. Sorry, could not resist.
No, Clinton just used
the Oval Office (that I pay for) and ''company time'' to get Lewinskyed on a regular basis. He may even have gotten a Lewinsky on Fathers Day, who knows?
I believe it is called Fathers Day for a reason. Obama went golfing on the sacred day, and I don't think Michelle and the kids were with him. On Fathers Day, it's Daddy that gets the gifts, otherwise it would be called Family Day or Wife and Children's Day or something else.
Some men give their wives a day at a spa for Mothers Day...should she be required to spend all day with Hubby and kids instead? Technically, I think the honoree gets to spend their time the way s/he chooses on that day.
Sanford having his trist in Argentina was quite bad enough, do you really have to pile on with Fathers Day as well?
Well, how did you feel about Clinton
get a B.J. just outside the Oval Office and then lying under oath about it? Oh, but that was his personal life though...
Clinton's Lies
Clinton made his worst mistake by not taking Osama bin Laden when he was offered to him on a silver platter by the Sudan. In case you have forgotten, he was major planner and money man of 9-11. Had Bill not been afraid of the political fallout...he might have been able to stop 9-11. And when it all comes out about Able Danger...he is finished and so, hopefully, is his wife, as far as politics are concerned. And the surplus you drone on about was a PROJECTED surplus, if spending was frozen for the next 10 years. Like THAT was going to happen. Sheesh.
Clinton/Bush
Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity. I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected. Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie. Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.
Clinton/Bush
Again, GT brought the whole subject up about presidential integrity. I just wanted to see GT's feeling about what Clinton did, but of course, GT justified Clinton's lies which was what I fully expected. Again, Bush hasn't been proven to lie. Like I have said several times before on this board I will be the first to cry uncle if Bush is proven to have lied by investigation and that doesn't include accusations and conjecture by liberal politicians, grieving mothers, or leftist bloggers.
Well, are they back up since the Clinton adm.
You used the word now, so I assume they are still at these levels and maybe even lower.
The point was that while everybody is again noticing poverty and thinking that Bush had done a dismal job in fighting poverty. The numbers just don't back that up. While there are some people living in poverty because of life circumstances beyond their control MOST are there because of bad life choices. You can throw all the money you want at it, but until morality is advocated and pushed for in this country then you will always have poverty. Jesus even said you will always have the poor among you. Now, is that a reason not to try and do something about poverty? No, but just throwing more and more money their way through higher taxation of the work force will not fix it either. It will only make more people classified as poor.
WHATever and thank you, Bill Clinton
with a thriving economy, an honest attempt at protecting our environment, and peace.
can we forget about clinton?
When you need a punching bag, bring up Clinton..If in doubt, bring up Clinton, if a republican is being investigated, bring up Clinton. Who cares about Clinton. He is not in office, however, Delay, Frist and Rove are all working in the govt.
She has a point about Clinton. SM
We had a porn star for president! Big deal. Who cares.
When Clinton did this did you have a problem with it
When he tracked financial records of terrorists during his admin.: See below.
******
From the August 28, 1998, edition of the Washington Post in an article entiteld “Bin Laden’s Finances Are a Moving Target; Penetrating Empire Could Take Years” by John Mintz:
Last week, President Clinton announced the addition of bin Laden’s name to a list of terrorists whose funds are targeted for seizure by the U.S. Treasury. Clinton aides said one of their goals is to locate bin Laden’s bank accounts and make him so radioactive in the eyes of global bankers that they won’t handle his funds. Some U.S. officials also suggested they could drain his accounts using highly classified means of information warfare involving electronic networks.
“We want to take financial action against him,” a senior administration official said. “The objective is to take down the infrastructure.”
Bin Laden’s money is the key to his power, U.S. officials say. He needs his fortune to pay his thousands of Muslim followers, bribe officials and plan terrorist strikes.
“If you go after his money, you’ll hurt him,” said Larry Johnson, a former CIA official and now a security consultant. “You need cash to make his system run.”
The United States has never launched such a financial attack on terrorists. In 1995 Clinton banned U.S. financial institutions from dealing with several dozen suspected terrorist individuals and groups, and Americans from donating funds to them.
But until last week the U.S. Treasury, which continually updates this list of “sanctioned” terrorists, never placed bin Laden on the list, despite the fact that the U.S. government had identified him since 1995 as the world’s leading terrorist paymaster. A senior administration official said the government’s understanding of his role “was evolving.”
So we’ve been going after bin Laden’s financing and the al-Qaeda money network for eight years now. But that doesn’t really blow the whole case open about the Bush administration’s “secret program.” This does:
The CIA and agents with Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also will try to lay tripwires to find out when bin Laden moves funds by plugging into the computerized systems of bank transaction monitoring services — operated by the Federal Reserve and private organizations called SWIFT and CHIPS — that record the billions of dollars coursing through the global banking system daily.
Call me crazy, but that looks pretty gosh darn similar to what the New York Times and Los Angeles Times are freaking out about and calling a Bush administration “secret program.”
This isn’t news. This is just an attempt by these two newspapers and the associated reporters to “expose” the Bush administration’s attempts to keep this country safe from terrorism and root out those who would do us harm. The ACLU, the Democratic Party, and the “netroots” will proceed to go bananas about a program that’s been tracking bin Laden and al-Qaeda financial transactions for eight years–and was established under none other than Bill Clinton.
This is what Clinton was impeached for:
This is what he was impeached for:
The House voted 228 to 206 to approve proposed Article I of Impeachment (Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury), and voted 221 to 212 to approve proposed Article III of Impeachment (Obstruction of Justice).
And he was guilty of both. His impeachment had nothing to do with cigar dates with MOnica Lewinsky, though it should have...it had to do with lying under oath before a grand jury, and obstructing justice. Against the law in ALL 51 states. Also, he broke his presidential oath of office to uphold and defend the laws of the United States all to pieces. But that is okay, because he is Bill Clinton? How is it you liberals check any moral values you might have at the door whenever it suits you?
Clinton and Somalia...
The article was clear, and in military circles the truth is known. When Blackhawk Down happened, Clinton, instead of doing the right thing and stamping on Al Qaeda when he had the chance, chose to run. Al Qaeda was emboldened by that, and were left alone to grow, plan, etc. They felt they scored a great victory in Mogadishu, and in fact, because Clinton ran, they did. You say the country would not have supported a war in the middle east before 9-11. Perhaps not. The people might not have supported a war in Somalia either, as there are some people, like yourself, who believe war is never the answer. As I have said ad nauseam, until the enemy shares your belief (which will never happen), we must defend ourselves or be overtaken or having our cities turn into East Baghdad. They cannot defeat us in a real war, and they know this. I personally do not feel we should accept having 3000 people murdered. Had we smashed them in Somalia, we probably would not have had the issues we now have in Iraq, because the *insurgency* is fueled by Al Qaeda and we all know that. The rank and file Iraqi people would have had no idea how to put forth a guerilla war. Point being...Clinton's administration, or he himself, bear a great burden of responsibility for what we now face. AL Qaeda did the same thing in Somalia they are doing in Iraq now...arming and training. And we had the chance to stop it, and our President chose not to. Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton later, and again he chose not to take it. You choose to take Bush to task for Iraq. I continue to take Clinton to task because I think he is more wholly reponsible. Not because he is a leftist or a Democrat, but because he made a decision based on keeping his political popularity than on doing what was right at the time for the security of this country. Anything else Clinton did, while reprehensible, pales in comparison to that as far as I am concerned. However, that is past, there is nothing I can do to change it. I do, however, resent the fact that the left totally dismisses all that and instead pounces on Bush for at least trying to do the right thing for this country, regardless of the political consequences. But, that takes moral courage, and something Bill Clinton never had and never will have
What I see regarding staying in Iraq is trying to finish what Clinton should have finished in Somalia. And not to abandon those rank and file Iraqis who desperately do want freedom. The insurgents do not speak for the majority of the Iraqi people. The majority of the Iraqi people are almost like children...they have no clue how to fight or defend themselves because they were so oppressed for so many years. It is those people who will be hurt horribly if we go now. But you seem willing to abandon them to it. That is what I do not understand. For someone who professes compassion, I don't know how you justify that. It could be that we are never able to do what we want to do and at some point need to withdraw. I am willing to give Petraeus a chance. I prefer to look at it like he does...stop looking through the rear view mirror and look out over the hood...and let's win this thing. He still believes it can be done. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I think he deserves the chance, and the Iraqi people deserve the chance, to see if he can.
|
