Author Topic: Bill Clinton  (Read 11429 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GOP for Tommy Moore.

  • Guest
Bill Clinton
« on: September 24, 2006, 11:49:59 AM »
After viewing the interview conducted by Mike Wallace, FOX NEWS, of President Bill Clinton, there's no doubt that President Bill Clinton will go down in History as one of the Best Presidents ever.  He is so brillant.  This explains why the republicans hate him so.  The only negative comment that Britt Hume could muster up against President Bill Clinton was the interns , no he corrected that to intern mess.  Can you believe it?  Bill Clinton reinforced my belief about the republican party gone wild.  I will never vote republican again.  NEVER.  They govern just like Hitler.  OUT OF FEAR. 

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2006, 01:23:11 PM »
Here are links to the interview in it's entirety (not the edited version put out by Fox):
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaNIBFSMjb8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT7yKfXN4p0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oinw73s-wdo

GOP GOP

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2006, 02:13:21 PM »
First of all Mike Wallace didn't interview Clinton.  And, I can't recall Britt Hume interviewing him.  Now, if you believed him this morning, you must really have a few loose ones up  there, i.e., the elevator may get past the 2nd floor of a 10 story building.  Lastly, I'm extremely happy you're not voting Republican... we don't need your type... glad you left the party...

GOP for Tommy Moore.

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2006, 02:29:20 PM »
Sorry, it was Chris Wallace.  Mike's son.  Britt Hume was asked this morning on Fox Sunday about what he thought about the interview.  The only negative comment offered by Conserative Britt Hume was about the intern.  Bill Clinton made more sense than what I've heard in quite a while.  The GOP are doomed. 

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2006, 02:33:29 PM »

Quote
Now, if you believed him this morning, you must really have a few loose ones up  there, i.e., the elevator may get past the 2nd floor of a 10 story building

Sorry........  ;)

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/

An excerpt:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."
« Last Edit: September 24, 2006, 02:38:30 PM by KarmaPolice »

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2006, 03:39:01 PM »
Quote
And, I can't recall Britt Hume interviewing him.

Hume was a member of this morning's "Fox Sunday Panel". A panel discussion followed the Clinton interview.

Marty Tennant

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5786
    • Marty Tennant the PC Doctor
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2006, 04:10:33 PM »

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

Karma, excellent news article blast from the past.  My, how things change when parties change power and terrorists actually strike.
Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.

clara

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2006, 05:54:55 PM »
yes, legislation is what we need (needed).  and if all the other countries and the u n would have passed resolutions against terriorism, we would not have all the killing now.  dream on







GOP GOP

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2006, 07:19:40 PM »
I love it, KarmaPolice pulls a couple of things to attempt to prove me wrong.  All I said was that Clinton was LYING and never did mention about what!!  But, as most liberals do, Karma just pulled what suited him and put it forth as a Conservative not understanding.  My, my... you are so smart Karma, I just may suggest that you take Kofi Annan's position.  You both think the same...

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2006, 08:54:19 PM »
Quote
All I said was that Clinton was LYING and never did mention about what!!

No, gop-gop, you never did........

insomniac

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2006, 09:43:06 AM »


>>> Subject: Fw: Bill Clinton
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 8, 1964,
>>> >accepting
>>> all contractual conditions of registering for the draft.
>>> >
>>> >Selective Service Number 326 46 228.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton refuses to report and is not inducted into the
military.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States
>>> >Army Reserves on August 07, 1969, under authority of Col. E.
Holmes.
>>> >
>>> >Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment.
>>> >
>>> > Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University

>>> > of
>>
>>> >Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment
>>> >with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E... Holmes and Clinton
>>> >now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a)
>>> >registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction.'
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1,
>>> 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for
>>> induction is INELIGIBLE!
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from
>>> >justice under Public Law 90-40.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a
>>> fugitive from justice.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977, from President
>> Carter.
>>> >
>>> >Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as
>>> >President of the United States.
>>> >
>>> >>All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public
>>> >>laws, and various books that have been published, and have not
>>> >>been refuted by Clinton.
>>> >
>>> >After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton
>>> >promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>>> >
>>> >After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S.
>>> >military personnel Clinton promised that those responsible would be

>>> >hunted down and punished.
>>> >
>>> >After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed
>>> >19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that
>>> >those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
>>> >
>>> >After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed
>>> >224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible
>>> >would be hunted down and punished.
>>> >
>>> >After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured

>>> >39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be
>>> >hunted down and punished.
>>> >
>>> >Maybe if Clinton had kept those promises, an estimated 3,000 people

>>> >in New York and Washington, DC that are now dead would be alive
today.
>>> >
>>> >AN INTERESTING QUESTION:
>>> >This question was raised on a Philly radio call-in show. Without
>>> >casting stones, it is a legitimate question.
>>> >
>>> >There are two men, both extremely wealthy. One develops relatively
>>> >cheap software and gives billions of dollars to charity.
>>> >
>>> >The other sponsors terrorism. That being the case, why was it that
> the Clinton Administrati on spent more money chasing down Bill Gates
> over the eight years in office, than Osama bin Laden?
>>> >
>>> >THINK ABOUT IT!
>>> >It is a strange turn of events. Hillary gets $8 Million for her
>>> >forth coming memoir. Bill gets about $12 Million for his memoir yet

>>> >to be written. This from two people who spent 8 years being unable
>>> >to recall anything about past events while under oath.
>>> >
>>> >Sincerely,
>>> >
>>> >Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)
>>> >
>>> >P.S. Please forward this to as many people as you can! We don't
>>> >want this woman to even THINK of running for President.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
_
>>

>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --

>
>

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
For insomniac
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2006, 10:25:04 AM »

Insomniac

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2006, 10:33:40 AM »
Look here Karma afdipwit I still blame Clinton!!!

Ilya Kuryakin

  • Pro-management union buster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2006, 10:57:48 AM »
KarmaPolice,

I laugh at those who have drunk the Klinton Kool-Aid and the Bush Busch.  Each time you cite a reference shooting down yet another dumbass, spam email, it makes my day.

My sincere thanks,

Jack Aubrey
Capt., RN

Animal Mother

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2006, 11:49:55 AM »
Somebody here needs to flush out their headgear. You people are as bad as the Clintonistas who lie continuously to try to create a legacy for our only reprobate president, the Impeached Bill Clinton.

The facts are the facts. No matter how you try to lie your way around it. Clinton didn't want to take on the tough and risky jobs like taking out Bin Laden because he was didn't want to risk his legacy. In fact the only time the idiot ever got in gear was when there was some need to break the media cycle like with the Lewinski affair.

Take North Korea for instance. He cut a bargain with them not to build nukes and gave them the Nuke reactors and nuke material. What did they do? They do what all unaccountable communist dictators do. They lied and built the nukes anyway. But hey ole Billy boy got what he wanted, they kept their mouths shut until he was out of office. Of course once he was gone they wanted some more handouts and would have gotten them if Algore had been president. Too bad for them it didn't quite work out that way.

It is a truth of life that the world is ruled by the aggressive use of military force. Unfortunately when libs are in power that applies to everyone but us. Clinton wanted to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. He did not take it seriously. There is nothing about that fact of history you can change or spin your way out of.

Ilya Kuryakin

  • Pro-management union buster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2006, 01:18:55 PM »
Whose side are you on, Son?

Don't you love your country?

Insomniac

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2006, 01:45:41 PM »
Clinton is a pathological liar! In his interview with Chris Wallace he almost lost it. Had Bush, Cheney or Rice would have acted in this manner in an interview, we would never hear the end of it from the liberal media. He kept siteing his puppet Richard Clark never saying anything about the 911 commission findings. He acted like he was being set up by wallace, fox and the republicans. He was nothing more than a sniveling baby.He also said he was obsessed with getting Bin Laden and the republicans were mad at him for it. What a "LIE". 

Animal Mother

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2006, 02:17:58 PM »
Bill Clinton’s Excuses
No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism.

By Byron York


“I worked hard to try and kill him,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News Sunday. “I tried. I tried and failed.”

“Him” is Osama bin Laden. And in his interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the former president based nearly his entire defense on one source: Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror, the book by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. “All I’m asking is if anybody wants to say I didn’t do enough, you read Richard Clarke’s book,” Clinton said at one point in the interview. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror,” he said at another. “All you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s findings and you know it’s not true,” he said at yet another point. In all, Clinton mentioned Clarke’s name 11 times during the Fox interview.

But Clarke’s book does not, in fact, support Clinton’s claim. Judging by Clarke’s sympathetic account — as well as by the sympathetic accounts of other former Clinton aides like Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon — it’s not quite accurate to say that Clinton tried to kill bin Laden. Rather, he tried to convince — as opposed to, say, order — U.S. military and intelligence agencies to kill bin Laden. And when, on a number of occasions, those agencies refused to act, Clinton, the commander-in-chief, gave up.

Clinton did not give up in the sense of an executive who gives an order and then moves on to other things, thinking the order is being carried out when in fact it is being ignored. Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action.

Examples are all over Clarke’s book. On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”

That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.

The story was the same with the CIA. On page 204, Clarke vents his frustration at the CIA’s slow-walking on the question of killing bin Laden. “I still to this day do not understand why it was impossible for the United States to find a competent group of Afghans, Americans, third-country nationals, or some combination who could locate bin Laden in Afghanistan and kill him,” Clarke writes. “I believe that those in CIA who claim the [presidential] authorizations were insufficient or unclear are throwing up that claim as an excuse to cover the fact that they were pathetically unable to accomplish the mission.”

Clarke hit the CIA again a few pages later, on page 210, on the issue of the CIA’s refusal to budget money for the fight against al Qaeda. “The formal, official CIA response was that there were [no funds],” Clarke writes. “Another way to say that was that everything they were doing was more important than fighting al Qaeda.”

The FBI proved equally frustrating. On page 217, Clarke describes a colleague, Roger Cressey, who was frustrated after meeting with an FBI representative on the subject of terrorism. “That fucker is going to get some Americans killed,” Clarke reports Cressey saying. “He just sits there like a bump on a log.” Clarke adds: “I knew he was talking about an FBI representative.”

So Clinton couldn’t get the job done. Why not? According to Clarke’s pro-Clinton view, the president was stymied by Republican opposition. “Weakened by continual political attack,” Clarke writes, “[Clinton] could not get the CIA, the Pentagon, and FBI to act sufficiently to deal with the threat.”

Republicans boxed Clinton in, Clarke writes, beginning in the 1992 campaign, with criticism of Clinton’s avoidance of the draft as a young man, and extending all the way to the Lewinsky scandal and the president’s impeachment. The bottom line, Clarke argues, is that the commander-in-chief was not in command. From page 225:

Because of the intensity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in ‘Wag the Dog’ tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life. For similar reasons, he could not fire the recalcitrant FBI Director who had failed to fix the Bureau or to uncover terrorists in the United States. He had given the CIA unprecedented authority to go after bin Laden personally and al Qaeda, but had not taken steps when they did little or nothing. Because Clinton was criticized as a Vietnam War opponent without a military record, he was limited in his ability to direct the military to engage in anti-terrorist commando operations they did not want to conduct. He had tried that in Somalia, and the military had made mistakes and blamed him. In the absence of a bigger provocation from al Qaeda to silence his critics, Clinton thought he could do no more.

In the end, Clarke writes, Clinton “put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.”

But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror.


KarmaPolice

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2006, 07:45:13 PM »
I will counter with a piece by William Pitt:

"9/11 was Clinton's fault"
   
The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

Indeed.

Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

==========

Marty Tennant

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5786
    • Marty Tennant the PC Doctor
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2006, 07:59:48 PM »
Folks, I've already shown that the neo-con, pro-Zion crazies in the Pentagon wanted a new Pearl Harbor that would force us to rearm.  They knew it was coming, were told it was coming by Israel, and let it happen.

Go back to the thread on the fifth anniversary of 9/11.  Read the facts.   There are many sources of information, but you will find a common thread.

I did, and the conclusion I came to is that we knew 9/11 was coming but did nothing to stop it.  Too many things, including the air defense "do nothings", point to government acquiesence.

Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.

Ilya Kuryakin

  • Pro-management union buster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2006, 08:10:01 PM »
I'll go further than that and say that the whole thing was perpetrated by our federal government, with the help of some Zionist whackos.

Marty Tennant

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5786
    • Marty Tennant the PC Doctor
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2006, 08:14:03 PM »
I won't say that.  But I will say that the whole thing was known about in advance.
Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.

Animal Mother

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2006, 08:21:48 AM »
And I guess that trip to the moon was just a hollywood movie, the space shuttle doesn't really go into space and the earth is really flat afterall.

You are all a bunch of wacko conspiracy kooks. End of discussion.


Disgusting

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2006, 09:13:04 AM »
Marty and Jack... you two are very close to being what one may call extreme SICK-Os.  I can't believe you two actually believe what you are typing.  What a bunch of crap.  Why don't you go join the Taliban or Al-Qaeda and help them kill Americans and other innocents.  Disgusting, disgusting.   >:(

Marty Tennant

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5786
    • Marty Tennant the PC Doctor
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2006, 09:15:47 AM »
Have you taken the time to investigate the facts?

I have.

The whole thing stinks.

If you haven't read the facts that have been laid out in front of you, don't come here and try to accuse me of being a friend of the Taliban.  I'm not.

I'm an American who is sick and tired of the propaganda and bullshit.  We are in bed with Israel and Big Oil.  Follow the money my friend, then come back and try to have a real debate.

While you are at it, read about the Military Industrial Complex Ike warned us about.

It is in control.  If you think you have a real government that you elected, think again.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 09:25:14 AM by Marty Tennant »
Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2006, 09:53:57 AM »
Quote
Why don't you go join the Taliban or Al-Qaeda and help them kill Americans and other innocents.

Marty and Jack, I hope you don't waste your time responding to this crap; just as I hope you'll ignore those who believe critics of the actions of our current regime are "sickos" or "conspiracy kooks".
 

« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 10:07:54 AM by KarmaPolice »

Marty Tennant

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5786
    • Marty Tennant the PC Doctor
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2006, 09:56:02 AM »
Of course.  We cannot think and make up our own minds.  They have been made up for us in the name of patriotism.

Good lord, thank goodness that some people are still willing to question and speak out.
Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.

Ilya Kuryakin

  • Pro-management union buster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2006, 10:16:35 AM »
Anyone who questions my patriotism is welcome to review my military and voting records.  I'm proud to be an American, but I am ashamed of what's happened to our form of government (at all levels).

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
For Animal Mother
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2006, 01:32:37 PM »
Thursday, April 8, 2004 Posted: 2:57 PM EDT (1857 GMT)
     
Clarke vs. Rice: Excerpts from testimony


(CNN) -- Fifteen days after former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke testified before the 9/11 commission, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice made her case before the panel.

Here are excerpts from their testimony on several key issues before the commission.

What did Bush know and what did he do?
CLARKE: President Bush was regularly told by the director of Central Intelligence that there was an urgent threat. ... On one of those occasions, he asked for a strategy to deal with the threat....

[Rice's] looking into it and the president asking for it did not change the pace at which it was considered. And as far as I know, the president never asked again.

[The threat level in summer 2001] exceeded anything that [CIA director] George Tenet or I had ever seen.

RICE: From January 20 [2001] through September 10 [2001], the president received at [daily intelligence briefings] more than 40 briefing items on al Qaeda, and 13 of those were in response to questions he or his top advisers posed.

The threat-reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al Qaeda activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas.

Most often, though, the threat reporting was frustratingly vague.

How high a priority was terrorism?
CLARKE: George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the al Qaeda threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials. And there was a process under way to address al Qaeda.

But although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way. My view was that this administration, while it listened to me, didn't either believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem.

RICE: President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was tired of swatting flies....

One doesn't have the luxury of dealing only with one issue if you are the United States of America. There are many urgent and important issues. But we all had a strong sense that this was a very crucial issue.

How did the Clinton and Bush administrations' approaches differ?
CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.


RICE: The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority. ...

On an operational level, therefore, we decided immediately to continue to pursue the Clinton administration's covert action authority and other efforts to fight the network. ... We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to try and eliminate the al Qaeda network.

How does the war in Iraq fit into the war on terror?
CLARKE: The war in Iraq was not necessary. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. And by going to war with Iraq, we have greatly reduced our possibility to prosecute the war on terrorism.

RICE: I believe we will change the nature of the Middle East, particularly if there are examples that this can work in the Middle East. And this is why Iraq is so important.

The Iraqi people are struggling to find a way to create a multiethnic democracy that works. ... When they succeed, I think we will have made a big change -- they will have made a big change in the middle of the Arab world, and we will be on our way to addressing the source [of terrorism].

Could more have been done to prevent 9/11?
CLARKE: Let me compare 9/11 and the period immediately before it to the millennium rollover and the period immediately before that. ... Every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information.

Contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the president ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.


RICE: There was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States -- something made very difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Why didn't Bush respond to the USS Cole bombing?
CLARKE: I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that ... there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack [which occurred in October 2000].

Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration's watch."

I didn't think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, now that it had the CIA saying it was al Qaeda, should have responded.


RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. ... We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn't want to respond tit-for-tat. ...

Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists -- they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them -- and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.

Did the decision-making process delay action against terrorism?
CLARKE: In the Bush administration I ... and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee. ...

It slowed [the process] down enormously, by months.

RICE: I just don't believe that bringing the principals over to the White House every day and having their counterterrorism people have to come with them and be pulled away from what they were doing to disrupt was a good way to go about this. It wasn't an efficient way to go about it.
 
 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html 

Disgusting...

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2006, 08:28:25 PM »
I read and I listen and you are totally wrong in believing the trash that your left wing liberals throw out to you.  From what you have typed, I'll stand by my remarks.  And Jack, you contradict yourself about 10 times a week on this site.  Seems you are one of those 'wannabe more than I am' military fellows who likes to hear himself talk.  Many years ago I knew many of them.  Passed over, passed over, passed over...  Another thing, just because you're retired military does not mean that you have a high degree of patroitism... may have then but do you now?  General Batiste is a good example...

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2006, 08:30:39 PM »
So........ General Batiste isn't a patriot?

And, Disgusting, which posts are yours? It's hard to tell...... Are you the poster who trots out copies of anonymous ridiculous spam mails as the truth?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 08:34:29 PM by KarmaPolice »

Disgusting...

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2006, 08:48:06 PM »
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Now did I say that Batiste was not a patriot?  As usual, you libs try to always read something into other's words.  Figure them out Karma, you're a POLICE. 

KarmaPolice

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2006, 09:26:51 PM »
I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand your posts, Disgusting.

Ilya Kuryakin

  • Pro-management union buster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2006, 11:09:19 PM »
Thanks for your assessment, Disgusting.  It means a lot to me.

Animal Mother

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2006, 08:04:13 AM »
Hey Karma, keep it shot dude. nobody has time to read these month long diserataions.

Your Hitler hairdo is making me feel ill and I have crashed your party.

Ilya Kuryakin

  • Pro-management union buster
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #35 on: September 27, 2006, 09:29:00 AM »
Radiohead on the Citizens' Report?  What's going on here?

Insmomniac

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2006, 07:28:27 AM »
You know how you can tell Ricard Clarke is lying? ans=His lips start moving. You know how you can tell when Clinton is lying? ans.= ask him a question 

clara

  • Guest
Re: Bill Clinton
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2006, 10:01:55 AM »
speaking about radio, and disgusting, have you heard the latest hit song?  stand by your man... by hillary clinton