Clinton Owns Mike Wallace and the Fox Spinners!

[Nickdfresh]

See the interview here. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6119737638039170671)

Clinon puts a stain all over the prick's dress.:)

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Yo, genius, that would be CHRIS Wallace. Mike Wallace WISHES he was half the journalist and had the renown and respect that Chris enjoys throughout the entire industry. The man is an icon. period.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Yo, genius, that would be CHRIS Wallace. Mike Wallace WISHES he was half the journalist and had the renown and respect that Chris enjoys throughout the entire industry. The man is an icon. period.

Sorry, I changed the thread title at the last minute. I was going to call it: "Bill Clinton Owns Mike Wallace's Lead-eating Redheaded Stepchild, and Makes Him His Bitch!"

:D

[stringfelowhawk]

Slick Willy has a point. I've read the 911 report and I've read a little book called "Confessions Of An Economic Hitman" which I hold in higher regard than the "official" 911 report. The guy that wrote it has some unbelievably interesting things to say about our involvment in developing other countries economies.

I never really thought Clinton was a good president but I would gladly work for him again. This current asshole cares more about his cowboy image than he does the interest of the country and I've said before I can't work for someone I don't respect and that is why I got out of the military. Looking back, I miss the biggest story being "did he or did he not get a blowjob from an intern" instead torture headlines, and blatant instances of breaking the law and the constitution by a sitting president who has yet to be held accountable.

[Tiki-Tom]

Originally posted by stringfelowhawk
The guy that wrote it has some unbelievably interesting things to say about our involvment in developing other countries economies.

You are right. "Unbelievably" is the key word here.

"John Perkins started and stopped writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man four times over 20 years."

9/11 seems like as good a time as any to make some cash with the book. It reads like more conspiracy shit. Timely indeed.

[Tiki-Tom]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Clinon puts a stain all over the prick's dress.:)

Yeah, I think we all remember how good he is at staining dresses.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom
Yeah, I think we all remember how good he is at staining dresses.

Neocon robot says "blowjob." Good neocon robot, good.

While you were talking about sperm; Clinton was focused on fighting terrorism.

Which is why "911" didn't happen on his watch. Osama waited...

[Tiki-Tom]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Noecon robot says "blowjob."

While you were talking about sperm; Clinton was focused on fighting terrorism.
Which is why "911" didn't happen on his watch. Osama waited...

Ok, Clinton was focused on fighting terrorism. If you believe that one then you're too far gone to even put up an intelligent argument so why bother. Don't you mean he was kissing terrorism and the people behind it right on the ass. Like Bush or not, you should be smarter than that.

Osama waited...(maybe/"maybe not") with Clinton's inadvertent help regardless. Plus, you think all that shit that happened on 9/11 was planned in a few months time. Once again you're just too far gone. You must be one of Michael Moore's zombie sheep to think that shit was not in the planning stages long before Willie left office. It took more time to plan that than the months Bush had been in.

I am not happy with the way the war is going either, but I still have common sense enough to know how to separate bullshit from reality.
Just because you hate someone does not mean stop using your head when you hear shit like this Clinton crap.

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom
9/11 seems like as good a time as any to make some cash with the book. It reads like more conspiracy shit. Timely indeed.

He doesn't need the cash. He's gone....I mean like cuntpletely insane.
:rolleyes:

"On Jesus, Seen differently
Since I was very very young, Jesus has been a guide to me. I was not brought up particularly religious; it’s not the Jesus that many people find in church and so forth. It’s a very strong personal guide to me. I talk about this dream I have in my book of seeing Jesus come to me. He was not the Jesus that I have seen as a child, which was fair skinned and blond-haired. This one was darker skinned with dark curly hair. He put something upon his shoulder, which I thought was going to be a cross, but it turned out to be an axle with a wheel rim at the end. It formed a halo around his head---and the grease was dripping out. It dripped like blood. It was quite an experience. He told me that if he’d come back in this lifetime, it would be very different. I didn’t go into a lot of detail in the book, but he talked to me about how he would probably come back as a Muslim now.

This is interesting as Muslims are being terribly persecuted in many parts of the world and we in the United States may look fearfully at the Jihadists and terrorists. The fact of the matter is that since the 1800’s, and especially the 1850’s with the British empire, Muslims were terribly persecuted and put down around the world. That has continued throughout the development of the empire. We have really done a job of denigrating Muslim cultures in many many countries, including the one with the largest Muslim population, which is Indonesia. Certainly, in the Middle East, we are attempting to westernize and make them come around to our values.

So as I said, for me Jesus has been a very strong and powerful force --- and a guide that came to me when I was in the hospital last year. He was one of the energies that pointed out to me that I need to get on with my work---and must do the things I must do, because my time is limited in this life, in this body. The messages have been a very very powerful thing. I think spirituality for me is a great savior and it gives me great hope. Again this isn’t to advocate any religion over another; I would not classify myself as a religious person, but I would classify myself as a deeply spiritual person. I think it is a really important thing for us to have to understand that there are greater forces than us and our own materialistic lives.

I welcome your comments and encourage you to continue working to help influence a change in our collective consciousness across the world. Also, I thank you for all you have already done! Together, we can change the world."

John Perkins

Link (http://globaldialoguecenter.blogs.com/johnperkins/)

[Tiki-Tom]

Originally posted by rustoffa
He doesn't need the cash. He's gone....I mean like cuntpletely insane.
:rolleyes: Link (http://globaldialoguecenter.blogs.com/johnperkins/)

Thank you Rustoffa, you just made my point crystal clear.
Then again, some people can stare right at a pile of bullshit and not even see or smell it.. With his overactive imagination, he'd make an excellent Hollywood scriptwriter.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom



Then again, some people can stare right at a pile of bullshit and not even see or smell it.. .

Yes, they're called Bush Supporters :cool:

[SparkieD]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Neocon robot says "blowjob." Good neocon robot, good.

While you were talking about sperm; Clinton was focused on fighting terrorism.

Which is why "911" didn't happen on his watch. Osama waited...


Hmmm...as I recall, the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and several other incidents DID happen on Willie's watch. If you think Bin Laden was waiting around for the Clinton administration to be over, you're just crazy. He carried out the earlier attacks without reprimand. They were just too damned easy.

And what he couldn't do in eight years he expected the Bush administration to do in eight months?

[Tiki-Tom]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Yes, they're called Bush Supporters :cool:

Bullshit tends to fall left of center. Least I'm not standing in ithttp://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

[FORD]

The people responsible for the first WTC bombing were tried and convicted for their crimes, as were the people responsible for the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing.

They also tried and convicted terrorists who hadn't yet acted, such as Ahmed Rassam, who was busted at the Port Angeles ferry crossing in this state before he could enact his plans to "celebrate" the millenial New Years Eve.

On the other hand, the only person tried and convicted for the crime of 9-11-01 was some crazy bald headed lunatic who had little or nothing to do with it, Zack Moussaui.

I'd say the Clinton administration was better at handling terrorism, and remains so.

[sadaist]

Despite the fact that Bin Laden had declared war on America in 1998 the Clinton Administration never countered that we were at war with terrorists. In a radio address on October 14, two days after the attacks, Bill Clinton said "even when America is not at war, the men and women of our military risk their lives every day." In an October 18 memorial service, Clinton only devoted one small paragraph to the terrorists. He never mentioned any grave threat by name, not even Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. In a "Meet the Press" interview just 3 days after the attack, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger did not even bring up Al Qaeda or the risk it posed to Americans. His neglect to address the subject of our biggest enemy came just one month before the 2000 election. Top officials like Madeleine Albright and William Cohen ignored Richard Clarke's calls for attacking Al Qaeda targets for fear of derailing the Arab-Israeli peace process and creating perceptions that America is indiscriminately bombing Muslims.


In fact, the Clinton Administration should have had knowledge of Bin Laden's desire to carry out attacks on American forces. Osama Bin Laden and members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad appeared in a Qatar TV tape on September 22, 2000 making specific threats to attack American ships. Osama Bin Laden followed through on his promise on October 12, 2000, killing 17 Americans.

[sadaist]

I'll repeat the most important passage in case you skipped it:

ignored calls for attacking Al Qaeda targets for fear of derailing the Arab-Israeli peace process...


President Clinton said he tried, and failed. He didn't try hard enough. He didn't want to ruffle any feathers. Doing the right thing doesn't always make everyone happy. Look how many people are unhappy with President Bush now. I'd rather people be upset with our President for doing too much rather than too little.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Neocon robot says "blowjob." Good neocon robot, good.

While you were talking about sperm; Clinton was focused on fighting terrorism.

Which is why "911" didn't happen on his watch. Osama waited...

Yea letting Osama plan 9-11 after the first attack in 93 and after USS Cole. Boy he did a great job.

[DrMaddVibe]

I saw the entire interview. Clinton appeared to be unhinged for no apparent reason other than to try to clear his own name of the "legacy" he left for America.

He didn't come off as Presidential or of someone that held the office. He seemed more like Woody Hayes talking to Bo Schembechler!

I found the part where he kept saying "at least I tried" to be a last gasp effort to plead his case that he did anything during his 8 years in office. Well, that and raising money for Global Warming now...he did wonders in THAT area too! Typical Dem President...they dazzle you with their "brilliance" AFTER their term is over and are the most vocal about getting back into the spotlight!

[Ellyllions]

My take?

This was the perfect platform for him to defend himself from the television show "Pathway to 9/11". It was the first thing he talked about in the first 5 minutes. Yes, Grandstanding. And then he goes on to talk extensively about what a farce Fox is....grandstanding again. Working for the Democrat party to the end. Genius. He moved the entire conversation from what he did or didn't do, to how bad a network Fox is even to the point of calling them setting up the interview with false pretenses. Fox didn't air that movie...

I can understand his frustration and I can understand his excitement at having this venue to which to voice his side of the story. BUT, if George Bush were allowed to speak this way the calls of "arrogance" would be deafening. But, 10 minutes into the interview, Chris Wallace tries to move on, and Bill keeps defending himself.

We keep hearing how we want to hear Bush admit that he lied, and that he's screwed up in almost every single forum as a President. But we're perfectly ok with hearing the Clinton's blame everyone else for everything that wasn't stellar in their administration.

Bill Clinton is scared to death that his legacy won't be a positive one. He's just as scared as the Bush's are about how they will be remembered and documented in history. It's about power.

What is the bottom line on the whole beginning, middle, and yet to come end of the offensives we're now involved in? Why have we not caught Bin Laden in all these years? Why are we still in Iraq? The answer is easy for me. We aren't as ruthless or persistent as they are. We don't see victory or defeat as they do, and their rules keep changing just as they kept changing during Clinton's term. Clinton says that Bin Laden expected an attack after the USS Cole and it never came. Bin Laden then touted that "he'd seen the weakness of the US military"...he wanted us to come in and attack. He wanted dead in the streets and the first time there were civilians killed (which is where BL's forces would've hold up, just like today) they would've called us ruthless killers of innocence. In turn, reveling up the masses of terrorist organizations just as the Iraq front has been proven to have done. This is the way the terrorists have planned on playing this out for years.

There is no winning this, there is no American leader out there holding the key to putting an end to this, and there hasn't been an American President who could've done things differently. All I got from that interview was that Bill isn't President anymore so he can get angry and spout, and he went into this ready to finish his sentence about how angry the "Pathway to 9/11" made him.

He was using Chris Wallace just as much as he accused Chris and Fox of using him.

[Tiki-Tom]

Clinton sure did seem to lose his Joe Cool demeanor real fast. It's ok to point a finger as long as its not pointed back at you huh, Willie? Can't take the heat, Bill?
That's the way of the left though. Dish it out 100 MPH but cry foul the second it comes back at you.His face turned so red that I thought his head was literally gonna bursthttp://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/angry/newburn.gif

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom
Ok, Clinton was focused on fighting terrorism. If you believe that one then you're too far gone to even put up an intelligent argument so why bother. Don't you mean he was kissing terrorism and the people behind it right on the ass. Like Bush or not, you should be smarter than that.

LOL Dude, run away from this forum. You're way above above yourself here. You're just a simpleton repeating the same tired old "blowjob" cliches when it's apparent that the Republican congress, Ken Starr, and Louis Freeh'birds FBI were far more obsessed with Clinton's blowjob than he was, or indeed than they were with terrorism in general.


Here's what's called a logical proof: http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40398

Do your research, then get back to me, mmm'kay?


Osama waited...(maybe/"maybe not") with Clinton's inadvertent help regardless. Plus, you think all that shit that happened on 9/11 was planned in a few months time. Once again you're just too far gone. You must be one of Michael Moore's zombie sheep to think that shit was not in the planning stages long before Willie left office. It took more time to plan that than the months Bush had been in.

I am not happy with the way the war is going either, but I still have common sense enough to know how to separate bullshit from reality.
Just because you hate someone does not mean stop using your head when you hear shit like this Clinton crap. [/B]

Um. "Clinton's crap" is based on factual documentation from the 9/11 Report, Richard Clarke's book, and any analysis of the events around 9/11. He admitted that he "didn't do enough." In a similar interview with Bush conducted by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Bush became "unhinged" for about two minutes when Wolf mentioned that he was president for almost a year before 9/11. Dumbya then snapped back that he was only pResident for "six-months" :confused: before 9/11, and went on to intimate that it was really his predecessor's fault.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by SparkieD
Hmmm...as I recall, the first WTC bombing,

And the people that were responsible were brought to justice, what else was he supposed to do, persoanly strangle six-Muslims in retaliation?


the USS Cole bombing, and several other incidents DID happen on Willie's watch. If you think Bin Laden was waiting around for the Clinton administration to be over, you're just crazy. He carried out the earlier attacks without reprimand. They were just too damned easy.

Yes genius, the USS Cole bombing indeed happened on "Slick-Willy's" watch. And cruise missile's were launched in retaliation for the African Embassy bombings. Under the Clinton Administration, and comprehensive plan was assembled to use the Northern Alliance as allies and support them using CIA agents, and some Military Special Forces. Essentially, a beefed up version of this plan was used to "take Afghanistan" from he Taliban (a battle we're currently losing) Of course, it happened towards the end of his term, and by the time the elections happened, Bush could clearly have sent a message by retaliating himself. But of course, Dumbya wasn't really very concerned with terror.

BTW, you also missed the Khobar Towers bombing (Saudi Hezbollah) and the Oklahoma City bombing (Christian White people with ties to the racist ARA and Militia-movement.)


And what he couldn't do in eight years he expected the Bush administration to do in eight months?

Because Bin Laden only rose to prominence in 1998, and al-Qaida is only a small confederation anyways...

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sorry, I changed the thread title at the last minute. I was going to call it: "Bill Clinton Owns Mike Wallace's Lead-eating Redheaded Stepchild, and Makes Him His Bitch!"

:D

And what interview were you watching????? It appeared to me that The Big Dog lost all his composure. If he was so innocent why did he go on the defensive like that. He is an attention whore and what better way to get press, than to pull a stunt like that. The media have been eating it up this morning.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom
Clinton sure did seem to lose his Joe Cool demeanor real fast. It's ok to point a finger as long as its not pointed back at you huh, Willie? Can't take the heat, Bill?
That's the way of the left though. Dish it out 100 MPH but cry foul the second it comes back at you.His face turned so red that I thought his head was literally gonna bursthttp://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/angry/newburn.gif

It's pretty funny how many know-nothings stroll in here in time just to bash-Clinton while conveniently ignoring the fact that he hasn't been President for going on seven years now, and also completely ignore the abortion the the Iraq War/Afghanistan "poppy-land" has become under Fearless cheerLeader.

Maybe that's Clinton's fault too, eh?

Don't let little things like facts and logic get in the way of your ignorance of the actual events.

[FORD]

Since I know every Busheep followed their KKKArl Rove marching orders and watched that piece of shit ABC 911 miniseries, then you will recall, that even in their distorted fictionalized portrayal of history, one fact DID remain intact.

And that is the fact that both Richard Clarke and John O'Neill of the FBI, the two guys who were leading the hunt for Bin Laden in the 1990's, were deliberately pulled from that mission by the BCE almost immediately after the Chimp was installed in offfice. O'Neill was specifically pulled off the case when he began to investigate Bin Laden's ties to the Saudis, which no doubt would have proved embarrassing to the BCE.

It was the BCE who dropped the ball and they did so intentionally.

Fuck the history revisionists, that's what happenned.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
And what interview were you watching?????

It appeared to me that The Big Dog lost all his composure.

So? Let me get this correct, Clinton gets pissed at a stupid, patently biased question never asked to Bush, he's "unhinged" or loses his composure.

Bush gets asked a question and he gets pissed, "fearless leader is taking on the biased liberal media!"

Yeah, whatever. Of course he got pissed!!

BTW, as I've already stated, Bush recently snapped at Wolf Blitzer question regarding his pResidency at the time of the 9/11 attacks.


If he was so innocent why did he go on the defensive like that. He is an attention whore and what better way to get press, than to pull a stunt like that. The media have been eating it up this morning.

He gets "defensive" because drooling idiots that get their news and info. from ABC TV movies and Fox news are constantly implying that it was all Clinton's fault while the shit Republican congress and current Administration get a free-pass. This when they rarely reported on al-Qaida before 9/11 and were implying that he was "wagging the dog" whenever he talked a bout comprehensive plans to destroy al-Qaida.

[FORD]

**RIGHT WING HYPOCRISY FLASHBACK ALERT**

Here's a thread from the right wing extremist site Free Republic.com (http://web.archive.org/web/20041011160250/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a530320.htm) which shows exactly what "conservatives" thought about President Clinton fighting terrorism.


By the way, you may notice that the linked thread appears courtesy of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. That's because the hypocritical cowards at Free Republic deleted the original when their cowardice was previously exposed :D

[Nickdfresh]

More proof that extremist right wing partisans have short memories, two-faces, and a healthy dose of mindless unselfconscious hypocrisy.

[DrMaddVibe]

I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.

The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/networks/wallace_i_felt_as_if_a_mountain_was_coming_down_in _front_of_me__44380.asp

[Nickdfresh]

Gee, I wonder what the mental-midget's would expect if he asked Bush the exact same question? Oh wait, this is Fox News, and they would never ask Bush such a question.

And I don't believe Wallace's "ground-rules" for a second. he was mimicking his father's penchant of the "ambush interview." The only problem is that he lacks his father's credibility and integrity.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Here we go with the reversion back to Bush. I don't recall this particular thread being about Bush. As a matter of fact a good 80 percent of The Frontline is Bush bashing. And there is validity to the bashing, but did you honestly think for one minute you would not get some flack from Conservatives with a thread about The Big Dog losing his cool. Both sides of the politcal spectrum fumbled the ball, so don't make your hero out to be some angelic figure.
Anyone recall The Big Dog selling off high tech weapons technology to China. Anyone????? Oh and goodmorning Nick, loved the post with the large breasted lady proudly flashing her trophies.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Here we go with the reversion back to Bush. I don't recall this particular thread being about Bush.

This thread's about 9/11, and since it happened on his watch, he's very relevant.


As a matter of fact a good 80 percent of The Frontline is Bush bashing.

Maybe because he's a really shitty, unpopular President?


And there is validity to the bashing, but did you honestly think for one minute you would not get some flack from Conservatives with a thread about The Big Dog losing his cool. Both sides of the politcal spectrum fumbled the ball, so don't make your hero out to be some angelic figure.

The key difference is that Clinton isn't acting "angelic." In fact he's the only one to take some responsibility and to take some blame for 9/11. In fact, if you watch the interview real closely, you'll see him admit mistakes.

What about the Congress which was GOP controlled at the time and did nothing but scorn his anti-terror policies as "wag the dog" or unnecessary?

Where is Bush ever admitting that he did absolutely nothing regarding Bin Laden? In fact, I recall a massive post-9/11 ass-covering and finger-pointing with statements in which they tried to take credit for an anti-Taliban Afghan warplan that had begun in 1999.


Anyone recall The Big Dog selling off high tech weapons technology to China. Anyone????? Oh and goodmorning Nick, loved the post with the large breasted lady proudly flashing her trophies.

Does anyone remember fake, contrived partisan issues regarding espionage that was prosecuted? You're telling me there is not Chinese espionage going on now, along with the selling of technology under THIS administration? In fact, I recall a time under Clinton when everything in Wal-Mart wasn't made in China. You're worried about China's MIRVs for what is a very small nuclear force ---when China now owns much of our economy?!?!?! Both Admins are responsible for that one, but right now we're spending 50% of the worlds defense expenditures (mainly gearing for super-space weapons to "contain China") and are still managing to fuck up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wake the fuck up and do some research on the internet, and stop using it to look at tits all of the time.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH

Anyone recall The Big Dog selling off high tech weapons technology to China. Anyone?????

No, because it never fucking happenned. It's one of the most ridiculous right wing myths in history. Communications sattelite technology was sold by a private business to a Chinese company. Clinton had nothing to do with it, and it had nothing to do with weapons.

[FORD]

Now on the other hand, we could always talk about the nuclear reactor that DONALD RUMSFELD sold to North Korea......

[FORD]

Dean applauds Clinton for standing up to 'Fox News' right-wing bullying and propaganda machine'
09/24/2006 @ 3:14 pm
Filed by RAW STORY

http://rawstory.com/images/new/deanprofile.jpg

DNC chairman Howard Dean is applauding President Bill Clinton for standing up to "Fox News' right-wing bullying and propaganda machine," in a "heated" interview which aired on Sunday morning.


In a statement sent to RAW STORY, Dean declares that "President Clinton did exactly what Democrats need to do in this election. Democrats need to stand up to the right-wing propaganda machine and tell the truth."

"Washington Republicans' attempts to twist history and recast the truth do not help us win the war on terror or bring us closer to capturing Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11th attacks," Dean continued.

"President Clinton stood up to the misleading tactics of the right-wing propaganda machine," said Dean.

"As the National Intelligence Estimate that was reported on today showed, the Iraq War and the Bush Administration's failed policies have hurt our ability to win the war on terror," the Dean statement continued. "As President Clinton said, Democrats stand for policies that are both tough and smart and we remain committed to winning the war on terror."

[scamper]

Originally posted by FORD
The people responsible for the first WTC bombing were tried and convicted for their crimes, as were the people responsible for the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing.

They also tried and convicted terrorists who hadn't yet acted, such as Ahmed Rassam, who was busted at the Port Angeles ferry crossing in this state before he could enact his plans to "celebrate" the millenial New Years Eve.



Was anyone tried and convicted for Waco?

[FORD]

Originally posted by scamper
Was anyone tried and convicted for Waco?

Well, the child molesting illegal gun dealer terrorist cult leader responsible got the death penalty, you might say.

And for the record, I believe Waco could have been handled better, but don't forget that operation started under Poppy's watch.

[DrMaddVibe]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/timeline.html

[blueturk]

Let me ask one question. Would ANY other person that was president (Republican or Democrat) attack Iraq after 9/11?

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --George W. Bush, interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

[FORD]

Seems that FAUX has demanded that YouTube delete all the copies of this interview were uploaded.

Just the typical corporate whores controlling their "intellectual property" :rolleyes: ?

Nope. Lots of other FAUX videos available. Just not that one. In other words, if you haven't seen this video yet, FAUX is going to do their damndest to make sure you DON'T see it. Except for maybe cleverly edited soundbites that promote the ridiculous spin that FAUX is trying to get out of the story now.

And I thought Chris Wallace might have found his balls when he spoke out, on the air, against that ABC 9-11 slander piece. Guess he lost them again, as did his employers. :D

[sadaist]

Anyone have a link to part II of the interview?

[DrMaddVibe]

September 25, 2006
Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more - and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency - rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security. Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.


**********

Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.

Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.

Talk and compromise - not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them - were the hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything - just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.

Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.

The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat - on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East - and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to Intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.

President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism - and meant it.


**********

Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press).
© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_play_it_as_it_lie.html

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by sadaist
Anyone have a link to part II of the interview?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_roundtable.html

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
September 25, 2006
Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President.

As opposed to whom? George Bush?


The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces has now announced that he did more

Kind of like most Republicans today...


- and would do more - to combat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency - rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security. Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's Administration had eight years to do that job, with al-Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts, now is - in his own 20/20 hindsight - The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush Administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.


**********

Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.

Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.

Talk and compromise - not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them - were the hallmarks of the Clinton Administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything - just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.

Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.

The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat - on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East - and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to Intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.

President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism - and meant it.


**********

Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency - and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as President. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office - any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against al-Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press).
© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_play_it_as_it_lie.html

What a bunch of horseshit.

Again, singling our Clinton when you guys elected a moronic Congress and a President that did absolutely nothing before 9/11.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
As opposed to whom? George Bush?



Kind of like most Republicans today...



What a bunch of horseshit.

Again, singling our Clinton when you guys elected a moronic Congress and a President that did absolutely nothing before 9/11.


Clinton was the one that agreed to be televised...not me!

YOU don't like it...tough.


Go play your "I'm an internet bully" shit elsewhere!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Clinton was the one that agreed to be televised...not me!

Who the fuck said I was talking about you?


YOU don't like it...tough.

Ooooh!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Nickdfresh/butch.gif



Go play your "I'm an internet bully" shit elsewhere!

LOL Yeah, 'cause I'm the one with the Sith avatar...

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by SparkieD
And what he couldn't do in eight years he expected the Bush administration to do in eight months?

You are wrong. Clinton was focused on eliminating Bin Laden. it just wasn't big news back then because it was all about his cock.

1999: U.S. slaps sanctions on Afghanistan's Taliban movement (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9907/06/us.bin.laden/)

1998: Osama bin Laden's 'holy war' began years ago (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/28/bin.laden.connection/index.html)

1998: Bin Laden still sought a year after embassy bombings in Africa (http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/06/embassy.bombings/index.html)

And on and on and on...

So at what point should a president take responsibility for the country? Bush gets an 8 month pass from you. Why?

When Bush took over, anti-terrror efforst came to a virtual standstill. That is why Bin Laden made his big move when he did. Our pants were left hanging around our ankles.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by sadaist
Despite the fact that Bin Laden had declared war on America in 1998 the Clinton Administration never countered that we were at war with terrorists. In a radio address on October 14, two days after the attacks, Bill Clinton said "even when America is not at war, the men and women of our military risk their lives every day." In an October 18 memorial service, Clinton only devoted one small paragraph to the terrorists. He never mentioned any grave threat by name, not even Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. In a "Meet the Press" interview just 3 days after the attack, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger did not even bring up Al Qaeda or the risk it posed to Americans. His neglect to address the subject of our biggest enemy came just one month before the 2000 election. Top officials like Madeleine Albright and William Cohen ignored Richard Clarke's calls for attacking Al Qaeda targets for fear of derailing the Arab-Israeli peace process and creating perceptions that America is indiscriminately bombing Muslims.


In fact, the Clinton Administration should have had knowledge of Bin Laden's desire to carry out attacks on American forces. Osama Bin Laden and members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad appeared in a Qatar TV tape on September 22, 2000 making specific threats to attack American ships. Osama Bin Laden followed through on his promise on October 12, 2000, killing 17 Americans.

Dude, you fucking STOLE this entire post from right here:

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/04/post_9.html

Shame on right wing plagiarist liars like you!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Clinton appeared to be unhinged for no apparent reason other than to try to clear his own name of the "legacy" he left for America.


See the silly neocon use the right-wing buzzword "unhinged" to try and discredit the points Clinton was making.

Why can't Clinton address these loaded questions with some passion?

Bush got pretty testy at a press conference a few weeks ago and I don't remember any of you neocon dummies going after him.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_AqaIa6wmMY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_AqaIa6wmMY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[FORD]

God damn Chimpy has turned into a completely delusional dictatorial fascist dickhead.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by FORD
God damn Chimpy has turned into a completely delusional dictatorial fascist dickhead.

Yeah, he appeared to become unhinged and very unpresidential. Clearly, he was only interested in protecting his legacy.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH



As a matter of fact a good 80 percent of The Frontline is Bush bashing. And there is validity to the bashing, .

What level of Bush Bashing would you find appropriate?

70%?
60%?

:rolleyes:

Maybe because we are passionate about how our country is run, and the future of our democracy.


Do you even care what this administration has done in YOUR NAME???

Aren't you embarassed too?

[blueturk]

Originally posted by FORD
God damn Chimpy has turned into a completely delusional dictatorial fascist dickhead.

Yeah, that shit is downright scary.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT


Bush got pretty testy at a press conference a few weeks ago and I don't remember any of you neocon dummies going after him.



Jesus Fucking Christ........:rolleyes:


The man is a fucking IDIOT.

Plain and simple.

GEORGE W. BUSH IS A FUCKING IDIOT.

:mad: :mad: :mad:


Can any of you Clinton Bashing Neo-Con Shitbags actually claim David Gregory's question was ANSWERED???????????????????????

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
September 25, 2006
Bill Clinton: Play It as It Lies
By Ronald A. Cass (a total liar)

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line...

Neither have you idiot


From: http://www.lawschool.com/deancass.htm
...
Recently, Cass spurred controversy when he revealed that a capital campaign for a new law school building had not raised as much as he had said. Cass had told faculty and alumni that the school had raised $36 million; he later told a faculty meeting that the real number was closer to $10 million.

"Somebody promises you money that may or may not be reduced to a formal pledge," Cass said yesterday. "There isn't any missing money."
...


...has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror President. The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our armed forces...The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as President left our armed forces short on so many fronts,

Gee, what were you doing during the Vietnam War Cass?



He received his B.A. (high distinction) from the University of Virginia in 1970, and is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, where he received his J.D. with honors in 1973.

Oh golly, it looks like another ultramilitarist chickenhawk right winger attacking Clinton's service record while never actually served in the Army during Vietnam (because he was too busy getting deferments in college) either? How quaint!


Speaking to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks...

You ought to talk pal, Im not going to bother with most of this, but let's just dispense with the most telling of the same old partisan lies recycled so they eventually become truth..


...Clinton blamed the Bush Administration for failing to stop the al-Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the Administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't....

Really, when did Clinton exactly say that? BTW, did any rightest douche notice that Clinton admitted he didn't do enough because "(he) didn't get him."


One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

How was that factually incorrect, he did in fact. how close did Bush get?


Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-President too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the President who ordered the armed forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after al-Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

No shit idiot! What if Clinton had talked about invading Afghanistan before 9/11? He would have been scoffed and laughed at as wagging the dog.


Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing,

Just like Reagan did in Lebanon? And the Congress demanded that the U.S. withdraw.


and responded to attacks by al-Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan.

As opposed to invading a sovereign nation and killing between 20,000 and 100,000 "innocent" people over phantom WMDs?


He reacted to al-Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert.

A "few" missiles huh, it was over 60 I believe, which would be more HExplosive than an average WWII bombing raid. And if the camps were empty, why were dozens of people killed? (According to the 9/11 Report)


He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

More bullshit, the Sudanese knew exactly where he was, he was their "guest," and they never "offered" him to the US.


The bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that - far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism - President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Osama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

Really asshat? What fucking page was that on? Notice how the chickenhawk lying lawyer never actually "quotes" the 9/11 Commission Report he probably never actually read?


That is not to say that the Clinton Administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the Commission showed that the Clinton Administration had live footage of Osama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act. NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost.

A nice lie by omission. The "footage" was recorded by an unarmed Predator drone. What else could it do? since they were incapable of carrying Hellfire missiles in 2000.


Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.

Especially when you don't have any bullets or a gun fuckbag.


Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

You got that "right."


Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins University Press).
© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_play_it_as_it_lie.html

And a lying chickenhawk douche bag as well.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by sadaist
Despite the fact that Bin Laden had declared war on America in 1998 the Clinton Administration never countered that we were at war with terrorists. In a radio address on October 14, two days after the attacks, Bill Clinton said "even when America is not at war, the men and women of our military risk their lives every day." In an October 18 memorial service, Clinton only devoted one small paragraph to the terrorists. He never mentioned any grave threat by name, not even Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. In a "Meet the Press" interview just 3 days after the attack, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger did not even bring up Al Qaeda or the risk it posed to Americans. His neglect to address the subject of our biggest enemy came just one month before the 2000 election. Top officials like Madeleine Albright and William Cohen ignored Richard Clarke's calls for attacking Al Qaeda targets for fear of derailing the Arab-Israeli peace process and creating perceptions that America is indiscriminately bombing Muslims.


In fact, the Clinton Administration should have had knowledge of Bin Laden's desire to carry out attacks on American forces. Osama Bin Laden and members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad appeared in a Qatar TV tape on September 22, 2000 making specific threats to attack American ships. Osama Bin Laden followed through on his promise on October 12, 2000, killing 17 Americans.







LET IT BE KNOWN FROM HERE ON IN......SADAIST IS A PLAGARIZING TROLL.......YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHITE


How dare you cut-n-paste and try to PASS IT OFF AS YOUR OWN IN THIS FORUM.

Fuck you.

You're done in here, bitch:mad:

[blueturk]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Yea letting Osama plan 9-11 after the first attack in 93 and after USS Cole. Boy he did a great job.

And how aggressively did your hero pursue bin Laden before 9/11, Britney? More importantly, how aggressively has Dubya pursued Osama after 9/11? Like Clinton said, this is a government that thinks Afghanistan is one-seventh as important as Iraq. Your devotion to your leader is awe-inspiring, sheep.

"Anyway I think if someone is in charge you support him while he is there." Originally posted by 4moreyears Jan. 5, 2006

" Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens." - Britney Spears, Sept. 3, 2003

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by blueturk
"Anyway I think if someone is in charge you support him while he is there." Originally posted by 4moreyears Jan. 5, 2006

" Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens." - Britney Spears, Sept. 3, 2003

Ha Ha! Retards of a feather flock together!

[Tiki-Tom]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL Dude, run away from this forum. You're way above above yourself here. You're just a simpleton

How fitting, losing your shit like you are on this thread, Freshy. With playground insults coming from someone as "bright" as you, why would I want to run from this forum, it's too much of a laugh. I only wish I could see your beet red face about to pop like your savior Willie. Your twisted logic passing for genius in your mind is quite entertaining. Bring on the insults if it makes you feel good cause it sure makes me smile. Just remember while you're trying so hard to be intelligent that ya sound like a 13 year old when you go into one of your tantrums.

As for proof, Clinton said himself that "he failed". Before Bush Jr. was even in the picture "he failed". Even We might not be talking about this interview if he had been concentrating more on terrorism and less on PR.
I know Freshy, Bush Sr. Bush Sr. wah wah wah. Even if it started on Bush Sr's clock you are too bright for your own good once again. Willie was too incompetent to clean up the mess of a one term president but Bush Jr. was supposed to clean up Willie's two term terrorism failure in eight months:rolleyes:
Come on. Blow your top some more. You can't help yourself.http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/angry/newburn.gif

[sadaist]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Dude, you fucking STOLE this entire post from right here:

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/04/post_9.html

Shame on right wing plagiarist liars like you!

Uh, Fuck You. I got it from here:

http://thomasgalvin.blogspot.com/2004/04/failing-uss-cole-galvin-opinion.html

And I never claimed I wrote it. Even in the second post I didn't refer to it as something "I" said.


Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LET IT BE KNOWN FROM HERE ON IN......SADAIST IS A PLAGARIZING TROLL.......YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHITE


How dare you cut-n-paste and try to PASS IT OFF AS YOUR OWN IN THIS FORUM.

Fuck you.

You're done in here, bitch:mad:



Same for you Lounge. I never passed it off as my own.


So, Fuck you too.

Just another case of...

L ounge
M achines
M other
F ucking
A sinine
O pinion

[sadaist]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Dude, you fucking STOLE this entire post from right here:

http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/04/post_9.html

Shame on right wing plagiarist liars like you!


Originally posted by LoungeMachine
LET IT BE KNOWN FROM HERE ON IN......SADAIST IS A PLAGARIZING TROLL.......YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHITE


How dare you cut-n-paste and try to PASS IT OFF AS YOUR OWN IN THIS FORUM.

Fuck you.

You're done in here, bitch:mad:


Yet neither of you have the balls to discuss what is pointed out so clearly in the paragraph.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom


As for proof, Clinton said himself that "he failed". Before Bush Jr. was even in the picture "he failed". Even We might not be talking about this interview if he had been concentrating more on terrorism and less on PR.


And if Bush Sr hadn't created Al Qaeda in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about it at all.

[sadaist]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

Bush got pretty testy at a press conference a few weeks ago and I don't remember any of you neocon dummies going after him.


I especially liked where he accused the reporter and his network of a set-up job on him. Of "not asking other people these questions". Or when he kept poking the reporter in the knee. It was also great when he talked about things that already happened and changed the story.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by sadaist




Same for you Lounge. I never passed it off as my own.

\


Really? Liar?

Please check your post again for your link or reference :rolleyes:

Can't admit you fucked up and tried to pass shit off as your own:rolleyes:

typical.

[sadaist]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Really? Liar?

Please check your post again for your link or reference :rolleyes:

Can't admit you fucked up and tried to pass shit off as your own:rolleyes:

typical.

I didn't put a link. I didn't specify "I didn't write this". OH MY GOD. IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD. It's pretty clear by the way it is written that I didn't write it.

Since you can't argue the content of the paragraph, go after the delivery.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
Yet neither of you have the balls to discuss what is pointed out so clearly in the paragraph.

This is the third time you've posted stuff as your own. That's pretty pathetic.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Tiki-Tom
How fitting, losing your shit like you are on this thread, Freshy. With playground insults coming from someone as "bright" as you, why would I want to run from this forum, it's too much of a laugh. I only wish I could see your beet red face about to pop like your savior Willie. Your twisted logic passing for genius in your mind is quite entertaining. Bring on the insults if it makes you feel good cause it sure makes me smile. Just remember while you're trying so hard to be intelligent that ya sound like a 13 year old when you go into one of your tantrums.

LOL Dude, you've managed to post every redundant cliche. I "sound like a thirteen year old?" Um, kiddo, then I'm speakin' your language Mesa. That's your singular mentality here.


As for proof, Clinton said himself that "he failed". Before Bush Jr. was even in the picture "he failed". Even We might not be talking about this interview if he had been concentrating more on terrorism and less on PR.
I know Freshy, Bush Sr. Bush Sr. wah wah wah. Even if it started on Bush Sr's clock you are too bright for your own good once again. Willie was too incompetent to clean up the mess of a one term president but Bush Jr. was supposed to clean up Willie's two term terrorism failure in eight months:rolleyes:
Come on. Blow your top some more. You can't help yourself.http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/angry/newburn.gif

Yeah genius, Clinton admitted that he "failed to get" Bin Laden. That's his fucking point! He's the only one to admit it. And look! Ooooh! Tinkle-Tom just gave me his "rolleyes," then followed it up with his patented "blow-yer'-top!" smilie. Brilliant Tom! you really showed me!
Another nothing post devoid of facts, and filled with generalizations from "Tiki-tom" It's nice to know the only thread you can manage is the same tired old "Clinton sucks" cliches. Thanks for confirming my thesis that you are a know-nothing jackoff incapable of nuance.:)

Yeah, I'm really blowing my top here, nice three paragraph bitter response of not blowing your little Tiki-top.

Maybe if you actually supported any of your 9th grade level arguments with something more than childlike smilies --sort of like examples or facts, you know, like semi-educated adults do, you wouldn't be so easy to dismiss as another ignoramus barely in sight of his GED.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
This is the third time you've posted stuff as your own. That's pretty pathetic.

There won't be a fourth.....;)

[Nickdfresh]

President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
July 30, 1996
Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT

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.
lott

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."
Taggants value disputed

Clinton said he knew there was Republican opposition to his proposal on explosive taggants, but it should not be allowed to block the provisions on which both parties agree.

"What I urge them to do is to be explicit about their disagreement, but don't let it overcome the areas of agreement," he said.

The president emphasized coming to terms on specific areas of disagreement would help move the legislation along. The president stressed it's important to get the legislation out before the weekend's recess, especially following the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park and the crash of TWA Flight 800.

"The most important thing right now is that they get the best, strongest bill they can out -- that they give us as much help as they can," he said.
Hatch blasts 'phony' issues

Republican leaders earlier met with White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for about an hour in response to the president's call for "the very best ideas" for fighting terrorism.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said it is a mistake if Congress leaves town without addressing anti-terrorism legislation. Daschle is expected to hold a special meeting on the matter Wednesday with Congressional leaders.

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

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

C'mon bitches, any comment?

[LoungeMachine]

Why is sade scared to comment or debate the paragraph?

[sadaist]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
This is the third time you've posted stuff as your own. That's pretty pathetic.


Jumping on the bandwagon too, huh Nick. I figured as much. Frod should be around soon as well.

And what's pathetic, I post a paragraph that is accurate, and since you can't say shit about it, you notice that I didn't post a link so you all jump on that. Typical DemocRAT way to go.

Especially Lounge. Lounge, you're like the guys in "Invasion of The Body Snatchers". All you seem to be able to do is point and howl.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
Jumping on the bandwagon too, huh Nick. I figured as much. Frod should be around soon as well.

Dipshit! I've always demanded quotes and links!! I've chided Savicki, Madvibe, and a bunch of others --and they only forgot the links. Posting others' work unattributed, and especially passing it off as your own, no matter how ridiculous it may be, can cause trouble for this site.


And what's pathetic, I post a paragraph that is accurate, and since you can't say shit about it, you notice that I didn't post a link so you all jump on that. Typical DemocRAT way to go.

Then post the link! Is it really that tough? And if it's so accurate, you should see what Richard Clarke thinks of the retards in the Bush Administration.

BTW, for the second time, I'm a registered RepubliCUNT!


Especially Lounge. Lounge, you're like the guys in "Invasion of The Body Snatchers". All you seem to be able to do is point and howl.

At least he uses his own howls.

[FORD]

Wait a minute..... plagarism.... right wing moronity.....multiple personality disorder.....questionable gender.......

Sadist is ANNDREW COULTER!! :eek:

[Nitro Express]

No matter what Bill Clinton does, he's always going to be the guy who got a blowjob in the Oval Office and blew kak on a blue dress.

We know Kennedy was a womanizer but we don't have the juicy details. Plus, who could forget an angry Bill Clinton shaking his finger convincingly saying he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Of course the whole thing turned into a witch hunt and got blown way out of proportion.

Now Clinton the masterful politician lost it a little. It was good television. Sure Clinton is trying to make up for Lewinsky Squirt in his post presidentcy but my advice is to lay low. Most ex presidents do.

We're not dumb Bill. Some of us like you and some hate your but at the end of the day, we all know you are a typical lying politician with an agenda. I apreciate your political skills. You run circles around most of them especially the bonehead currently in office.

My advice is, the blue dress, cigars, and blowjobs are your legacy. It's not going away. If you can't handle the political fire, get out of it. You are no longer in office. Most people go "Thank God I don't have to go up infront of the press anymore.

Let it go dude. You're rich, enjoy it. If you were so concerned about your legacy you wouldn't have thought with your dick so much while in office.

[sadaist]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Dipshit! I've always demanded quotes and links!! I've chided Savicki, Madvibe, and a bunch of others --and they only forgot the links.

Then post the link! Is it really that tough?

BTW, for the second time, I'm a registered RepubliCUNT!


And what makes you think that I simply didn't forget the link? I never claimed I wrote it. I didn't even lead into it as mine. Even when I re-quoted a particular passage, I didn't refer to it as my own.

The link was posted in post #60. (yet still no comment from anyone on the content, just the delivery method)

Just because you are registered Republican doesn't mean shit. The party you belong to is determined by your views, morals, values, beliefs, what direction you would like the country to go, etc... You're like a guy who converts to Judaism just so he can make Jewish jokes.

[sadaist]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

And look! Ooooh! Tinkle-Tom just gave me his "rolleyes," then followed it up with his patented "blow-yer'-top!"

Maybe if you actually supported any of your 9th grade level arguments with something more than childlike smilies --sort of like examples or facts, you know, like semi-educated adults do, you wouldn't be so easy to dismiss as another ignoramus barely in sight of his GED.


Nick, you should have a talk with Lounge about this as well.




Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Really? Liar?

Please check your post again for your link or reference :rolleyes:

Can't admit you fucked up and tried to pass shit off as your own:rolleyes:

typical.

[DrMaddVibe]

RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The "Fox News Sunday" show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views.

After Clinton got angry during the questioning, Wallace said Clinton aide Jay Carson tried to get his producer to stop the interview. Carson said he was concerned that time was running out and that little of the philanthropy efforts of the former president had been addressed.

At The Post, Rice also touched on hot spots around the globe:

On Iran: "There isn't a particularly good, direct way to neutralize the Iranian threat."
On Iraq: "You're never going to have a just Sunni-Shia reconciliation if you don't have a political system in which the interests of all can be represented - and that's what Iraq represents."
On Pakistan: "The future of Pakistan, as [President Pervez] Musharraf and his people fully understand, is to de-radicalize elements of the population."
On the Middle East conflict: "It would help to have a moderate force in the Palestinian territories and to have the beginnings of rapprochement with Israel and the rest of its neighbors."
On the Far East: "I would like to see an improvement in Japanese-China relations."
In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.
"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.

"I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way," Rice said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said," she added.

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too."

"I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse.

"It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't," she added.

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a "major educational reform" effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements.

With Post Wire Services

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252006/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_.htm




May the Force be with you...pwn3d by an avatar!

[Ellyllions]

Who are the better manipulators?

Charles Manson, Politicians or Terrorists...

Charles did a good job of getting people to do his dirtywork making it hard for the judicial system to put all the offenses on his hands. So, months of trials, new judicial decisions, and new laws had to be put into place because even though he never actually killed anyone...it was imperative that he be removed from society.

Figureheads like Osama and other well-known terrorists in our news today can barely even fire a weapon. But have people who will willingly kill themselves as well as others to do what the figureheads request.

Politicians like anyone labeled Republican/Democrat/Libertarian etc...They seem to have the same manipulative powers. Although none of them are truly involved in the division of the people of the world, people are slinging harsh words and crazy rude sentiments on each other based on political affiliation.

Interesting concept.

Ya'll tear each other limb from limb if you please. Neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush will ever care or even know who you are. Their day will continue with sunshine and dollar bills (most of which are yours) while you stress at the blinking cursor on your screen.

[DrMaddVibe]

September 26, 2006
Bill Clinton Meets the Smirk

By Debra Saunders
The smirk is the new angry. Remember the '90s, which Dems spent putting down "angry white men?" Now the Dems are angry. They've been hopping mad for six years. Sunday, their biggest star, former President Bill Clinton, embraced his angry side during a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace, as he turned his ire to the new target of Democratic sensibilities, the smirk.

Since 1999, Dems have been dreaming about wiping the smirk of George W. Bush' face. Sunday, Clinton expanded the smirk zone when he chided Wallace for having "that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever." Left-leaning blogs are lauding Clinton's tantrum. Thinkprogress.org reported that Clinton taught Wallace "a lesson."

If so, it was a lesson on How Not To. Bubba looked silly dismissing Wallace, his "nice little conservative hit job on me" and the Fox News network as conservative tools. Sorry, Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch donated $500,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative last week and hosted a fund-raiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton this summer.

I don't get it. If Bill Clinton is so smart, why has he made his failure to get Osama bin Laden the big story of the week twice in the last month? Start with the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11." I never saw it, so all I know about it is that Clinton thought it showed him to be too soft on bin Laden. Oddly, when Democrats were billing themselves as tough on terrorism, Clinton turned the spotlight on his failure to vanquish bin Laden.

Let me be clear. I in no way blame Clinton for 9/11. Before 9/11, neither Clinton nor Bush could have garnered the domestic or international support they would have needed to defeat al-Qaida.

Besides, if Clinton emboldened al-Qaida by pulling U.S. troops out of Somalia after the death of 18 U.S. soldiers, his actions were no worse than those of the first President Bush (who ended the first Gulf War prematurely) or Ronald Reagan, who cut and ran after terrorists killed 241 U.S. troops in Lebanon.

Clinton also was right to point out that in 1993 no one knew al-Qaida was paying attention to Somalia. Ditto his point that few of today's critics were pushing for him to risk a war by bombing those suspected in the bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa or the USS Cole.

But Clinton complained that the right accused him of waging a "wag the dog" foreign policy -- as if he had nothing to do with his credibility problems. I believed the threats against America were real, but suspected Clinton's martial responses were timed to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal.

Some on the left thought so, too. So what? Surely Clinton would not argue that he could not fight Osama bin Laden, lest he be criticized. Read Richard Clarke's book, the former president repeatedly admonished Wallace. Hmm. If Clinton wants to remind voters that his own National Security Adviser Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to sneaking out and shredding three copies of a Clarke memo about the growing terrorist threat in America, well, OK. Twist my arm.

For three years, the left has accused Bush of lying to the public about intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Partisans seem to have forgotten that Clinton ordered air strikes over Iraq in 1998 in order to check the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program.

On Sunday, Clinton got a taste of the Dems' bitter medicine, and he choked on it.

dsaunders@sfchronicle.com
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

[Ellyllions]

What seems to be getting lost in all this is Clinton's smirking quote to Wallace..."I don't blame Rove, if you've got a strategy that works..."

This was when he was talking about how the Reps are winning with fear.

That one line, says "ya do what you gotta do in Politics".
It makes them one in the same.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
What level of Bush Bashing would you find appropriate?

70%?
60%?

:rolleyes:

Maybe because we are passionate about how our country is run, and the future of our democracy.


Do you even care what this administration has done in YOUR NAME???

Aren't you embarassed too?

I am very disapointed with the current administration. His stance on illegal immigration is appalling, his spending is over the top and he is being led by neocons. This President is not a Conservative. Lets not forget the war which has cost middle class taxpayers huge sums of money. He would be sitting pretty if he had gone after Al Qaeda instead of a whole country. With that said, I will go independant before voting for a democrat. The democratic party is leaning to far left for my taste. Hence why The Big Dog put on a show with Fox News to change the image of the pussyfied democratic party. Obama understands that his party needs to promote strength in National Security also.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
I am very disapointed with the current administration. His stance on illegal immigration is appalling, his spending is over the top and he is being led by neocons. This President is not a Conservative. Lets not forget the war which has cost middle class taxpayers huge sums of money. He would be sitting pretty if he had gone after Al Qaeda instead of a whole country. With that said, I will go independant before voting for a democrat. The democratic party is leaning to far left for my taste. Hence why The Big Dog put on a show with Fox News to change the image of the pussyfied democratic party. Obama understands that his party needs to promote strength in National Security also.

Illegal immigration isn't going to be solved until we secure our borders. Nobody but Pat Buchanan has had the guts to use this as a political platform. Pat wanted to limit and reduce legal immigration to this nation way back when he tried to capture the Presidency.

This President is not a conservative. The spending has always worried me with this administration. Yeah, we're in a "war" (because some still don't feel it's worth fighting) but that's no excuse for the pork that's been appropriated.

An Independant wouldn't have the support of either party as they'd only try to tear down how an outsider got there. Sad, but true. With that said, there was no way I would pull for the likes of a candidate like Gore, much less Kerry. Seems they win when the put up a "moderate". They haven't figured that out yet.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Illegal immigration isn't going to be solved until we secure our borders.

Wrong.

You can have all of the "secure" borders you want.....they'll get in.

Secure Borders is like the lame ass WAR ON DRUGS argument.

Why not get rid of the INCENTIVE for sneaking across the border in the first place? Jobs.

Someone is hiring these people. They are corportist law breaking sleaze, and should be dealt with as such.

But the borders will NEVER be "secure"

Just like the WAR ON TERROR/DRUGS will never be "over"

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Wrong.

You can have all of the "secure" borders you want.....they'll get in.

Secure Borders is like the lame ass WAR ON DRUGS argument.

Why not get rid of the INCENTIVE for sneaking across the border in the first place? Jobs.

Someone is hiring these people. They are corportist law breaking sleaze, and should be dealt with as such.

But the borders will NEVER be "secure"

Just like the WAR ON TERROR/DRUGS will never be "over"

If your assumption is correct, than America is heading down a road to ruin. We are not capable of accepting illegal aliens on that grand a scale. Most are unskilled and uneducated. I think securing the border is a start, but I also agree that going after these Corporate elites would also curtail illegals from crossing into this country.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Illegal immigration isn't going to be solved until we secure our borders. Nobody but Pat Buchanan has had the guts to use this as a political platform. Pat wanted to limit and reduce legal immigration to this nation way back when he tried to capture the Presidency.

This President is not a conservative. The spending has always worried me with this administration. Yeah, we're in a "war" (because some still don't feel it's worth fighting) but that's no excuse for the pork that's been appropriated.

An Independant wouldn't have the support of either party as they'd only try to tear down how an outsider got there. Sad, but true. With that said, there was no way I would pull for the likes of a candidate like Gore, much less Kerry. Seems they win when the put up a "moderate". They haven't figured that out yet.

I am currently reading Pat Buchanans State Of Emergency. I highly recommend this book. He really lays out the problems illegals are causing this country without bashing hispanics. He would have been a better President than the current one. Mr. Buchanan has a real concern for the future of this country, unlike the globalist, neocon run adminstration currently running The White House.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
No matter what Bill Clinton does, he's always going to be the guy who got a blowjob in the Oval Office and blew kak on a blue dress.

...

He's also leaps-&-bounds far more popular than any current political figure. Funny how that works? Get a blowjob, people forgive you. Lie about wars and kill America's young people, not so forgivable...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
I am currently reading Pat Buchanans State Of Emergency. I highly recommend this book. He really lays out the problems illegals are causing this country without bashing hispanics. He would have been a better President than the current one. Mr. Buchanan has a real concern for the future of this country, unlike the globalist, neocon run adminstration currently running The White House.

Pat's been right about a few things in recent years, especially in his opposition to the BCE/PNAC agenda. But his latest crusade is as much racism and paranoia as it is legitmate concern about border security.

What bothers Pat is not people jumping the border, but Mexicans jumping the border. If a bunch of white supremacists from Canada came over one of the Great Lakes in a rowboat, he would be all for it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by sadaist
And what makes you think that I simply didn't forget the link? I never claimed I wrote it. I didn't even lead into it as mine. Even when I re-quoted a particular passage, I didn't refer to it as my own.

Well, when you finally get your GED, you'll realize that not quoting or somehow indicating other peoples' work is called "plagiarism." The onus is not on the reader to determine what is posted as yours' or not.


The link was posted in post #60. (yet still no comment from anyone on the content, just the delivery method)

Actually, I know you're not to bright since you apparently have to use others' comments since you seem to have little prior knowledge, but I actually did comment on it.


Just because you are registered Republican doesn't mean shit.

Got that right. It certainly doesn't mean what it used to be. It used to mean efficient, pluralistic governance; not the unequal adherence to a discredited 19th cent ideology and religious social policies.


The party you belong to is determined by your views, morals, values, beliefs, what direction you would like the country to go, etc... You're like a guy who converts to Judaism just so he can make Jewish jokes.

LOL I didn't "convert" to being a Republican to bash the GOP. The GOP is the one losing its soul and standing for nothing but corruption, mindless self-defeating militarism, hate, polarization, and the hijacking of America's secular institutions through the use of revisionist history.

So what do Republican's stand for? Smaller gov't? Destroying the New Deal and workers rights? Corruption and arrogance? Passing the buck and lying?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He's also leaps-&-bounds far more popular than any current political figure. Funny how that works? Get a blowjob, people forgive you. Lie about wars and kill America's young people, not so forgivable...

If JFK hadn't been murdered by the CIA, he could have been remembered as "the guy who fucked Marilyn Monroe", but would that have taken anything away from the leadership he demonstrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks..."The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

....
With Post Wire Services

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252006/news/nationalnews/rice_boils_over_at_bubba_nationalnews_.htm


Oh, they did huh? So, what part of the 9/11 Commission Report should I refer too Condi? In fact, they imply that Bush did very little, and list no specific actions that he undertook against Bin Laden or al-Qaida. There is no evidence that Bush ever did anything, nor had any sort of meeting regarding terrorism.

The only indication that he did anything was by himself, and Condi's own testimony in it. You'll pardon me if I don't trust them. Bush tried to suppress any 9/11 Commission and testified very reluctantly as I recall. What did he have to cover up? Well, the evidence could indicate that he deliberately ignored all terror indications in order to take advantage of any attack.

They did in fact do nothing for nine months...


May the Force be with you...pwn3d by an avatar!

LMFAO! "pw3ed" by a kiddie movie avatar from the worse of the prequals? I think this might be a more fitting avatar for you:

http://www.cinefex.com/backissues/number78.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

What does the 9/11 Commission think of Bush and his lackies?

U.S. Is Given Failing Grades By 9/11 Panel
Bipartisan Group Faults Counterterrorism Progress

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097_pf.html) Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 6, 2005; A01

The federal government received failing and mediocre grades yesterday from the former Sept. 11 commission, whose members said in a final report that the Bush administration and Congress have balked at enacting numerous reforms that could save American lives and prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The 10-member bipartisan panel -- whose book-length report about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks became a surprise bestseller -- issued a "report card" that included 5 F's, 12 D's and two "incompletes" in categories including airline passenger screening and improving first responders' communication system.

The group also said there has been little progress in forcing federal agencies to share intelligence and terrorism information and sharply criticized government efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction or establish clear standards for the proper treatment of U.S. detainees.

"We believe that the terrorists will strike again," the panel's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, told reporters in Washington. "If they do, and these reforms that might have prevented such an attack have not been implemented, what will our excuses be?"

Leading Democrats on Capitol Hill immediately seized on the report, accusing the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress of failing to adequately prepare for future terrorist strikes. Republicans and the White House countered that the government has adopted many of the commission's proposed changes and that administration policies have helped prevent additional catastrophic attacks in the United States.

The report card -- which assigns letter grades to the panel's 41 key recommendations -- marks the last official act by commission members, whose hearings and findings have sparked three years of public debate over the extent of government mistakes before the Sept. 11 attacks. After the release of the "9/11 Commission Report" last year, the commission re-created itself as a private nonprofit group focused on pressuring Congress and the Bush administration to adopt its recommendations.

According to the panel, the government deserves only one top grade, an A-minus, for its "vigorous effort against terrorist financing." The panel gave out B's and C's for government performance on issues such as the creation of a director of national intelligence and an ongoing presence in Afghanistan.

But in nearly half the categories, the government merited a D, an F or an incomplete grade, according to the report card. Kean and other commission members said at a news conference in Washington that all the goals should be achievable, but that many have languished amid political skirmishing and bureaucratic turf battles.

"None of this is rocket science," said John F. Lehman (R), a Navy secretary in the Reagan administration. "None of it is in the 'too hard' category."

One of his colleagues, former Indiana congressman Timothy J. Roemer (D), said that "al Qaeda is quickly changing and we are not. Al Qaeda is highly dynamic and we are not. Al Qaeda is highly imaginative and we are not."

Kean and other panel members focused particular attention on two issues currently stalled in Congress. One proposal would change the way the Department of Homeland Security distributes state grant money, most of which is allocated evenly among the states -- leading sparsely populated states such as Wyoming to receive nearly twice as much money per capita as major terrorist targets such as New York.

An amendment to a House bill reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act would place primary emphasis for homeland security funding on risk assessments, but the proposal is not included in a House-Senate compromise bill because of opposition from small-state senators.

The panel also sharply criticized Congress for failing to enable first responders to communicate easily by setting aside part of the broadcast spectrum for their use. A pending budget bill would open part of the spectrum for first responders in 2009, but the Sept. 11 panel said that date is "too distant given the urgency of the threat."

These and other criticisms prompted a flurry of news releases and statements from congressional Democrats, who said Republicans had failed to make the country safe. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said that "an F is too high a grade for the Bush White House and Washington Republicans," while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the report an "indictment of continued failure by the administration."

But in a document distributed to reporters, the White House outlined a lengthy list of changes already implemented after the commission's findings and highlighted other areas, such as the homeland security funding issue, in which the administration has supported changes.

"We have taken significant steps to better protect the American people at home," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters. "There is more to do. This is the president's highest responsibility."

The FBI received a C grade from the Sept. 11 panel, which said that the bureau was transforming itself too slowly and that "significant deficiencies remain." Although FBI officials "agree that more remains to be done," Assistant Director John Miller said, "the pace of the FBI's change has been sweeping and continuous."

Mary Fetchet, founder and director of Voices of September 11th, one of the victims' groups that has closely monitored the commission's work, tearfully praised the commission during yesterday's news conference. She said she was disappointed that more has not been done since the attacks.

"I really do feel that it's only a matter of time before our country is going to be struck again, and it would just be tragic if there were other families like ours that suffered a tragic loss," said Fetchet, whose son, Brad, was killed at the World Trade Center.

But another prominent relative of a Sept. 11 victim, Kristen Breitweiser, said yesterday that the panel undercut its credibility by failing to publicly identify those within the government responsible for mistakes before the attacks.

"Part of the problem is that the commission didn't hold anyone accountable," said Breitweiser, whose husband, Ronald, was killed at the Trade Center. "When you don't name names, people don't tend to take you seriously."

Staff writer Peter Baker and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Yeah Condi, they just love you girl!

[Nickdfresh]

And since all of these moronic op-ed'ers Assvibe is posting want to revise The 9/11 Commission Report, here's what it actually says:


Lack of Military Options
In response to the request of policymakers, the military prepared an array of limited strike options for attacking Bin Ladin and his organization from May 1998 onward. When they briefed policymakers, the military presented both the pros and cons of those strike options and the associated risks. Policymakers expressed frustration with the range of options presented.

Following the August 20, 1998, missile strikes on al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, both senior military officials and policymakers placed great emphasis on actionable intelligence as the key factor in recommending or deciding to launch military action against Bin Ladin and his organization. They did not want to risk significant collateral damage, and they did not want to miss Bin Ladin and thus make the United States look weak while making Bin Ladin look strong. On three specific occasions in 1998-1999, intelligence was deemed credible enough to warrant planning for possible strikes to kill Bin Ladin. But in each case the strikes did not go forward, because senior policymakers did not regard the intelligence as sufficiently actionable to offset their assessment of the risks.

The Director of Central Intelligence, policymakers, and military officials expressed frustration with the lack of actionable intelligence. Some officials inside the Pentagon, including those in the special forces and the counterterrorism policy office, also expressed frustration with the lack of military action. The Bush administration began to develop new policies toward al Qaeda in 2001, but military plans did not change until after 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission Report Executive Summary (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm)

[i](About halfway down the page)

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
"pw3ed" by a kiddie movie avatar from the worse of the prequals? I think this might be a more fitting avatar for you:



Worried about a little picture...bawhahaha!

Yeah, Bill the Kat and a flaming Marilyn Manson pic...whoa...let's cure world hunger!


http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2006-09-23_1702278285545520/movie_stars/brando/horror2.wav

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Worried about a little picture...bawhahaha!

Yeah, Bill the Kat and a flaming Marilyn Manson pic...whoa...let's cure world hunger!


http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2006-09-23_1702278285545520/movie_stars/brando/horror2.wav

Obviously, then I really don't take myself too seriously, which seems to be your overriding ambition. To convince the world that you're a 44-year old internet "badass" ex-supersoldier by making the most absurd right wing "macho" statements he can. A guy who shows his love of America by complaining about having to pay taxes, and going on about how much he hates other Americans. And that he's an overlooked virtuoso that should have made it playing bass, instead of that 'fucking Michael Anthony clown'...

And Billy and the Boingers/Death Tongüe were around long before that Manson hack...

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, it's good to know the right wing op-ed'ers have to use lies-by-omission, distortions, decontextualization, misreadings, and out right blatant lies to support their beliefs that it's all Bill's fault, and Bush is a "victim" of his "incompetence." But I wonder why they could actually rationalize defending their world view by having to write propaganda to revise history.

What do they believe if it's not about "the truth" anyways?

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by FORD
Pat's been right about a few things in recent years, especially in his opposition to the BCE/PNAC agenda. But his latest crusade is as much racism and paranoia as it is legitmate concern about border security.

What bothers Pat is not people jumping the border, but Mexicans jumping the border. If a bunch of white supremacists from Canada came over one of the Great Lakes in a rowboat, he would be all for it.

THAT IS ABSURD, let me guess, you got that piece of info from the far left comedian, who thinks he is a political scientist "Bill Maher"

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Obviously, then I really don't take myself too seriously, which seems to be your overriding ambition. To convince the world that you're a 44-year old internet "badass" ex-supersoldier by making the most absurd right wing "macho" statements he can. A guy who shows his love of America by complaining about having to pay taxes, and going on about how much he hates other Americans. And that he's an overlooked virtuoso that should have made it playing bass, instead of that 'fucking Michael Anthony clown'...

And Billy and the Boingers/Death Tongüe were around long before that Manson hack...


Let's interject reality into what you want to spew.

The pic is a Star Wars character. It's from a sci-fi movie! NOBODY believes it to be true!

I'm not 44. I did serve my country. If that makes me a "badass"...ok, you're one too!

I pay my taxes, and yes they are too much. That's the penalty of being successful in America.

I play in a jam band on the weekends...maybe live 5 times a year...tops. I never wanted to lead the lifestyle of a rockstar and didn't persue it that hard. I have fun with music and like to play the bass.

bassplayer is a joke. You're in the minority sticking up for him. So when are you going to hitch your wagon to Spambo McGaygar .


Those are the facts. Wide open like a book. I'm not insecure like you.

[DrMaddVibe]

The real Clinton emerges
From behind the benign fa³ˆe and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace¡¯s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know ¨C the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace¡¯s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator¡¯s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president¡¯s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the ¡°definition of ¡®is¡¯ is¡± could perform.

Clinton told Wallace, ¡°There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.¡± Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.

Clinton said conservatives ¡°were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day¡± after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military¡¯s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

The president told Wallace, ¡°I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.¡± But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

Clinton claims ¡°the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.¡± But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

Why didn¡¯t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden¡¯s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against ¡°over-reaction.¡± In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a ¡°failed bombing¡± and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to ¡°certify¡± him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, ¡°I worked hard to try to kill him.¡± If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question ¡ª incompetence; to the second ¡ª he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.

President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a ¡°nice little conservative hit job on me.¡± But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.

The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.

One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?


http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
The real Clinton emerges
From behind the benign fa³ˆe and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday...


Oh ho! The insidious "real" Clinton emerged! As opposed to the "real" "Christian" George Bush that is reportedly, from ancedotal evidence, a loud, foul-mouthed bully that belittles people and is unable to deal with any opinion that contradicts his own in the slightest. Hence our disastrous foreign policy?


"The president told Wallace, ¡°I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.¡± But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy."

Great! Keep posting right wing pussies that are too cowardly to actually "quote" the 9/11 Report; so they can just give you a little synopsis, spinning-it as to what it 'supposedly' states. Clearly, another vast oversimplification that ignores the fact that Bush did nothing, except go on vacation during what was the most active period of "terrorist chatter."

Actually, the Administration didn't trust the tribesman, from the same Pashtun ethnic makeup as the Taliban. They had claimed that they had in fact tried to kidnap, or kill, Bin Laden previously, but had failed. This wasn't the Northern Alliance we're talking about.

Go ahead an keep quoting guys that tell you what the 9/11 says, and I'll just quote the "9/11 Report" itself.

Maybe some day you'll acquire the intellectual competence to actually read it yourself, and stop being such a good partisan dummy-con-bitch, and just repeating what others have fraudulently misquoted.


Here's what the 9/11 Report actually states about it: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ame/911/911rep/ch04.htm


[b]The CIA Develops a Capture Plan

Initially, the DCI's Counterterrorist Center and its Bin Ladin unit considered a plan to ambush Bin Ladin when he traveled between Kandahar, the Taliban capital where he sometimes stayed the night, and his primary residence at the time, Tarnak Farms. After the Afghan tribals reported that they had tried such an ambush and failed, the Center gave up on it, despite suspicions that the tribals' story might be fiction. Thereafter, the capture plan focused on a nighttime raid on Tarnak Farms.17

A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin's wives and the one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.18

By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval. Tenet apparently walked National Security Advisor Sandy Berger through the basic plan on February 13. One group of tribals would subdue the guards, enter Tarnak Farms stealthily, grab Bin Ladin, take him to a desert site outside Kandahar, and turn him over to a second group. This second group of tribals would take him to a desert landing zone already tested in the 1997 Kansi capture. From there, a CIA plane would take him to New York, an Arab capital, or wherever he was to be arraigned. Briefing papers prepared by the Counterterrorist Center acknowledged that hitches might develop. People might be killed, and Bin Ladin's supporters might retaliate, perhaps taking U.S. citizens in Kandahar hostage. But the briefing papers also noted that there was risk in not acting. "Sooner or later," they said, "Bin Ladin will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD [weapons of mass destruction]."19

Clarke's Counterterrorism Security Group reviewed the capture plan for Berger. Noting that the plan was in a "very early stage of development," the NSC staff then told the CIA planners to go ahead and, among other things, start drafting any legal documents that might be required to authorize the covert action. The CSG apparently stressed that the raid should target Bin Ladin himself, not the whole compound.20

The CIA planners conducted their third complete rehearsal in March, and they again briefed the CSG. Clarke wrote Berger on March 7 that he saw the operation as "somewhat embryonic" and the CIA as "months away from doing anything."21

"Mike" thought the capture plan was "the perfect operation." It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States-thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. "Mike" trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning "almost as professional and detailed . . . as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element." He and the other officers who had worked through the plan with the tribals judged it "about as good as it can be." (By that, Schroen explained, he meant that the chance of capturing or killing Bin Ladin was about 40 percent.) Although the tribals thought they could pull off the raid, if the operation were approved by headquarters and the policymakers, Schroen wrote there was going to be a point when "we step back and keep our fingers crossed that the [tribals] prove as good (and as lucky) as they think they will be."22

Military officers reviewed the capture plan and, according to "Mike," "found no showstoppers." The commander of Delta Force felt "uncomfortable" with having the tribals hold Bin Ladin captive for so long, and the commander of Joint Special Operations Forces, Lieutenant General Michael Canavan, was worried about the safety of the tribals inside Tarnak Farms. General Canavan said he had actually thought the operation too complicated for the CIA-"out of their league"-and an effort to get results "on the cheap." But a senior Joint Staff officer described the plan as "generally, not too much different than we might have come up with ourselves." No one in the Pentagon, so far as we know, advised the CIA or the White House not to proceed.23

In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted.24

On May 18, CIA's managers reviewed a draft Memorandum of Notification (MON), a legal document authorizing the capture operation. A 1986 presidential finding had authorized worldwide covert action against terrorism and probably provided adequate authority. But mindful of the old "rogue elephant" charge, senior CIA managers may have wanted something on paper to show that they were not acting on their own.

Discussion of this memorandum brought to the surface an unease about paramilitary covert action that had become ingrained, at least among some CIA senior managers. James Pavitt, the assistant head of the Directorate of Operations, expressed concern that people might get killed; it appears he thought the operation had at least a slight flavor of a plan for an assassination. Moreover, he calculated that it would cost several million dollars. He was not prepared to take that money "out of hide," and he did not want to go to all the necessary congressional committees to get special money. Despite Pavitt's misgivings, the CIA leadership cleared the draft memorandum and sent it on to the National Security Council.25

Counterterrorist Center officers briefed Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh, telling them that the operation had about a 30 percent chance of success. The Center's chief, "Jeff," joined John O'Neill, the head of the FBI's New York Field Office, in briefing Mary Jo White, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and her staff. Though "Jeff" also used the 30 percent success figure, he warned that someone would surely be killed in the operation. White's impression from the New York briefing was that the chances of capturing Bin Ladin alive were nil.26

From May 20 to 24, the CIA ran a final, graded rehearsal of the operation, spread over three time zones, even bringing in personnel from the region. The FBI also participated. The rehearsal went well. The Counterterrorist Center planned to brief cabinet-level principals and their deputies the following week, giving June 23 as the date for the raid, with Bin Ladin to be brought out of Afghanistan no later than July 23.27

On May 20, Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead.

The principals did not meet. On May 29, "Jeff" informed "Mike" that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate's Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation. "Mike" cabled the field that he had been directed to "stand down on the operation for the time being." He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties-"collateral damage"-was too high. They were concerned about the tribals' safety, and had worried that "the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation-and probably recriminations-in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive."29

Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as "half-assed" and predicted that the principals would not approve it. "Jeff " thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger's doing, though perhaps on Tenet's advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to "turn off" the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.30

The CIA's senior management clearly did not think the plan would work. Tenet's deputy director of operations wrote to Berger a few weeks later that the CIA assessed the tribals' ability to capture Bin Ladin and deliver him to U.S. officials as low. But working-level CIA officers were disappointed. Before it was canceled, Schroen described it as the "best plan we are going to come up with to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice."31 No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation. The tribals' reported readiness to act diminished. And Bin Ladin's security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.

At this time, 9/11 was more than three years away. It was the duty of Tenet and the CIA leadership to balance the risks of inaction against jeopardizing the lives of their operatives and agents. And they had reason to worry about failure: millions of dollars down the drain; a shoot-out that could be seen as an assassination; and, if there were repercussions in Pakistan, perhaps a coup. The decisions of the U.S. government in May 1998 were made, as Berger has put it, from the vantage point of the driver looking through a muddy windshield moving forward, not through a clean rearview mirror.32

Yeah, it was all that simple and cut and dry, maybe a "30% chance" of capture...maybe!

[DrMaddVibe]

What papers did Sandy Burglar take out of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)?

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
What papers did Sandy Burglar take out of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)?

Your love letters to Clay Aiken? :confused:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Let's interject reality into what you want to spew.

The pic is a Star Wars character. It's from a sci-fi movie! NOBODY believes it to be true!

Really, are you sure? C'mon!!


I'm not 44. I did serve my country. If that makes me a "badass"...ok, you're one too!

That's not what I mean. It's the comments like about wanting to use the Nat'l Guard to kill Mexicans crossing the border illegally and the like...


I pay my taxes, and yes they are too much. That's the penalty of being successful in America.

C'mon AssVibe, talk is cheap. The pocketbook is what matters. And funding the military, the Wars you seem to love, social services, and the welfare state is what allows you to be so successful, by keeping a social order intact...


I play in a jam band on the weekends...maybe live 5 times a year...tops. I never wanted to lead the lifestyle of a rockstar and didn't persue it that hard. I have fun with music and like to play the bass.

bassplayer is a joke. You're in the minority sticking up for him. So when are you going to hitch your wagon to Spambo McGaygar .


Those are the facts. Wide open like a book. I'm not insecure like you.

Yeah, you bash possibly the only decent human being connected to Van Halen you mean. He isn't a great bassist, but the guy, by all accounts, bends over backwards for the fans. I could care less if he bends over forwards for Sammy. And Sam's too fat to hitch a wagon on. He's called out spEd and has said overall positive things about playing with Dave. And if I'm the only one "defending him," then why are 90% of people horrified at the prospect of a "CVH" reunion without Mike as per Ed's conversation with Stern?

And dude, anybody that celebrates the bass 'genius' that is Gene Simmons has no talking room on Mike.

[DrMaddVibe]

Gene against bassplayer? That's been done before...bassplayer went down like you on ford!

[FORD]

Chaim and Mikey probably played on the same number of albums in the 80's and 90's.

ZERO.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Gene against bassplayer? That's been done before...bassplayer went down like you on ford!

Sorry, I had no idea there was a battle royale between two chubby middle-aged guys with hair-extentions who played bass with once great bands.

Actually, I do recall it, and I think I said something to the affect that asking who is better between Simmons and Anthony is like asking who won the 1000-yard sprint at the special Olympics.

And there you go again with your homoerotic fantasies.

[DrMaddVibe]

By trying to compare them right here...didn't you just cross the "finish line"....look at the avatar!


LOOK AT THE AVATAR!!!!!


ITS LAUGHING AT YOU!!!!!!

[Nickdfresh]

My God, go take your meds.

Or lay off the beer in the middle of the day...

[DrMaddVibe]

LOOK AT THE AVATAR!!!

IT OFFENDS YOU!!!!!


LOOK AT IT!


YOU'LL TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING OF IT...YOU ALWAYS DO!

Now get the fuck outta here...fag!

[FORD]

Will you two get a fucking room already :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

He really loves you more Ford.;)

[VanJay011379]

A textbook definition of cowardice
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview

The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

See story and video at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/

I'm a conservative but I love Olberman and defend Clinton in this case.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
LOOK AT THE AVATAR!!!

IT OFFENDS YOU!!!!!


LOOK AT IT!


YOU'LL TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING OF IT...YOU ALWAYS DO!

Now get the fuck outta here...fag!

Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

Seriously, you're fucking retarded.

At least borderline.....

I guess living in Florida with a fat wife and ankle biters will do that to you.

Frustrating I bet....


Well, ther'e alsways next season's Idol to look forward too, right? mr. bassplaya:D

[stringfelowhawk]

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"


Maybe when you fucking monkeys stand up and take some responsibility for your actions!

We all know Bush was to busy working on his ranch to be working in his office. Wouldn't want to interrupt his vacation for something like national security.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
What seems to be getting lost in all this is Clinton's smirking quote to Wallace..."I don't blame Rove, if you've got a strategy that works..."

This was when he was talking about how the Reps are winning with fear.

That one line, says "ya do what you gotta do in Politics".
It makes them one in the same.

Not quite. For all the influence Rove has on Dubya, I doubt if he talked Bush into invading Iraq. Dubya made that move on his own, for his own reasons. Any other president would have kept the focus on Afghanistan, including Clinton. And if Rove came up with the WMD/ties to 9/11/"let's form a democracy" equation for justifying this war, then I'm very disappointed in him. Clinton is a master politician, and so is Rove. I guess Clinton (kind of) respects him as such.

[DLR'sCock]

anyone find it odd that john o'neil was killed at the WTC on 9-11????

I knew this a week or two afterwards, and i founf the coincidence well......very very strange......considering who he was.....


FORD?

i know you know....

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by VanJay011379
A textbook definition of cowardice
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview

The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.

It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

See story and video at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/

I'm a conservative but I love Olberman and defend Clinton in this case.


Olberman brings the smackdown.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
I'd say the Clinton administration was better at handling terrorism, and remains so.

LMAO!

:D

Clinton is full of shit in this idiotic interview...

Yeah right, all these people said Clinton was "too obsessed" with Bin Laden...

Give me a break...:rolleyes:

The only thing Clintard is obsessed with is his legacy...


Whatever...:rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
anyone find it odd that john o'neil was killed at the WTC on 9-11????

I knew this a week or two afterwards, and i founf the coincidence well......very very strange......considering who he was.....


FORD?

i know you know....

I don't think it's that mysterious at all, just ironic as Hell that he chose to work there, of all places, and that 9-11-01 just happenned to be his first day on the job.

By all accounts, O'Neill had shown up a little early for work, and his office was in the South Tower. He could have been free and clear of the building even before the second plane hit that one, but as the dedicated public servant he was, he instead chose to help others evacuate the buildings, and sacrificed himself in the process. When the "all clear" signal was given to the workers in the South Tower, under the assumption that the first crash was an accident, O'Neill did not accept that, and told his new co-workers to keep moving down the stairs. God knows how many lives he saved that day, though unfortunately not his own.

Though I'm sure that whomever was responsible for the attacks considered it a "bonus" that they also managed to eliminate the guy who would have found them out, had his investigation not been cut off by the BCE.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ELVIS

The only thing Clintard is obsessed with is his legacy...


And all you can do is repeat the talking points that you have learned.

Here's your chance to show us what Bush did after Clinton's 8 years of doing nothing:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40446

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by blueturk
Not quite. For all the influence Rove has on Dubya, I doubt if he talked Bush into invading Iraq. Dubya made that move on his own, for his own reasons. Any other president would have kept the focus on Afghanistan, including Clinton. And if Rove came up with the WMD/ties to 9/11/"let's form a democracy" equation for justifying this war, then I'm very disappointed in him. Clinton is a master politician, and so is Rove. I guess Clinton (kind of) respects him as such.

He was saying that in reference to the "fear factor" that the Dems accuse the Reps are using at election time. Basically saying that he doesn't blame Rove for using a strategy that has worked. Kinda says a lot don'tcha think? Just out and out saying..."hey, if it works?...why not?" and then chuckling about it.

In my mind, they both use fear. Reps want us afraid of terrorists, Dems want us afraid of Reps.

[Dr. Love]

I think Wallace should be honored, how often does someone get the Presidential Pwn laid down on him? I watched that interview and all I saw was the interviewer ask the wrong question and Clinton lay the smack down on him.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
LMAO!

:D

Clinton is full of shit in this idiotic interview...

Yeah right, all these people said Clinton was "too obsessed" with Bin Laden...

Give me a break...:rolleyes:

The only thing Clintard is obsessed with is his legacy...


Whatever...:rolleyes:

The Cajun mouthbreather's back...

So, where did Clinton "lie" and who said he was "too obsessed?"

[ELVIS]

Maybe you didn't watch the interview...

[ELVIS]

Oh, and good day to you too, my friend...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Maybe you didn't watch the interview...

Get past the "Clinton attacks" mentality, and listen to what he actually said. He admitted he didn't do enough to get Bin Laden. He was only pissed because the little monkeys "posing as journalists" at Fox never give this sort of question to the Bush White House.



Originally posted by ELVIS
Oh, and good day to you too, my friend...

And you too sir...

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/Michelle30/th_titflash.gif

[ELVIS]

:D