I am always amazed at people who are not in the “behind the scenes know” about things like why a President did or did not do a specific thing.
If you all remember, it is said that President Bush knew about the attack on the twin towers before it happened.
I don’t think that is true.
Maybe there were those in his cabinet who knew, but I would bet you my bottom dollar that George Bush Jr did not know about the attack.
He is so transparent and down to earth that he would have done something about it. President Bush relied too much on those around him and they kept him isolated from much that was going on.
I am sure that some of his cabinet knew “something”, but I don’t think he did, and I am a Democrat and have never voted for a Republican President. But I do believe that Geo. Bush, Jr did not know. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Gina

I am trying to find out if President Bill Clinton is of Native American Ancestry. I know that thousands and thousands of Native Americans were forcibly moved to the Arkansas Area in the 1830 to 1850’s by the Govenment who wanted their Lands for the Whites.  These Prisoners of War were finally left to make it on their own when the Country began to edge toward the Civil War.

Prisoners were from the Cherokee Nation, The Choctaw Nation, The Seminole Nation, The Chickasaw Nation and the Muscogee Nation, more commonly known as the Creek Nation.

President Bill Clinton strongly resembles some Members of the present day Choctaw Nation of Alabama. since there is such a strong resemblence, is it likely that he has Native American Blood and was never told about it, as was the usual case of many Whites, due to the Jacksonian policies of 1830? 

Many Whites have found that they have Native American Ancestors but it had been hidden because of “the only good Indian is a dead Indian” Jacksonian Policy of the 1825 to 1850’s. Jackson had promised the Whites the Indians Lands and he had as many as a million Indians killed for that Land. You can see why any White who had Native American Blood would hide it?  Their Lives depended on secrecy.

Thousands of Whites who had Indian Blood stayed in the Southeast by denying that they had any Native American Blood at all. I wonder if the President is a Descendant of one of the Five Nations of 1830? Do you know where I can find this type information?

I would be even more proud of him if it turns out that he is a Descendant of the Forced Removal, know better to the world as “The Trail Of Tears”.  Many Whites are finding that they are Descendants and they are reclaiming their Heritage.

It seems to me that someone would do the Lineage of our Former President.

Is there someone out there who has knowledge on this subject?
GINA

Gosh, don’t you just long for those days when govt. under Clinton ran great with actual professionals doing their jobs and all the repubs could do was throw anything they could at him hoping something would stick?

gladrob, you are as full of BS and completely illogical here as you were there.
Comment #28842 by helorat on 10/14 at 10:43 pm
gladrob,
Since you have been such a cooperative foil, I will accede to your request Comment #28635 by gladrob on 10/13 at 11:31 am (to a limited extent), temporarily at least, I will address your other BS later. I will address the issues of your alleged Cheney/Bush “lies”. I will do this because you have made it easy, as I expected you would. I have already addressed the issues and I can merely cut and paste most of it, I have a lot of material and experience, and I am interested to see if the post will occur on Sunday.
First, we are a republic not a democracy (the more democratic we get, the less American we become), and it is the Constitution that is the foundation of the American Republic! Would that you gave so much weight to that Creator part of the DoI; but as usual it is the SS who are the selective readers.
Second, were you lying when you said the Constitution said “all men are created equal”, no I don’t think so (showing yourself as a near terminally ignorant pissant typical SS (Secular Socialist) American college student maybe, but a liar, not that time [other times, but not that time]); was Roosevelt a liar when he told reporters the Doolittle raiders (remember that one way near suicide mission conducted for propaganda purposes; I can only imagine what you and your buds would have said if Bush had done something similar) came from Shangri-La? I think not.
As an aside, I notice with interest how you rely on a comedy site for your factual information, very typical of a sycophant of the unserious party.
First, Clinton is not just a proven liar, he is guilty of perjury. If I remember correctly, he has been disbarred. No body is perfect, but he was not just hiding something from his wife and family, he was committing perjury in the course of a Civil Suit. I also seem to recall he had recently signed an order modifying the UCMJ defining a sex act for prosecution of military members that said what he did was sex while he was saying publicly it was not. If you think that is purely personal then I guarantee you were not in the military when it happened. When that worthless sleazeball (I had professional acquaintances with access to his Whitehouse, and he and the former first slut “loathed” the military) was reelected, that was the day I decided I would not stay in the military longer then what was required to collect a retirement, because although I do not feel I have the right to pick my CinC, I sure as hell was not going to risk my life, or even a hangnail, for the idiot dirtbags that reelected him. As I said before, 911 occurred in 1993, Clinton had means and authority to act for years and did nothing worthwhile for years. Clinton lied about that and people died. And the left wing media covered for him. Remember all the split polls after the Monica affair… How do you rate Clinton personally v job performance? Nah, you’re probably to young.
Second, there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda found by the 911 commission. They said they could not find a certain operational link between Iraq and al Qaeda or a link between the 911 attacks and Iraq. The headline on the NYT is a lie, and a malicious one.  Clinton’s own state department released this: “In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq,” the indictment said. http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Bin_Laden_Ate f_Indicted_in_U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html< /a>
“This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq¬Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq."” Page 128; 911 commission report. All the members of the Clinton administration have refused to repudiate this information as it remains their justification for the al Shifa attack. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy Page 61; 911 commission report. Numerous documents captured after the fall of Iraq and after the publishing of the 911 commission report confirm this. Perhaps you have the training records from Salman Pak, or maybe you were there for years and can certify no al Qaeda were trained there, but some Clinonistas still believe there was a connection (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040303.asp ).
When Bozo the clown flashes “we do not believe such a meeting occurred” - I do not believe the 911 commission report said that. Pending a reference, it appears the evidence indicates Bozo is the liar, and a more egregious one, in as much as he was not speaking extemporaneously, as Cheney was. The closest thing I can find the report saying is “The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting” on Page 229. Can you point out where in the report I can find Bozo’s quote?
My family began recording the news when I was deployed for the war in Iraq (Part I [90-91]) and I found looking at the old news interesting, and began randomly recording it myself. I do so much more regularly now with the advent of DVD recorders, and I could find “lies” like those for half Dems in the congress.  Numerous mainstream media acknowledged the link prior to the 2000 elections, when massive amnesia suddenly struck. But I can still lay my hands easily on an MP3 of an ABC report from 1999 that is quite certain there was an operational linkage and alliance.
Saddam was an ally of Islamic terrorists, and financed Islamic terrorists, he gave aid and comfort to terrorists including al Qaeda; there is no doubt a connection between them.
Regarding your second clip from Bozo, wiretapping without a warrant, as I pointed out already on this site, for intelligence gathering, as the primary purpose, may be used to convict enemy agents. It is not possible to determine what question is being asked, and what he is referring to. I have not heard any accusations of purely internal “wiretaps” without a court order, but if there have been, the supreme court has already ruled them legal (US vs Truong [I think]) under those circumstances. If you are trying to say the NSA intercept of cross border calls makes this a lie, they are not “wiretaps” per say, and regardless in either circumstance it is ludicrous to expect the President to reveal how we are fighting a war during a time of war. In addition to mirandizing terrorists, do you want us to include them in the NSA, NSC, and JCS meetings?
Your trying to Plame Cheney, and Bush I guess, just like Libby was Plamed, because he can’t remember exactly what he said during an interview and answers extemporaneously. It’s a gotcha. Having been in the circumstances of hosting a radio call in show (as a fill in) and arguing with another host (SS) of the same show we both agreed that an extemporaneous incorrect answer, misstatement, or failure to recollect something is only a lie when evidence is presented and the person does not recant. Particularly when there was no base crime.  If this is a lie, then you are a more egregious liar.
With regard to the torture BS, there were plenty of SS Libs seriously advocating real torture following 911. By the facts as they stand, the “enemy prisoners” we have captured do not deserve GC protections. They deserve to be executed. If you do need to torture them to save American lives I see no problem; if they are about to set off any NBC weapons on our soil, I hope they start cutting of the extremities of everyone we hold until someone talks. The only way the GC will hold weight with people who do not obey it, is not to allow them to hide behind it. And waterboarding is not torture. I have been waterboarded in training, and it has caused no permanent harm. You SS do not want to hold the Islamofascists accountable. No one even thinks about war crimes trials against them AND those who support them.
Pardon me if I go to “Kiplinger style” (short phrase, incomplete sentences for brevity) to answer your implication Iraq war was illegal and Bush “lied” us into it. First Gulf war ended (1991) in ceasefire, Iraq violated conditions within three months, automatic criteria under international law for resumption of hostilities; not less then 160 plus subsequent violations, over the next 12 years, would each have been adequate justification for resumption of hostilities; UN weapons inspectors stonewalled to the point of inconclusiveness for 10+ years, how long do they need???; Iraq had terrorist camps (Salman Pak, & more), al Qaeda connection, Tenet (Clinton’s appointee CIA chief held over by Bush) told Bush intel on Iraq was “slam dunk”; over 500 chemical artillery rounds (blister and nerve agent) found in Iraq, strong hard intel remainder moved to Syria or hidden or disposed of secretly (see Inside CentCom by Mike Delong [a true man of integrity, his book cuts both ways] and Saddam’s Secrets by Georges Sada). What was justification and rush for war in Yugoslavia? Genocide? Ethnic cleansing? None of that going on in Iraq right? Half the stuff in Bosnia was proven to be staged by the media. Out by Christmas ’96 right? Oh, that’s right you’re too young to remember.
“Focus on me not clearly saying the phrase came from the DOI” Not clearly, my ass, how about not at all. You clearly associate with the document that contains the Bill of Rights. Now that was a bold faced lie on your part.
Dodge my ignorant gun position? What do I need to buy a car…money! How long must I wait… as long as it takes for the dealerto count the money. Which causes more deaths… neither! The tool user cause the action not the tool. It is ignorant to feel that as an American the burden of proof is on you to show a reason to restrict my rights and not the opposite?  Again I ask “Do you see a real Fascist in that mirror you’re looking into; or is it a communist or can you even tell the difference.” They are both socialist, and statist (big government), but there is an OR in there so I am not accusing you of being both!  So your comment “So now I’m a communist AND a fascist. More crazy talk.” Shows either you are crazy one or don’t read well… yep a typical pissant American college student.
You and your ilk are more worried about the rights of the barbarians then you are about protecting this country; and would rather have us lose in Iraq if it will hurt Bush, and help get socialists back in power. At best you are un-American, at worst you are traitorous. Free Darfur, but leave Saddam alone; bomb the hell out of Yugoslavia without UN or Congressional approval and it AOK; attack someone legally with Congressional approval, and the war is illegal and you pillory Bush.  Scream why didn’t you connect the dots?! But each time they try find some dots to connect, you try to call them criminals and stop the collection of dots and tell the enemy how we were trying to do it. Which war had PWs released before the end of the war? Which war did the PWs have lawyers in? Which war did our President sustain more attacks from his own country’s politicians, academics, lawyers and media, then from the enemy’s propaganda machine? Then again maybe they are the enemy’s propaganda machine. How do you define a traitor?

“There is zero hard evidence President Bush has done anything remotely equivalent.” Helorat is once again talking completely out of his ass. His posts ALWAYS avoid facing the real truths and are ALWAYS incredibly long rambling diatribes. He claimed the same thing in another thread and has NEVER responded to indisputable evidence that bush co. has lied to the american people, directly resulting in the deaths of thousands of people.

Helorat, you should just crawl back under your rock and peddle your hate and misinformation somewhere else. The people who come here are way too wise for your act. ??Cheney in his own words:?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry7zKPsT1zM

Bush in his own words:?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfbRcedmqvY

To tdeer3

First, to stay on topic, your initial two paragraphs of your post 26690 actually seem to make my whole point. Bill Clinton is a malicious, self serving, pathological liar in a complete state of denial, and his apologists (Democrats) are willing to accept or ignore it if it will help them gain, maintain, or regain power, or further their socialist agenda. Clinton lies, and knows he does it, and continues to do so for malicious reasons. Such people cannot be ignored or forgiven. I have provided hard evidence of this. There is zero hard evidence President Bush has done anything remotely equivalent.

If you find my deductions and, or observations of your citizenship and native language insulting, my apologies. Your ability to communicate effectively is relevant, as is your background which helps provide your orientation and outlook.  Many blogs have masquerade posters, and yours had many indicators of such, which if not true need not be elaborated. That was not a defense. I will now operate with the assumptions that you are naturalized US citizen, and that a subordinate sub-unit under the command of your father-in-law was “wiped out”, that this unit was platoon level or smaller, or was a non-American unit pending further information from you.

This is a defense: Hopefully your father-in-law is still available and can talk to you about the predilection of most professional military, in particular, officers and those who communicate on radios, for clear and concise communication. I am very intolerant of poor communication skills or lack of effort to be clear on important topics. I tend toward courtesy particularly when it is shown, so my assumption of your status was based on giving you the benefit of the doubt on your seemingly poor ability to be clear and concise in your communication (poor spelling, poor and odd grammar construction), coupled with a somewhat logical thought pattern, and self association “I and the whole world” with the whole world. We must all make judgments based on the information we have. There were numerous possibilities (actually more then I will list due to time space and relevance constraints) for your poor communication skills:
1.  Non-native English speaker.
2.  Does not reside in US.
3.  Resides in US but recent short period.
4.  Lazy poster.
5.  Poor education.
6.  Rushed and does not really care.
Etc., Etc… I am not saying I always communicate clearly but I make all effort to do so. I would not think of trying to post in a language I could not use clearly and effectively. If you choose to do so, you must accept the consequences of the choices you make. There is nothing wrong with discrimination; I discriminate against coffee each time I choose to drink green tea; that is part of life and holds nothing evil. Respect must be earned and maintained. Poor communication skills and a willingness to overlook bad/criminal behavior with a seeming justification of “Most politicians lie to get elected and tay on power.” do not earn or maintain respect from me. In most circumstances tolerance is virtue only to those without morals or values. I feel no obligation to respect an incorrect, illogical, non-fact based opinion, and it is no virtue to provide moral equivalence to such an opinion with one that contains a soundly fact based and logical one.

Thank you for clarifying. I did not get at all that you were asking me to compare Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. In rereading it I still find it barely intelligible without your subsequent clarification.

Let me see if I can address what I now perceive to be your comments in your last two paragraphs of your post 26690, then your I will go to your most recent post and what you have specifically said there.

First, half the population was not against the war (Iraq) when it started. This is factually incorrect, by any measure, The negative view point was built over years of a massive one-sidedly negative and incessant media campaign. Once the war starts, public opinion should be virtually irrelevant. The public cannot and should not have the information to make a valid decision on the conduct of a war, and almost certainly, with extremely rare exceptions, the ability to take the information if it was available, and make a rational decision.  As to the half the population question, looking at the ’04 Presidential election and the number of votes for Kerry, yes, I believe half the people are either too stupid, ignorant, or easily swayed to be considered “intelligent or informed voters”.

Second, I am not a fan of democracy, or the incessant misuse (even by President Bush) of the word democracy which leads to many incorrect assumptions and even more negative effects. I believe in government with the consent of the governed. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutionally based representative republic.  When we were founded as such, the only part of the government directly elected by the voters was the House of Representatives. As we have become more “democratic” we have become less “American”. Real democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner, it is dictatorship legitimized by a vote… it is evil. I hope that is what we are really trying to teach other countries.

Pardon me if I go to “Kiplinger style” (short phrase, incomplete sentences for brevity) to answer your basic Iraq/Afganistan question I perceive from your two posts. First Gulf war ended (1991) in ceasefire, Iraq violated conditions within three months, automatic criteria under international law for resumption of hostilities; not less then 160 plus subsequent violations, over the next 12 years, would each have been adequate justification for resumption of hostilities; UN weapons inspectors stonewalled to the point of inconclusiveness for 10+ years, how long do they need???; Iraq had terrorist camps (Salman Pak, & more), al Qaeda connection (acknowledge even by Clinton’s justice department (see my post to Reich Winger #26578 for direct link to documentation; I can also provide mp3 of audio of ABC news report making hard link between Iraq and al Qaeda in 1999, many more exist, but are forgotten/buried after Bush elected), Tenet (Clinton’s appointee CIA chief held over by Bush) told Bush intel on Iraq was “slam dunk”, your assertion to the contrary in previous posts proven false; over 500 chemical artillery rounds (blister and nerve agent) found in Iraq, strong hard intel remainder moved to Syria or hidden or disposed of secretly (see Delong’s book [previous mentioned], & Saddam’s Secrets by George Sada).

Iraq was not keeping Iran in check, it was destabilizing area with aggressive wars, genocide & pursuit of WMD to use on Iran, Israel & US, encouraging and justifying, at the very least to many Iranians, their own pursuit of WMD. It unified (& killed off) what would have been dissatisfied, probably counter revolutionary Iranian population helping to preserve Fascist Mullah ruled Iranian government.

The only way for us to win the war against Islamic Fascism is to expose them to western free thought, education and culture and hope it catches on. They are currently dark age ignorant barbarians to a great extent. Bush’s way is difficult and risky, but the only way to be successful in the long term. He is a rare politician willing to pursue such a long term policy. Most politicians pursue only policies designed to get them reelected.

Massive misinformation and misdirection is contained in newspapers and mainstream media particularly if not read very carefully with the full understanding of English nuance and many hard facts at your disposal. Please state facts and references on this administration; your incorrect assertion regarding no Iraq links to al Qaeda already documented to be false already.

I have read your previous posts, and I must admit, compared to the utterly unhinged Reich winger (scalded dog that he is) you are a virtual Mr. Spock, but your posts are filled with emotionalism, poorly communicated misinformation and dare I say it (of course I do) lies; I already pointed out one. You also dare impugn our military leaders by stating they would fail to do their duty to protect their men by speaking out in order to preserve their retirement benefits. What evidence do you have?  If there are any who might be suspected of this it should be those you have chosen to site, those who have changed their stories once they were out and had those benefits? If they truly held those beliefs while they were in, why did they not do the honorable thing and resign in protest? Which group should be believed, your 2/10s of a percent who give good cause to question their integrity, or the other 99.8% who don’t.

Regarding your father-in-law, I salute his service, but direct experience not always best for analyzing circumstances and outcomes, it may cause “can’t see the forest for the trees” circumstance. I must often explain to Vietnam vets that they did not lose the war. They had won the war, and 1973-75 democrat controlled congress cut off military funding to South Vietnamese government with veto proof bill. Democrats (Clintons, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.) gave away Vietnam to their communist allies.

Its late and I’m tired. Thank you, and OVER.

To hellorat,

I am bowing to you for 20+ years of services and glad that you become more sensible and polite in our discussion.

However, to go thru unneccessary defenses of wether I am a native English speaker or not is irrelevant in our discussion because it shows the discrimination and disrespect to other non native english speaking soldiers and non native english speaking americans who have contributed their sweat and blood in building and fighting fo OUR country for years.

I also have more conversations with my father-in-law than you would think of and his experiences during the Vietnam war in combat and politics during the war are something yours can’t measure up to. About the question why is is still alive while his unit was wiped out:

Like all commanding officers( he was a colonel), he was at the headquatter when his unit radioed in for help and he was in tears when the needed help didn’t come( I wouldn’t elaborate why because it would expand our discussion to another topic of military strategy during the Vietnam war).

Just a few things to clear the misunderstanding of my opinion.

Last paragraph of my article, I asked you to compare the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, you don’t even bother to mention in your reply.

The Taliban harbored Bin Laden and openly defied our country and the UN, that why we got the support of the whole world with the present of UN soldiers in Afghanistan right now. Instead of hunting Bin Laden and destroy Al Queida, we started the war in Iraq by false information about WMD or Iraq- Al Queida links, we deployed our troop even before the UN report on WMD completed despite the willingness of Sadam to let the UN team doing the inspection. No wonder why we got so little support from the world.

What we are doing Iraq now is not working, because the Wilson Doctrine and Marshall Plan don’t work with the terrorism and relligous fanatics, compounding on top of anti-american sentiment in Mid-East. We also replace a regime that kept Iran in check and now making Iran stronger and more ignorant because they are on the way to total control in the region.

Please read other of my comments regarding to this admisnistration, because I just follow and base on the facts that happen everyday on our newspapers.

Thanks.

To tdeer3,

I do not have a hard time at all admitting a mistake if presented with facts to change my mind. But you have not done so. There is nothing relevant in your post that is not pure opinion, emotion, contradiction, exaggeration and irrelevance.

As is so happens my major in college had a heavy emphasis in psychology. Your comments about denial need a mirror and a dose of reality.

By all reliable accounts Rumsfield and Bush both listen carefully to a greater variety of opinion then most in their position. But you cannot do what everyone recommends, it is not possible. It would appear that less then a dozen retired flag officers, of probably 6-7000 available, have openly criticized Rumsfeld, less then two tenths of one percent… utterly insignificant (by all reliable accounts and my own personal experience the VAST majority of officers and senior enlisted, and most junior enlisted, support the mission in Iraq). If you want a certifiable straight shooter’s unbiased opinion, read INSIDE CENTCOM by Mike Delong. It cuts both ways.

No plan is perfect, and wars usually get bloodier as they end. Roosevelt sent frontline aircraft and topnotch aircrew on a virtual one way suicide mission for pure propaganda (you can’t underestimate the value of attitude and morale in war). Was that a good plan? How about the virtual abandonment of our troops at Guadalcanal? Good plan? The battle for Berlin (1945) cost the Russians and their allies almost as much as our total war casualties; were they losing?

Your premise that only “real soldiers” can have a voice in how a war is fought is has zero merit on all levels: it is not Constitutional, it is not logical (it is emotional), it is contrary to one of the basic values of our society (civilian control of the military), and the fact that you are here posting would make it appear that you really don’t believe it (I don’t think you have any experience, if you did you would not be quoting your in-laws), and if you do believe it, I request you immediately bow to my 20+ years of military (including combat) experience, and say I am right and go away. By the way if your father-in-law’s unit was “wiped out” how were you able to speak with him about it? Emotional exaggeration for effect perhaps? Irrelevant regardless.

Dissent is not necessarily cowardly or unpatriotic, however undermining the confidence of our troops and our allies and those we are trying to help IS traitorous. This type of behavior was responsible for millions of dead in SE Asia where we were right and never lost a battle above company level. Due to that and other similar events the US is getting a reputation of being unreliable, which makes it very difficult to get the run of the mill Iraqi to come out openly against the animals we are fighting for fear that we may leave them to those very animals to be devoured as we did in SE Asia. That blood is on the hands of the American left and the Democratic Party directly and if the current behavior continues, more than the blood in the middle east will be on there hands again.

And by the way, I do not believe you are native English speaker, or an American. 

For Reich Winger,
How refreshing to have an apparent American leftist acknowledge with his username his direct ties and pedigree with Nazis, I applaud your open, honesty and knowledge that Nazism is a form of socialism (NAZI =National Socialism). And although I and most real Americans know this, it is good to see a leftist acknowledge that socialism, government control, and the nanny state are the goals of the Democratic Party.

That said, it is a pity your reading comprehension, spelling and grammar are so poor as to make you appear either functionally illiterate, or emotionally unbalanced. I do not imply the indictment of bin Laden was against Clinton’s wishes. I state that Clinton’s assertion that there was no “certification” of bin Laden, which he supposedly needed to get him, was false. Your quote from him is right there “because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was president.” The indictment of al Qaida and bin Laden was there three years before he left office as you acknowledge. The thought that the federal indictment would not be adequate “certification’ for that purpose and some other kind of “certification” was needed from the FBI or CIA is ludicrous. A federal indictment is exactly what the FBI works off.

You provide the refutation of your own argument in your post and are too twisted and ignorant to see it.

As an aside, Clinton did not have congressional or UN approval to go into Bosnia, but that did not stop him. Strange.

9/11 happened at the WTC in 1993, it just failed due to incompetence. Clinton treated it like a low priority law enforcement matter, and never even visited the site. Had priority been given that and the other attacks on us by Islamic Fascists….

President Bush had 8 months, please try to tell me he was not wee bit distracted, by a few things during those 8 months which were a direct result of the unhinged American Left, during that time.

You have my sympathy.

A reply to helorat,

Most politicians lie to get elected and tay on power.

Most people have a hard time to admit their mistake including you or me. But until we pass the state of denial( Read the principle of Psychology ), we would never see our mistake to fix our own problem.

Please watch the news more to see the affect of the war in Iraq from an ill-prepared post war plan and the inability of Rumfeld to run and listen to all the retired generals.

It is easy to find the war by staying at home.

Only real soldiers who risk their lives, who is sad to see their friends or their men got killed, can have the voice how the war should be run. My father in-law was in the army; he told me how deeply he was sad and frustrated when the men in his unit was wiped out by the VC.

Please , opposition of a war doesn’t mean unpatriotic or cowardic. Or starting a war which half of the population against it is not neccessary intelligent either, unless you think those half doesn’t have any brain or you are simply just regardless the principle of democracy
that we are trying to teach other countries.

By the way, I just let you know that I and the whole world felt so good when we kicked the Taliban butts so you can compare that war with the war in Iraq.

Hey Heliorat,

Two points quickly unmask you: It’s obvious from your own post who the true liar is — you.

Heliorat lie No. 1: Your implication that the November 4, 1998 USINFO-reported indictment of bin Laden was accomplished against the wishes of Clinton who then refused to act on it.

Response: The USINFO source you link reports on the indictment of bin Laden BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION itself! Bush got no such indictments. Nor did he act on this one. Clinton did act on it. He tried to get ben Laden and failed, just as he said on Fox News.

Heliorat lie No. 2: Your implication that the certification Clinton mentioned in his Wallace interview referred to this indictment. It did not. Here are Clinton’s actual words:

“I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. ¶ The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was president.”

The CIA and FBI refused to certify, which certification was something Clinton needed in order to get basing rights. But Clinton could not get basing rights because the the GOP-controlled Congress wold not give him the authority. So Clinton did what he could. He used Cruise missiles and other tactics. But — contrary to the Heliorat’s lying words — the fault lay with the Bush neocons, who were influencing Congress NOT to get bin Laden.

Therefore, Heliorat’s words are justly thrown back into his own lying face:

You cannot debate neocon rats who refuse delivery of the truth and have no concept of reality. Heliorat’s startling willingness to change history to fit his twisted and warped view of the world is oh so Soviet. Those who believe Bush are as sick as that great destroyer of the Constitution and traitor to the country of his nativity.  Modern GOP neocons by their very nature are un-American losers. Their fascism is not American. Heliorat and his neocon buddies may as well enjoy their pre-election fantasies; they will be losers again on November 8th. Go back to your dark holes and reinvent reality on the Foley “scandal”, and explain the hypocrisy of words vs. actions vis-à-vis their numerous scandals. Republicans have low standards, compromise regularly, but at least they have their lies with which to deceive the American public … unlike Democrats who have morals, ethics and standards, and who love their country and are fixing to impeach the unpatriotic traitor — Mad King George.

Clinton’s lying and his apologist’s willingness to accept it has reached new heights. There are far too many lies in this one small interview to bother with all, but this one is clear cut and indisputable:

CLINTON LIE: “The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would’ve had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night.”

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,2 15397,00.html

FACT: bin Laden was indicted in Federal Court in 1998 three years before Clinton left office. How much more “certified” does he need to be?! Interestingly the indictment also found a link between bin Laden and Iraq (as did Clinton) long before President Bush made the linkage, and even as Dems continue to deny it.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

From Clinton’s own State department:

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Bin_Laden_Ate f_Indicted_in_U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html< /a>

correction for commment#26037

“… despite the contradiction to all internal and international organisation’s reports”

( instead of “reputed” )

A reply to Rhonda’s opinion,

It is so nice to talk to a repuplican who doesn’t use slangs and brings up Clinton’s extra marital affair instead of dealing with real issues that affect our country.

It is so easy for us to judge when a leader makes mistakes, but since we all have concerns for our livelyhood and the future of this country, we get frustrated with the situation when we could not get our point of view cross to others. Please don’t blame others people like the whole country are doing right now.

However, politicians are held accountable to their policies and mistakes that profoundly affect lives and well being of all Americans.

Let us retract the facts from 9/11. After the bombing, we became a stronger nation with the support of people within USA and also with almost the whole world, with the exception of islamic extremist. We kicked Talibans butts and the whole world applaud. I felt so good at that time until we invaded Iraq.

Do you remember Bush already deployed the troop without waiting for reports from UN Commission on WMD? Do you remember the disagrreement between Collins and Bush administration until he bent to their demand to appear at UN Security council? Do you remember how many times this administration keep telling people about the WMD and Sadam’s link to al-Qheda despites all internal and international organisations reputed those claims.

Do you think Bush is obsessive with overthrow Sadam that’s why he find all reason to do so.

If so, I think he deceived us to do what he wanted to do from the 1st day he was in the Oval Office.

By doing that, the results are slowly returned to us daily on our news( the human and $ cost, the growing rercuitment of terrorist, the civil liberty...). But the biggest of all, Bush is still trying to cover up an ill intention, a failed foreign policy by trying to manipulating the media with all of his poweful connection from Bush Dynasty.

By the way, I think we have to win in Iraq because we don’t have any other choice now and I hope he can do it.

“I have yet to find a Liberal with whom I can discuss and debate a subject on politics.”

News Flash! Restating RNC talking points ad-nauseum isn’t debating.

I’ve heard this story about Clinton and OBL again and again--and the ones spreading it around are EXACTLY the same people that said he was “Wagging the Dog” to get us away from Monica. They flip-flopped in a split-second when it was THEIR boy, Mad King George starting the war. (Remember that chant they had about Kerry? “Flip-Flop"--Hypocrits, every damn one of them!)

It’s not about truth with you, it’s only about power.

BTW, I take back when I conceded that Clarke wasn’t demoted.  The quotes “proving” that are cherry-picked factoids around, but avoiding the KEY fact that he REMOVED from a key advisory council membership PRIOR to 9/11.  He WAS demoted--Clinton was telling the gospel truth.

Don’t believe Tony Blankley--he’s nothing but a talented propagandist.

The Russians understood propaganda--and they didn’t believe their Soviet government: they had a saying “Half a loaf of bread is half a loaf, but half of the truth is a LIE!”

Hey Rhonda,

The fact that you are “seeing a boy who just lost his cool and argues only from emotion!” means that that’s what you are seeing, nothing more. It does not mean that Clinton was arguing “only from emotion.” It means that you were looking at him through your biased, emotion-glazed eyes, and therefore failing to see something that you missed. Something that in fact was there: facts and logic.

I watched it several times, and I saw Clinton’s facts and logic.

The fact that you couldn’t see it means only that you are incapable of seeing it — probably due to your biased emotion.

Why not present some facts and logic, rather than just the same kind of fact-less, illogical emotion-driven response that you are accusing others of doing?

To: Dark Ages The Sequel:

I watched it and I am seeing a boy who just lost his cool and argues only from emotion! Do facts mean anything to you and him?

In 1998, Clinton was briefed on a very similar memorandum stating that Osama bin Laden wanted to strike targets in the United States! You do not hear Conservatives hold him responsible for not defending against that! In fact he was offered Osama bin Laden close to the same time as the memorandum! If he was so concerned about this same type of memorandum and did nothing to gain access to Osmaa bin Laden even when offered to him by Sudanese governmental authorities, what possibly would lead you to believe he would have acted any differently on August 6, 2001, were he in office!

There appears to be no evidence that Clinton even briefed the Bush administration on this 1998 memorandum!

I am no fan of Clinton but I do not hate him quite as much as some Democrats loathe Bush. Emotion does not solve problems nor does it set up a credible platform by which to make argumentation.

Olbermann is an example of a frustrated newsman who has never debated anyone on the subject of Iraq, 9-11 or any other subject he rants about!

I have yet to find a Liberal with whom I can discuss and debate a subject on politics. They want to tell me what is right and then hold a grudge because I believe what I believe! Where is your open-mindeness that you claim Bush and Conservative do not have! You are always offended and yet you seldom hear a Conservative make the same claim about venom espoused against and about them!

I spend hours a day reading news and accounts written by both liberal and conservative!

Do you?

To all the Fox supporters out there—I wonder if you can watch this:

http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=12953&where=queue

...and still feel good about what Wallace did.

Thank you President Clinton for standing up to the FOX News Propaganda Machine. We refuse to let fear control our nation! Let’s all be brave and start telling OURSELVES the truth about the status-quo we find ourselves mired in.

Response to dear Arminus’s comment

It is funny to see how Arminus took a line from Dick Clark’s book to prove that he ws not demoted by Bush administration. It shows her shallowness in higher level of buraucratcy, or maybe her party’alliance made her blind.

Demotion in higher level of buraucratcy can be reassign to other task or forced retirement. Dick Clack voiced his contradicting view with Bush’s lies about our intelligence on terrorism and the war in Irag, that why he got demoted.

Let’s go thru the casualties of people who has different opinion to our goverment:

Fisrt is Dan Rather for drilling the dismayful past of Bush. Then another reporter at the beginning of Iraq war(help me out with the name) who try to be unbias to his principle of journalism on the basis of endanger our trop position. Then we have generals after generals decide to retire so they can voice their opposite view about Bush’s winning claim on the war in Iraq, or the ability of Rumfeld to run the Defense Department,because they don’t want to violate the militay code of conduct if they are stiil in the arm force, or may jeopardy their retirement benefit.

Think about it Arminus, how many people in the goverment have different opinion but are afraid of the retalliation from this fascist administration. I am always proud of being an American and still I am, but to see the way Bush mannipulate the media and put this country in a dangerous path, destroying our democracy and long-hard-fought-and-buit liberty from previous generations for his inability to solve the SHORT-TERM difficulties; it puzzles me that you don’t see that.

By the way, please reason me about Bush’s intention to take our Social Security Benifit awy from us, or what happened to $650 billion surplus from Clinton era. How about current 3 trllions in debt that your children and grand-children will have to deal with it in the future.

You’re just emotionally shadowboxing, Alexandra. You need some facts and/or logic upon which to base your appeal.

Who thinks Alexandra is a real Democrat? Does anyone believe she’s even a real person?

Looks like GOP baloney, to me.

President Clinton’s recent appearance on Fox News Sunday, reminded us all of the tactics available to someone who has never been challenged for anything he has done or not done!

It is sufficient for President Clinton, that he had the right thoughts, and that he tried, and most of all, that the people like him!

It does not matter that his ‘right thoughts’ were ensconced in response to polls, even though he had better insights about the terrorism and Osama bin Laden than those who responded to polls, or that his feeble efforts were about as fruitful as dropping a grenade into a Middle-eastern desert, or that those who like him do so because they trust him to do the right thing!

His bullying and whining about what conservatives are saying, doing or not doing, or whether they are called on the carpet for what they did did not do, did not make me proud to be a Democrat!

The look in his eyes was scary as he answered questions with questions, lamented his treatment vis-a-vis others. It smacked of juvenile fights and Mothers having to face excuses for an act with “But, Johnny did it too!”

I would have expected better of my President! Answers to questions are rarely made clear by referring to the actions of others, who in unrelated circumstances, acted of their own free will. Defend your positions with your facts and criticize the acts of others independent from your own actions!

Maybe that is why we have not won in recent years! The people of America want to see someone with backbone and the strength of his own convictions, not a defense mounted on what someone else did or did not do!

I suppose he has his followers on this subject and they, like lemmings, will face the doom of the lemming as we race forward, in pell-mell fashion armed only with emotion for a person and blindness to actual governing conventions!

I am disappointed as an American and as a Democrat!

It may well be that Clinton got it wrong about Clarke being demoted (although the White House didn’t contradict him on THAT), but Clarke’s leaving was certainly NOT amicable.  Cabinet officers are rarely ACTUALLY fired, they resign to “explore other opportunities” or “spend more time with my family”.  Clarke had been marginalized by the Mad King George team, and so, he left.

But the BIG lies followed the interview where Condi Rice stood up and said that upon coming into power the Bush team REDOUBLED the efforts to fight terrorism prior to 9/11.  This is a flat-out, EASILY proven lie--Just go back to Clarke’s book and you’ll see that the administration did NOTHING about terrorism other than cut funding.  After all, it was a Clinton initiative, therefore “bad”. On 9/10, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft cut FBI anti-terrorism funding.  On 9/12, the neo-con neo-nazis began re-writing history--and Rice spewed that lie responding to Clinton’s charges.

Condi, watch out!  Mad King George has ALWAYS double-crossed his friends and allies.  The list is soooooo looongg...Christie Whitman, Colin Powell, Vincente Fox, Paul O’Neil, Hamad Karzai, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, George Tenet, George Pataki, Rudi Guilianni...and that’s just a tiny taste of all he’s double-crossed who thought they were friends with him and could rely on him.
“Beware the promises of kings” someone said.

That space-station scifi was both funny and insightful, LDOYFA. Thanks for both the info and the laffs.

Hey Arminius,

So the Bush propaganda machine got you the talking points, huh? Well, if this is the case, they’re deceiving you.

Page 234 of “Against All Enemies” does not say that Clarke was not demoted. A careful reading of the context leaves open the possibility that he was demoted before he “completed the review.”

Furthermore, page 239 actually seems to AGREE with Clinton’s assertion that Clarke was demoted, and demoted prior to 9/11. Anybody who’s ever worked in bureaucratic situations — such as I have, for 40 years — knows that most demotions do not necessarily involve a person’s leaving the department or division he’s working in. Most demotions at higher levels of bureaucracy involve subtly taking away key responsibilities and giving the demotee “make-work.”

And this is exactly and precisely what Clarke has said happened to him. I heard him.

Sorry.

I found it to be a wonderful little episode of reality TV.  It was like two housemates arguing over whose turn it is take out the trash. 

Maybe next episode, MKG can go off on Wolf Blitzer after he asks him why he didn’t do enough to stop Hurricane Katrina. 

Or Cheney maybe shooting Terry Gross for asking the Lesbian thing about his daughter...again.

You know, since I stole away on the shuttle and have taken up residence here at the Space Station, I find all of this stuff very annoying.  I was going to try and come down after Bush had did his best to make the US part of A Greater-Germany, but the mess he’s leaving behind is going to take a long time to clean up.  Make the Big Easy clean-up look like sweepin’ off the porch.  It would take a heck of a president to get that done.  Can’t Clinton just change his name or something, and run again?  He’s a lawyer for Crissake, there’s bound to be a loophole somwhere.

Anyway, I’m starting to drift a little past Africa now, so the signals going to stop soon.  HBO Warsaw is coming in line on sat4, and these damn boxers are starting to ride up on me.  That’s right, boxers even ride up on you in 0 gravity.
L

Thank you, President Clinton for telling the truth and setting Fox News right where they needed to be!  I am so proud to be a Democrat and I am so proud of President Clinton for standing up for America and doing what the RightWinger have forgot how to do ... tell the truth!  For once it was absolutely liberating to see someone get in Fox News face with the truth!  I wish I knew how to send President Clinton flowers!

Thank You President Clinton.

Clinton told a large number of lies in this interview.

For example, Clinton claimed that Richard Clarke had been demoted and then later said he was fired.

On page 234 of “Against All Enemies,” Clarke writes:

“I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Rice had asked me to conduct. There was agreement to create a separate, senior White House position for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, outside of the NSC Staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley.”

If Clarke was demoted, he requested the demotion.

Clinton also seems to imply that Clarke was “demoted” prior to 9/11. However, on page 239 of Against All Enemies, Clarke writes the following:

“Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC Staff, came to me in early October, after the time that I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. The switch had been delayed by September 11.”

In other words, the Bush administration kept Clarke at NSC beyond the period Clarke had planned on being there.

In a footnote on page 240, Clarke makes it clear that he left the administration under his own volition:

“Cressey and I did spend over a year working on the cyber security problem, producing Bush’s National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, and then quit the Administration altogether.”

you guys on the left are proud of this performance? wow!

Says Terry: “LOL [Loopy Over Losing? Living On Lies?], What interview did you idiots watch?  clinton looked like the lying fool he is.”

Here, Terry, take these little white pills, and sooon, veeeery soooon, eeeverything will be all right.

“LOL, What interview did you idiots watch?  clinton looked like the lying fool he is. “

Face it, fool. Clinton opened up a giant can of WHUPASS! on Wallace.  Had Dubya done 1/20 of Bill’s job on a REAL reporter (rather than a plant), you’d be crowing like a rooster who just went through the WHOLE hen-house.

But when the Whupass is on one of YOUR little shits, then you whine and moan “He’s just lying again!”.  Get over it!

I swear, if Mad King George told you a pile of dogshit was a juicy T-bone steak, you’d gobble it down and claim everyone who told you what it was is “soft on terrorism.” Enjoy your “steak"--that’s the closest thing to steak MKG will EVER give you!

I see a lack of foresight with this whole, “boycott Fox News” attitude. Yes, I as well as I’m sure close to 100 percent of this group recognize fully that the American mass media cannot be trusted to give anyone other than a right wing pundit a fair shot. In the case of Clinton, it was an obvious mistake on the part of whomever screened the interview to let him get that far, and a rare occurance indeed. So what, exactly, would a boycott do exactly? You still pay your cable bill right? The religious zealots of the right still pay theirs, along with the bills they pay to the Pope, right?
Where exactly is the solution here? A boycott is supposed to threaten the collapse of an institution from lack of external interest. Unfortunately, the only ones interested at this point, are the only ones that need to be interested. And they are indeed. I see it everyday as I walk into the break room at work, the huge red white and blue banners with yellow news ticker at bottom while some pasty talking head congradulates his colleague’s last opinion and then high fives the latest Bush policy.
It wouldn’t be so startling if it weren’t for the fact that there are always so many people watching it--like it’s the only channel on telelvision.

I say bravo to President Clinton for standing up on Fox News and saying that fox news stands for anything but ‘fair and balanced’. But it won’t do. don’t get me wrong, it is a step in the right direction, but it has been the status quo for years for anyone whom stands up to the political agendas of News Corp. to be dismissed as either toting their own political agenda, or is nuts in the head. But it will take a massive protest effort; I mean real activism, not just a boycott to make those who sit and listen like good little Americans to the talking head on the screen to wake up to reality.

So insofar a solution is concerned,
I mean we could all just vote democratic in November and then, magically, Fox news would be fair and Democrats would just magically make things all better for the country and all the places we’ve destroyed, right?

I mean come on, lets get real. Votes are basically bought and sold in this country. Direct action is really the way to go here.

In fact, wouldn’t it be a better solution to try to become more involved with Fox News to the point at which it becomes saturated with interviewees that do nothing but denounce it?
I’m just throwing out ideas here. Call me crazy, but if people here think boycotting would work, isn’t it just as sane with that logic to think that massive protests would be more effective, and easier to organize?

Here’s a thought, anyone here ever heard of the T.V. B-Gone?
This is the link for it:

https://secure.adbusters.org/orders/tvbgone/

Maybe a good way to start.

President Clinton gave the Democrats an object lesson in politics with this interview. It was inspiring to those of us who have been saying, since 2000, that the Republicans are better at framing the debate. In case there are any strategists looking at this site I’ll write it like this :

FRAMING THE DEBATE ON THEIR TERMS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING THE DEMOCRATS MUST MASTER.

Clinton points the way yes, but if you want to see someone who really knows how to do it, I suggest you watch the now famous George Galloway interview on SKYE News.:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=90717318966891 97790&q=George+Galloway&hl=en

One may not agree with Galloway’s position, but his technique is spectacular. Note that the first thing he says is “What a preposterous question”. I can’t say how many times I’ve wished the Democrats had said this. As the interview continues, Galloway attacks anytime he gets a presumptive question. A highly skilled debater, Galloway knows that all those loaded questions are designed to FRAME THE DEBATE in terms which favor the other side. Simply answering the question as posed is a victory for the opposition.  Instead, he holds the interviewer accountable for her one-sided reporting.

Some say Galloway is too combative, but that’s what somebody with balls sounds like. Critics already say that Clinton lost his cool, and they will say it about any Dem who follows Clinton down this path. But this is a shallow attempt to dismiss the substance of an argument by attacking the style of the argument, and those who try it, deserve to be ignored.

The Republicans, spurred by fundamentalist and evangelical Christian “end-times” convictions, will not hesitate to get dirty in their fight for political control. Their ‘heavy’ Karl Rove pushes the limits of legality (ethics are right out the window) in his ruthless quest for victory. They believe that these transgressions are minor moral infringements compared to greater evil of a (god forbid)secular government.

We are well past the point of dignified debate. When will the Democrats realize that this is what they are up against?

PS. Tom Joad’s suggestion (#25519) that Democrats boycott FOX news is brilliant. But it would take a Galloway type heading the DNC to pull it off.

I’ve posted this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating:

Anybody remember Dan Rather’s 1988 interview with George H.W. Bush, when he pressed him on Iran-Contra? Bush evaded the questions, then, as if on cue, got angry and fought back.

Sure, Clinton got angry with Wallace, but he didn’t get puffed up about it like Bush, who later said, “The bastard didn’t lay a glove on me.” “He makes Lesley Stahl look like a pussy.” (He thought the mike was off; it must run in the family.)

But how did the wingnuts of 1988 respond? Did they say Bush was “crazed,” “whiney,” “out of control”?

No, they wet their pants in near orgasmic pleasure, even though Bush NEVER came CLOSE to giving a straight-forward response to Rather’s question. Somthing they can’t accuse Clinton of doing.

LOL, What interview did you idiots watch?  clinton looked like the lying fool he is.

nice to see clinton do a job on these fascists.

“Watching Bill Clinton go into such a tizzy reminded me of the guy in the movie “Networ” ...
“I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”

It’s so much fun to watch someone lose their
composure.  He’s unraveling under pressure. 

Judi”

Judi:
You right-wingnuts either just don’t get it, or will continue with your Goebbels, er, Rove plan of Keep Up The Lie Until It’s The “Truth”.

Assholes like Chris Wallace have been pretending to be “journalists” for years when in fact they’ve been serving their neo-fascist masters with deliberate lies, leading questions ("Have you stopped beating your wife?"), and propaganda.

Clinton, being basically always a be-nice-and-get-along-with-everyone kind of guy (which made him a GREAT foreign policy pres) got MAD AS HELL after 14 years of their using it against him. And why not? He’s not running for any office, and Hillary is a