![]() ![]() |
|
| |
|
Clinton’s Mad, Not Taking It AnymorePosted on Sep 27, 2006
Only a day after the secretary of state tried to smear Bill Clinton’s terror-fighting effort, Hillary came to the defense of her husband, and took a swipe at Condi in the process: “I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.”
AP (via Yahoo!):
Previous item: Actually, Wiretapping Bill Looks Stalled... Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By Mad as Hell, September 29, 2006 at 10:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Cant weallgetalong:
Don’t worry. I’ll be shut up before you know it. Soon, I’ll be FORCED to shut up. Your heroes have just ensured we have NO rights left.
But maybe not. I think there are now enough “koolaid drinkers” in the center of America to take it back from from all the FLAVORAID drinkers on the far right. We’ll see in 5 weeks--unless of course DieBold is doing that counting “One for you, two for me, one for you, two for me”.
Report thisBy Rick Scalzo, September 29, 2006 at 6:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
You have got to be kidding! You fain amnesia now that a few years have passed away since Clinton lied to us. What makes you think he has any credibility regarding telling Americans the truth? What makes any rational person believe Clinton can tell the truth? Please go back to 2000 right after the election. The Clinton’s were so upset that Bush won they purged all their computers and files and did not leave any interim road map for Bush to follow. Oh,… how one soon forgets the recent past!
Clinton lost it because he can not back up his words. The grand jury gave Clinton unfettered powers to get Osama and put a wanted poster out on him. Clinton didn’t need the CIA or FBI to sign off on anything. He had full powers at his disposal and he hiccuped!
Democrats say they want Republicans to tell the truth....Do they say the same of Democrats?
Report thisBy cant weallgetalong?, September 29, 2006 at 3:33 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mad as hell, you can be as mad as you want but you aren’t going to get anybody but you koolaid drinking dems to believe that Condi Rice is a liar and Bill Clinton is not. Bill Clinton is a certified prevaricator, and Condi Rice is nothing of the sort. I am enjoying these liberal blogs as I watch you guys become more unhinged every day. It confirms that you guys really believe that political power is the end all, be all in America, and if you don’t have it you act like schoolkids - name calling, whining. I would call you what guys really are - LOSERS - but I just want us to all get along....
Report thisBy Saul, September 27, 2006 at 7:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Considering that it was Reagan, Bush41/Cheney who armed Saddam & Osama and that it was Bush41/Cheney who didn’t go after Saddam in first Guld War and the refused to help people of iRaq when they asked for help, I am not so sure whose fault it was.
Report thisBut here is the dick Cheney giving reason why they didn’t depose Saddam
http://web.archive.org/web/20041130090045/http://www.w ashingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm
By Mad As Hell, September 27, 2006 at 7:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“I agree, Sec. Rice should not have smeered
Clinton’s terror policy, because the was none. “
Deanna: That dogshit sandwich you’re eating? Pretty good, huh? After all Condi Rice told you it was a Porterhouse steak, and, since you can’t think for yourself, all you taste is steak. But the rest of us can smell from 30 feet away that it’s dogshit.
RNC talking points aren’t facts, lady--they are LIES.
Look, enjoy your dogshit sandwich. Just stop trying to force the rest of to eat it, and then tell us it’s steak. No matter how you dress it up, it’s still dogshit!
(BTW, Rice is lying through her teeth when she says A) Clinton didn’t have an anti-terror policy, B) that the Clintons didn’t bring it to the Bushes and ESPECIALLY her, and C) that the Bushes didn’t ignore terrorism until 9/11. All of this is EXTREMELY well-documented by Richard Clarke, whom they tried to smear--and failed.)
Report thisBy G Kimball, September 27, 2006 at 12:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
When will the Democrats wake and realize the American people respect those who admit their mistakes and fight for what they believe in? These right wing crazies will run and hide in their corporate board rooms when the Dems decide to speak the truth to the American people.
Report thisBy walpurgis, September 27, 2006 at 11:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The fact substantiated by the 9-11 commission is that during the Clinton years walls were further built up between the agencies making it difficult to share intelligence information.
This is the true lesson of how 911 happened. All the signs were there that something was going to happen, but without our intelleigence agencies working together they could bot connect the dots.
Report thisBy Deanna, September 27, 2006 at 9:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree, Sec. Rice should not have smeered
Report thisClinton’s terror policy, because the was none.
By Kathy Schultz, September 27, 2006 at 9:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think it is time that we put honesty back in print and media and those that present only one side or opinion, as fact, should be liable and accountable. We are in danger of losing our democracy to propaganda presented to us as fact. Half of our population no longer knows what it is to hear truth or expect media to present truth. They have never experienced it because any semblence of it was done away with in 1987.
Report thisBy Charles, September 27, 2006 at 8:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why on Earth would anyone care?
Report thisBy R. A. Earl, September 27, 2006 at 7:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
FACTS, please. I don’t want to hear or read any more unsubstantiated allegations, opinions or assumptions FROM “AUTHORITIES” ON EITHER SIDE.
It should be made LAW - International Law, preferably - that ANY POLITICIAN OR OTHER “AUTHORITIY” MAKING A CLAIM OF FACT ABOUT ANYTHING MUST PROVIDE HIS/HER SOURCES OR REFERENCES TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM.
Otherwise, we, the people, are free to assume it’s BULLSHIT, and our MEDIA should NOT be allowed to publish the material as NEWS or FACT.
If the “authority” is stating an OPINION, or offering a GUESS, it should be clearly labeled as such. It would be helpful if they’d share WHY they hold such a view, but I suppose any of us needs to be free in a democratic society to AIR OUR IGNORANCES but we should NOT be free to air them as FACT.
As soon as a “weasel word” is used, the piece immediately becomes FICTION until proven otherwise. Sleazy, unsupported allegations should not be published unchallenged… stuff like “it’s alleged that...” “we’ve heard that...” “it’s reported that...” is nonsense. Hell they don’t even accept crap like in a high school essay without references and supporting documentation.
Statements of claim such as “More people today support us than...” or, “There are weapons of mass destruction...” are just HOT AIR… unless followed by NUMBERS and DOCUMENTATION we can verify independently. Just MAKING STUFF UP and passing it off as FACT, especially in the political sphere, should be made a FELONY.
None of this “Can’t tell you because IT’S A STATE SECRET baloney… if the publishing of the information truly would be a threat to our security, then the info MUST BE SUBMITTED TO A QUORUM OF THE SUPREME COURT or better still, a panel, independently elected from esteemed and trusted citizens (if we can find any) for a judgement. It would then be on the panel’s neck, with dire LEGAL penalties, if they ever decide to disallow publication for any reason that even hinted of the political. If we want FICTION we can turn to the movie channel!
The Clintons and the Bushes are sounding more like the Hatfields and McCoys spitting at one another in a sand box. I really think professional politicians, OF ALL STRIPES, somehow lose the ability to tell truth from fiction… they manufacture so much BS, and repeat it, they soon BELIEVE IT THEMSELVES. Then they expect us to believe it as well… the tragedy is… WE DO! If these two “Presidents” keep yapping, the credibility of the office will fall even further than it has… and that’s lower than a used car saleman already!
That’s my rant for today. Thank you for listening!
Report thisBy Mad as Hell, September 27, 2006 at 7:26 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
About time Hilly and Billy got on board with the rest of the Democratic Party and realized you can’t make nice with the BushCo of Mad King George.
But now that Bill has decided to SHOW Democrats how to fight, they damn well better start doing it, and giving back as good as they get! Where is LBJ when we REALLY need him? He’d be kickin’ butt and taking names all over the country. If only the damn fool hadn’t gotten us embroiled in Viet Nam...(yeah, I KNOW we were there, but he made it BIG).
Report this