Clinton Unhinged

[DRTYFN]

WOW!!! What an enraged looneytunes. He reminds me of O.J. the way he has a different version of the truth. I love how he holds Richard Clark's book full of bullsh*t up as the definitive reference source.:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQmrtuQUnI

[DRTYFN]

Here's his own words on not wanting Bin Laden because "he hadn't done anything to the U.S.". I'd like to punch him right in his W.C. Fields nose.:twak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqdpAQFQlHQ&mode=related&search=

*edit*
Slightly shorter version with transcript:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk&mode=related&search=

[KenP]

I can't believe he was elected... Not to mention RE-ELECTED!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[DennisAJC]

Any Clinton > Any Bush

:jump:


.....I believe this will be the topic for debate during our Rubicon campfire. Or crossburning in my case.:giggling:

[Hmmm2]

I'd like to punch him right in his W.C. Fields nose.:twak:[/url]

:giggling:

Watching him holding that book up reminded me of him holding his finger to the camera saying, " I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" (Was that the wording?:giggling: )

[DRTYFN]

:giggling:

Watching him holding that book up reminded me of him holding his finger to the camera saying, " I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman!" (Was that the wording?:giggling: )


If his mouth is moving you know he's lying.

[DDWH]

Caught the whole thing on fox this afternoon......Holy Cokehead!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought he was going to bust a vein!!!!!!!! Guess he's still trying to make a legacy for himself....and continues the lies, deniles, and coverups!!!!:rant: :rant:

[h2co-pilot]

X2 what a fahreak!:D

[MarineHawk]

I love how he holds Richard Clark's book full of bullsh*t up as the definitive reference source.:rolleyes:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM4N2E1MzU5ZjQ0YTA3YmJiYzEyYjQ2ZDBiNWJlYjE=

[HummerHippy]

Any Clinton > Any Bush

:jump:


.....I believe this will be the topic for debate during our Rubicon campfire. Or crossburning in my case.:giggling:

Thank you! :)

[PARAGON]

clinton insiders said that was only a 5 or 6 on a scale of 10 of clinton temper tantrums

[h2co-pilot]

Thank you! :)

:twak: Fawk you both.:giggling:


READ IT ALL


feb. 1993 the world trade center was bombed by muslims- killing 5 people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton did nothing.

Oct. 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The corpse of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalia.

Clinton responded by ordering our troops home. Osama later told ABC news that " The youth.... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

Nov.1995, 5 Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Suadi Arabia set by Muslims.

Clinton did nothing.

June 1996, a US air force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslims.

Clinton did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton lobbed some bombs into Iraq, hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

Nov. 1997, Irag refuesed to allow UN weapons inspectors to do thier jobs and threatened to shoot down a US U-2 spy plane.

Clinton did nothing.

Feb. 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the UN said no.

Aug. 7, 1998, US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslims.

Clinton did nothing.

Aug. 20.. 1998 Lewinski appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.:D

1999, The only time Clinton came close to fighting Muslims was when he attacked Serbians who were fighting them.

Oct. 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by Muslims.

Clinton did nothing.

That is all.

[PARAGON]

in 1996 Clinton turned down an offer to extradite Bin Laden. He's said it himself numerous times. Here he said it at a conference in 2002 http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

In 2003, Sandy Berger, national security adviser from the Clinton administration, stuffed classified documents from the National Archives into his pants and socks stealing them and then destroyed them on Clinton's command.

[MarineHawk]

Good audio clip Para.

More from a former Clinton insider:
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/092606.html

[Mrs.ssippi]

Any Clinton > Any Bush

:jump:


.....I believe this will be the topic for debate during our Rubicon campfire. Or crossburning in my case.:giggling: I thought you liked Bush?!?!?!

[William Howard Taft]

That is certainly no way for a former President to hold himself in public. One would should be whipped with chains for such behaviour. Reminds me of the tantrums Calvin Coolidge would throw.

[NEOCON1]

Any Clinton > Any Bush

:jump:


.....I believe this will be the topic for debate during our Rubicon campfire. Or crossburning in my case.:giggling:

:lame:

[NEOCON1]

Dennis after she is defeated here you can elect her in Canada :OWNED:

[NEOCON1]

That is certainly no way for a former President to hold himself in public. One would should be whipped with chains for such behaviour. Reminds me of the tantrums Calvin Coolidge would throw.




old freakin Calvin could sure throw them tantrums ;)

[DennisAJC]

Dennis after she is defeated here you can elect her in Canada :OWNED:

It would be interesting to see what a woman could do for the USA as President.:shhh:

[NEOCON1]

It would be interesting to see what a woman could do for the USA as President.:shhh:

:jump: CONDI 08 :jump:


will that work for ya ;)

[DennisAJC]

:jump: CONDI 08 :jump:


will that work for ya ;)

WOW! Kill three barriers with one rock! A black gay woman president!!!!!:giggling:

[NEOCON1]

WOW! Kill three barriers with one rock! A black gay woman president!!!!!:giggling:


i only discriminate against democrats ;) :D ask anyone who knows me :giggling:

[f5fstop]

I only discriminate against Liberals; I have met some very conservative Democrats while living in the South.

[GeorgeSSSS]

The only thing he cares about is himself. That's why he lost it; because the question was about him. His legacy is he's a bad joke.
:violin:

[HummerHippy]

Condoleezza is going to be the NFL Commissioner when she's out of the political arena.

I like Bush because I think he's a Who fan...
"There's an old saying in Tennessee ? I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee ? that says, fool me once, shame on ? shame on you. Fool me ? you can't get fooled again." ?President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 :giggling:

[MarineHawk]

The only thing he cares about is himself. That's why he lost it; because the question was about him. His legacy is he's a bad joke.
:violin:

Exactly. As Morris stated:

From behind the benign fa?ade 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 ? 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. ...

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. ...

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?

[PARAGON]

It was also very curious to hear a former President continously talk about "killing" someone. He used the word "kill" in reference to Bin Laden numerous times. It's typically a word that is not used.

[MarineHawk]

A few more rants:

What bothers me most about Clinton's recent interview is the dishonesty.
To be fair and give the benefit of the doubt to everyone, few, if any, really anticipated anything on the scale of 9-11 ahead of time. It was unprecedented. I could give some credit to Clinton, if he would just say that:

Our perspective changed after 9-11. After the attacks, everything changed. Before then, we just saw Al Qaeda as a potentially harmful nuisance – not a serious national security threat. Just like the Nazis and Japanese in the 1930’s – we didn’t really wake up until Pearl Harbor.

Whether or not we should expect more perceptiveness and aggressive responses to such materializing threats from our leaders (we should), I could basically buy that defense. Instead, Clinton simply lies by trying to change history by ludicrously claiming that he made strong efforts to kill Bin Laden and Bush didn’t. It’s a lie. Why can’t he, for once, just make an honest defense?

Further, the focus NOW should be on what we’re facing NOW. I, for one, would choose to invade Iraq again if we could go back in time to March 2003. I still believe it was the right thing to do. Of course, I’d do some things differently, with all the benefit of hindsight, but that can be said of any war we have fought (we made countless blunders in the European theatre during WWII and still won).

The bottom line is that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq now, and it’s probably the best place to fight them (e.g., the Brits just killed the Al Qaeda leader of S.E. Asia – instead of plotting and causing death and injury of Americans and others in S.E. Asia, he’s lying dead in Iraq). As the more-fully released excerpts of the recently-leaked intelligence report confirm (and it’s obvious to anyone with any awareness of what’s going on), if we win in Iraq and permit the emergence of a stable, moderate regime there, Al Qaeda is screwed. If we retreat, they will be emboldened. We Americans (and hopefully our allies) should commit ourselves to “winning.” We’ve never come close to losing a war when we have really tried to do so. Retreat or “exit strategy” will cause us tremendous heartache in the years to come. Bickering about how we got here doesn't really help either.

That is all.

[DennisAJC]

Condoleezza is going to be the NFL Commissioner when she's out of the political arena.

I like Bush because I think he's a Who fan...
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 :giggling:

OMFG!!!! I remember that one. Like watching a train wreck. Even Canadians knew that saying.:jump:

[DennisAJC]

I thought you liked Bush?!?!?!

I like Bush. He's a cool kick ass President. But I do believe Clinton did a better job at running the country.:shhh:

[NewHummerGuy]

I like Bush. He's a cool kick ass President. But I do believe Clinton did a better job at running the country.:shhh:

That to is open for debate. He was a charismatic president who was well liked. But one needs to remember that during his tenure is when the countries finances went completely out of whack.

Companies were screwing the public and their employees left and right with accounting fraud. Enron and MCI happened under Clintons watch. No one blamed him for this. Rather they blamed Bush. Bush came into a complete and utter nightmare when his presidency started. A ticking time bomb. Take the enron and mci bankruptcies and sprinkle on 9/11.....I am surprised he didnt call Gore and go "hey buddy, i think the votes were miscounted. You want the job??"....

I know I would have.

And today the country I feel as a whole is running along strong with more accurate economic indicators than the false ones which were running rampant during the 90's.

[MarineHawk]

I hate to pile on, but this one is brutal:

The Unartful Dodger
Bill Clinton's Sunday-show rant.

By Ed Morrow

The spark to Clinton’s rant was a question Wallace said many of his viewers had e-mailed him to ask the ex-president. After the airing of the ABC docudrama The Path to 9/11, it was the obvious question of the moment and Clinton should have expected it. “Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?” In response, Clinton went nova, spinning a strange conspiracy theory. It’s hard to follow his logic but it appears to go like this: Wallace was giving him a hard time because Fox boss Rupert Murdoch was about to support Clinton’s global-warming campaign and Fox’s viewers would be annoyed. To placate these fanatical right-wingers, who, we must suppose, are all pro-global warming, an ambush of Clinton was plotted by Wallace and Fox big wigs. This plotting presumably excluded Murdoch, the biggest wig at Fox, because he could have avoided offending Fox viewers by not supporting Clinton’s cause in the first place. As with a lot of paranoid reasoning, the gaps in logic don’t have to be closed for the paranoid thinker to reach his conclusion. In this case, that conclusion was that Wallace was part of a “serious disinformation campaign” meant to blame Clinton for 9/11.

Clinton could have simply said I did X, Y, and Z to get bin Laden and al Qaeda, then the questioning would have moved on to other matters, but the former president is accustomed to the most gentle media treatment. As Wallace noted in the Washington Post after the incident, he was surprised that no other television interviewer had already asked Clinton the question during Clinton’s recent round of interviews conducted as part of his publicity campaign for the Clinton Global Initiative. No one at CNN, CBS, MSNBC, or anywhere else asked him anything so rude. They were more apt to ask, “Do you get angry when your critics unfairly attack you?” Or “Why do you think your critics want to destroy America and kill all the puppies and kittens?”

Instead of a calm, presidential answer, Clinton lashed out at Wallace. Among other things, he said, “You’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever.” This criticism was undercut by Clinton’s own smirking and I’m-so-smart insinuation that he had Wallace’s plan all figured out. “So you did Fox’s bidding on this show,” he said. “You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.” He leaned into Wallace’s face and wagged the same finger he wagged back when — well, you remember when. He then employed it to angrily poke the notes Wallace had on his knee. He even contemptuously accused Wallace of intending “to move your bones.” I suspect he meant to employ the gangland euphemism, “making your bones,” for a mobster committing a murder in order to be initiated into the mafia. The Sopranos may be a hit show but being compared to a hitman is still pretty insulting.

Clinton asserted, “There is not a living soul in the world who … was paying any attention to it or even knew terrorists associated with al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of ’93.” Clinton seems to have forgotten that al Qaeda was identified as the group behind the February 1993 attack on the World Trade Center that killed six while injuring over a thousand. Later, Clinton’s national-security adviser Anthony Lake was quoted as saying that it was after this attack that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden. He said he then briefed Clinton about bin Laden. Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla), chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare wrote several letters to Clinton, beginning in 1993, warning him about bin Laden. Apparently, both these gentlemen are zombies, bereft of living souls.

In 1993, Clinton downplayed the WTC bombing, treating it as a law-enforcement issue and not an act of war. He was so intent on minimizing what might be seen as a failure that, when he visited New York City shortly after the attack, he didn’t even bother to stop by the blast site. If no one was “paying any attention” to al Qaeda, Clinton was doing the opposite of alerting them.

In the interview, Clinton used rhetorical devices he has often employed. These included:

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif The declaration that he had tried to do something while others hadn’t and that he’d been ridiculed for trying;

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif The claim that he had a “plan,” here to destroy bin Laden and al Qaeda that would have worked perfectly if others had only been wise enough to do what he told them to do;

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif The invocation of how hard he had worked on the problem and how this was more than anyone else did or is now doing;

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif The announcement that he wasn’t going to criticize Bush followed by a savage criticism;

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif Shifting the blame to others, here the “entire military,” the CIA, and the FBI, for not giving him the go ahead to get bin Laden;

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif Playing fast with numbers, such as claiming Bush had “three times as much time to deal with it [bin Laden and al Qaeda]”;

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif And the flat statement that if he were still president (serving his fourth term?), he would be doing so much better than Bush.

These are all rather tiresome, simple-minded devices that, if employed by any other politician not so favored by the media, would provoke parodies. Are we to feel sorry for him because he worked hard but ineffectually and with horrific consequences? Wasn’t he the boss of the entire military, the CIA, and the FBI? Weren’t they supposed to jump when he yelled “Frog?” How does eight months become three times greater than eight years? And what was that “comprehensive anti-terror strategy” he left behind in the White House? Can we see a copy? Probably not. Clinton’s own national-security adviser Sandy Berger told the 9/11 Commission “there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.” Lest, this be thought the product of a mistaken Berger, Richard Clarke, the man Clinton invoked over and over as an authority, said the same thing to reporters in 2002: “There was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.”

When all the drek angrily spewed by Clinton is reviewed, one question remains. It’s the question that set Clinton off. “Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?” Since, Clinton didn’t answer, let’s speculate. The kindest explanation and the one I suspect most Americans, even conservatives who detest Clinton, might accept is that very few anticipated that terrorists could mount an attack as sanguinary as 9/11 and the warnings were believed to be warnings of lesser dangers. Clinton didn’t take terrorism as seriously as he should have but Bush didn’t reverse Clinton’s policy soon enough. Unfortunately, there is another explanation that Clinton’s defensive fury suggests. From 1993 on, he was warned over and over that bad things were going to happen. He could have done something proactive but was afraid to spoil his presidency by going to war. Taking action, such as an invasion of Afghanistan to dislodge al Qaeda, would be difficult and filled with political danger. There would be flag-draped coffins of young soldiers and grieving family members blaming Clinton for their losses. There’d be civilian casualties that would also be denounced as his fault. There’d be reverses in the struggle and mistakes made. The fight might expand to other nations, like Iraq. His popularity polls would plunge. The media would question the struggle. They would stop giving him positive coverage and start exposing his faults. There would be peace demonstrations, such as those Clinton had participated in during the Vietnam War, which would mock him and compare him to Hitler. Movie stars would roll their eyes and comics would tell jokes about how stupid he was. Foreigners would tut-tut at his simple-minded, “cowboy” foreign policy that used war instead of diplomacy to defend America. Clinton wouldn’t have enjoyed any of that at all. He would remember that Lyndon Johnson was a liberal hero till he went to war. Better to kick the can down the road, hope nothing too bad would happen, and let some other president take the heat.

I prefer the first explanation because I don’t want to think an American president would be so self-indulgent. I’d like to think Clinton is just dodging responsibility as he has in other matters but the defensive anger Clinton displayed and his twisting of the truth when questioned about his actions makes me wonder.

[ROX]

Let's not forget, under Clinton, Janet Reno sent Special Ops guys to Miami to get that one little Cuban Refugee boy and send him back.

Oh and Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Clinton was not a great leader.

[PARAGON]

I hate to pile on, but this one is brutal:

Truth is brutal sometimes

[MarineHawk]

Truth is brutal sometimes

I guess that depends on what you mean when you use the word "is."

[HummerHippy]

It was also very curious to hear a former President continously talk about "killing" someone. He used the word "kill" in reference to Bin Laden numerous times. It's typically a word that is not used.

Yea, that was a little freaky huh?

[HummerHippy]

Let's not forget, under Clinton, Janet Reno sent Special Ops guys to Miami to get that one little Cuban Refugee boy and send him back.

Oh and Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Clinton was not a great leader.

Who can deny the right of a father to get his child back? Are we the world police and dictate what culture has the right to raise its own children and what culture does not?

[MarineHawk]

Let's not forget, under Clinton, Janet Reno sent Special Ops guys to Miami to get that one little Cuban Refugee boy and send him back.

Oh and Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Clinton was not a great leader.

Worst of all: He permitted the sale of intercontinental nuclear missile technology that helped the Chinese to develop ICMBs aimed at middle America. Clinton did this after he was asked in writing to do so by big Democrat campaign donors heading defense contractors standing to make money off the deals.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30294

[MarineHawk]

Are we the world police and dictate what culture has the right to raise its own children and what culture does not?

Yes.

[h2co-pilot]

Yes.

:jump:

[HummerHippy]

Yes.

:) I knew that was going to be the answer. :(

OK, my last rant on the topic...
And what was the US deficit when Clinton left office? And what is it now? Could we be better off spending 350 Billion dollars on something other than bring democracy to Iraq? Like investing it in something HERE.

[h2co-pilot]

:) I knew that was going to be the answer. :(

OK, my last rant on the topic...
And what was the US deficit when Clinton left office? And what is it now? Could we be better off spending 350 Billion dollars on something other than bring democracy to Iraq? Like investing it in something HERE.

That is for here. Democracy in Iraq will prove us a safer country as it is and has been a breeding ground for Jihadist savages. Better spending it there than for rebuilding here in the future and metal detectors and sniffers for our malls and schools.

Sorry, I know you were hoping to save it for the slavery museum.;)

[PARAGON]

:) I knew that was going to be the answer. :(

OK, my last rant on the topic...
And what was the US deficit when Clinton left office? And what is it now? Could we be better off spending 350 Billion dollars on something other than bring democracy to Iraq? Like investing it in something HERE.Do you know what the deficit is?

The deficit is a result of a war against some idiots that were hell bent on bringing a war to our soil. It's narrow minds like you that gets people killed... on a large scale. Conducting operations on foreign soil, making the enemy expend all of his resources somewhere else besides our own soil and killing our innocent civilians is a price I am very willing to pay for a deficit that carries more weight in media than in economics.

You idiot, your 350 Billion dollars you talk about IS BEING INVESTED HERE.

[PARAGON]

The deficit is also a result of the corporate arena created under the Clintonian era by which huge monetary losses were incurred in investments in phantom value of internet stocks, inflated corporate values, and the overall degrading of the business climate as millions upon millions of jobs left the US.

Paying for a necessary war and then not having the income from the taxes is a double whammy on the deficit.

[DRTYFN]

The deficit is also a result of the corporate arena created under the Clintonian era by which huge monetary losses were incurred in investments in phantom value of internet stocks, inflated corporate values, and the overall degrading of the business climate as millions upon millions of jobs left the US.

Paying for a necessary war and then not having the income from the taxes is a double whammy on the deficit.

Thank you for both of your above posts.