 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:14 am Post subject: Clinton - the very essence of treason |
 |
|
This is long, but must be read. The last shred of any worth that might have been ascribed to Bill Clinton has been stripped away through his own words this weekend:
Quote from PowerLine:
| Quote: | Uncharted Territory, Once Again
In recent years, the Democrats have violated many of the tacit conventions of civility that have enabled our political system to work for more than two centuries. Yesterday another barrier fell, and once again, we entered uncharted waters: former President Bill Clinton launched a vicious attack on President Bush on ABC's "This Week" program.
This has never happened before. Until now, both parties have recognized a patriotism that, at some level, supersedes partisanship. Consistent with that belief, former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors. Until now. The Democrats appear bent on destroying every element of the fabric that has united us as Americans.
Clinton's vicious attack is even worse in the context of his wife's Presidential bid: it is fair to assume that he was motivated not only by partisanship, but by his own desire to re-occupy the White House, and, most likely, wield once more the levers of power.
AFP reports:
Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."
This attack was false in every respect. The invasion of Iraq had the support of dozens of nations. The UN's inspections could never be "completed," but the UN itself had reported that large quantities of WMDs remained unaccounted for. On the other hand, Clinton's suggestion that there was "no real urgency" about the situation in Iraq was probably sincere, as it typified Clinton's approach to terrorism: he perceived no urgency after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, or after al Qaeda's attempt to simultaneously destroy a dozen American airplanes over the Pacific in 1995; or after the attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998; or after Saddam's attempt to assassinate former President Bush; or after Saddam repeatedly tried to shoot down American aircraft; or after the Cole bombing in 2000; or after the Taliban took over Afghanistan and converted it into a training ground for anti-American mass murderers; or after any number of other provocations. So, naturally, Clinton saw no urgency with respect to dealing with Saddam's regime. Of course, had Saddam facilitated a post-9/11 attack on the U.S. using chemical or biological weapons, you can imagine how harshly Clinton would have criticized Bush for his lack of foresight.
Clinton's assertion that there was "no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction" is a flat-out lie. The Consensus Estimate of the American intelligence agencies has been made public, and we have quoted from it and linked to it on many occasions. America's intelligence agencies said, with a "high degree of confidence," that Saddam possessed both chemical and biological weapons. These were the same intelligence reports that Clinton received as President, so he is well aware of them. His statement was not a mistake, it was a lie.
Clinton goes on:
Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together a constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.
A ridiculous standard, of course. No nation has ever adopted a constitution that was "universally supported," least of all, our own.
And more:
The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.
Someone tell me: what did Clinton ever do, during his eight years in office, to build up America's armed forces or increase our power? He continues:
On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.
People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.
"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.
Note that when Clinton faulted the "authorities," he meant the Bush administration--although, as AFP points out, he "agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities." In fact, the entire responsibility lay with state and local authorities. Here, Clinton is simply playing on the ignorance of his listeners--a time-honored Democratic tactic. And speaking of "buses lined up to take them out," readers of this site are well aware that buses were "lined up," and that the City of New Orleans' hurricane plan contemplated that those buses would be used to evacuate residents. But, due entirely to the incompetence and fecklessness of local authorities, hundreds of buses that were "lined up" were never used. Clinton knows this; again, he is baldly attempting to deceive his listening audience.
Clinton finished up with some budget commentary:
On the US budget, Clinton warned that the federal deficit may be coming untenable, driven by foreign wars, the post-hurricane recovery programme and tax cuts that benefitted just the richest one percent of the US population, himself included.
More lies. As Clinton well knows, the Bush tax cuts benefited all taxpayers. And by historical standards, the current deficit is relatively small as a proportion of GDP, and is dropping.
Again and again, President Bush has tried to work with the Democrats as if they were loyal Americans first, and partisans second. He has treated Bill Clinton with a friendship and respect that, candidly, is disproportionate to Clinton's meager accomplishments. Again and again, the Democrats have rebuffed Bush's overtures and taken advantage of his patriotism and good faith. Clinton's politically-motivated tissue of lies and distortions is just the latest example out of many. But it is unprecedented, coming from a former President. That is a sad thing: the latest wound inflicted on the body politic by the Democratic Party.
UPDATE: Reader Steve Tefft sends this Clinton quote from July 23, 2003:
[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
That was then, I guess; this is now. And 2008 is just a few short years away. So it's time, apparently, to revise the historical record. |
http://www.powerlineblog.com/ 18 Sept 05
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
For some contrast, here are some of the words spoken by President Bush on the occasion of the unveiling of the official portraits of Clinton and his wife on 14 June 04:
| Quote: | THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you, Henry. Laura and I appreciate you all coming. President Clinton and Senator Clinton, welcome home. (Applause.) All who live here are temporary residents; the portraits that are presented today will be held permanently in the White House collection for all the ages. And so beginning today, the likenesses of President William Jefferson Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton will take their place in a line that began with George and Martha Washington. (Applause.)
Laura and I are pleased to welcome members of the Clinton and Rodham family, thank you all for coming. It's great to see Chelsea. The fact that you survived your teenage years in the White House -- (laughter) -- speaks to the fact that you had a great mom and dad (Applause.)
As you might know, my father and I have decided to call each other by numbers. (Laughter.) He's 41, I'm 43. It's a great honor to -- it's a great pleasure to honor number 42. We're glad you're here, 42. (Applause.) The years have done a lot to clarify the strengths of this man. As a candidate for any office, whether it be the state attorney general or the President, Bill Clinton showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far-ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need, and the forward-looking spirit the Americans like in a President. Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead -- and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer.
Over eight years, it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency. He filled this house with energy and joy. He's a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service.
People saw those gifts very early in Bill Clinton. He is remembered in Hope, Arkansas, and other places along the way, as an eager, good-hearted boy who seemed destined for big things. I was particularly struck by the story of a nun at St. John's School in Hot Springs who decided that Billy Clinton should get a C in deportment. That was a rare grade for the future Rhodes Scholar and President. (Laughter.) So Bill's mother gave the nun a call to see what was wrong. The sister replied, "Oh, nothing much. But let me tell you, this boy knows the answer to every question and he just leaps to his feet before anyone else can." (Laughter.) She went on, you know, "I know he'll not tolerate this C, but it'll be good for him. And I promise you, if he wants to be, he will be President someday."
People in Bill Clinton's life have always expected him to succeed -- and, more than that, they wanted him to succeed. And meeting those expectations took more than charm and intellect -- it took hard work and drive and determination and optimism. And after all, you've got to be optimistic to give six months of your life running the McGovern campaign in Texas. (Laughter and applause.)
He won his first statewide office at age 30, sworn in as governor at 32. He was a five-time governor of Arkansas, the first man from that state to become the President. He's also the first man in his party since Franklin Roosevelt to win a second term in the White House. And I could tell you more of the story, but it's coming out in fine bookstores all over America. (Laughter and applause.)
At every stage in the extraordinary rise of Bill Clinton, from the little ranch house on Scully Street to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he and Roger had a wonderful, loving mother. And I am certain that Virginia Kelley would be filled with incredible pride this morning. (Applause.)
And so would Hugh Rodham, Senior. Mr. Rodham did have the joy of seeing his only daughter become America's First Lady. And I know he would not be surprised to see her as she is today, an elected United States Senator, and a woman greatly admired in our country. From the earliest days of her youth in Park Ridge, Illinois, Hillary Rodham impressed her family and friends as a person of great ability and serious purpose. At Maine Township High School South, at Wellesley College, and at Yale Law School, classmates saw her not just an achiever, but as a role model and as a leader. She inspires respect and loyalty from those who know her, and it was a good day in both their lives when they met at the library at Yale Law School Library.
Hillary's commitment to public service continued when she left this house. Listen, New York politics is a serious business -- (laughter) -- it's rough business. It takes an extraordinary person to campaign and win the United States Senate. She has proven herself more equal to the challenge. And she takes an interesting spot on American history today, for she is the only sitting senator whose portrait hangs in the White House. (Applause.)
More than 40 years have passed since a boy of 16 came here to the White House with a group from the American Legion Boys Nation. On that day in the summer of 1963, Bill Clinton of Arkansas looked into the face of John F. Kennedy, and left the Rose Garden feeling very proud that he had shaken the hand of a President. Today he can be even prouder of decades of service, and effort, and perseverance that brought him back to this place as the 42nd President of the United States. |
It would please me no end if that portrait were stripped from the White House walls and consigned to a dark corner of the basement, never again to see the light of day or be seen by true Americans.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040614-2.html
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoophyDog
PO1
Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 480
Location: Washington - The Evergreen State
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The greatness of a man can be found in his honor. For going on 6 years the current president has NEVER publically stated what most of us know - the previous administration ignored the warning flags and stripped our country of its ability to counter foreign threats.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that our current president is probably sitting on a gold-mine of information relating to the failures of the Clinton administration. I can't recall a single instance of the Bush administration actually sitting down and pointing them out and heaven knows the MSM isn't going to.
Its only through forums such as this and blogs that a shred of light will be shown on what I feel are obvious faults of the disasterous 2 terms of William Jefferson Clinton.
_________________
Why ask? Because it needs asking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
And the gall the Commiecrats have to accuse the Pres. of being devisive.
I want to wring necks every time I hear one of them say that.
They won't quit til this country is divided beyond all repair. Shame on em. A pox on em. They should break out in hives every time they spout their poison.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you think this is bad, just wait until 2007 when the Demoncrats are in a full bore whine. Politics is nasty business on the Left Side of the Demoncratic Party and I am pleased the President takes the high road and will not wallow in the mud with these swine.
After the superb speech the President gave in New Orleans was received so well by black residents of AL, LA and MS. Our first black President felt his position as Duke of Harlem was threatened and struck out in an incoherent diatribe of non-facts to nullify the healing that President Bush achieved.
When students read about the history of the United States in a hundred years they will read about one President who was shamefully impeached and another President that saved a Nation from destroying itself. The Clinton Legacy will pale in comparison to the Bush Legacy long after we are all gone.
Of course "The Rest of the Story" could be as simple as President Bush may have told Billy he would not support his canonization as King of the UN after King Kofi abdicates his throne and moves back to Africa in exile.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Armybrat/Armymom
Commander
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 335
Location: Central Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Truth is relative. My truth is my truth and your truth is your truth.
"....never the twain shall meet,..."[Rudyard Kipling] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CLinton is ever the self promoting Narcissist. Surprised!!?? I'm not. As El Rushbo said " He is not going to go away and he is not going to respect tradition. " He is still trying to remake a legacy, but it is already made. It's called Monica. 
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
President Clinton, December 16, 1998
| Quote: | ~SNIP~
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
QUICK VOTE
Was Saddam Hussein trying to take advantage of the political turmoil in the U.S.?
Yes
No
View Results
VIDEO
Clinton says attack on Iraq averted potential Iraqi aggression (12-17-9 Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K
For Clinton, a long day of political juggling (12-17-9 Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K
Larry King Live highlight: Vice President Al Gore on the military air strike on Iraq (12-17-9 Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K |
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
"A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER".
"THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY GAVE SADDAM ONE LAST CHANCE"
"SADDAM'S DECEPTION HAS DEFEATED THE INSPECTOR'S PURPOSE"
Those words were YOURS, Mr. Clinton, in 1998. Yet you have the gall to criticize President Bush's action after five more years of the same deception obstructing inspectors!!!
At least he had the cajones to do it RIGHT and get rid of Saddam!!!
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Last edited by shawa on Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe shawa has posted what is commonly known as a 'GOTCHA'.
Good research. I'm passing it around.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dusty wrote: | I believe shawa has posted what is commonly known as a 'GOTCHA'.
Dusty |
Nope. The Dems have clearly stated that the subject air strike absolutely, definitely, overwhelmingly, positively and forever eliminated all WMD which may have been around. And, by the way, the air strike so frightened Saddam that he would never reconstitute, or even THINK of reconstituting WMD programs. So Bush had a war in spite of the heroic actions of Clinton so he could get his Halliburton buddies to rebuild Iraq.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh, heh. But if the heroic Clinton had the problem of Saddam all taken care of, why did over half the Dems in the Senate vote to give the President authority to go to war? Even sKerry voted for it.
Uh, that is before he voted against it.
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Army_(Ret)
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GM Strong wrote: | | CLinton is ever the self promoting Narcissist. Surprised!!?? I'm not. As El Rushbo said " He is not going to go away and he is not going to respect tradition. " He is still trying to remake a legacy, but it is already made. It's called Monica. |
Here's another little eye opener, as to why Clinton is once again attaking Bush: From El Rushbo:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: In a Los Angeles Times story that ran over the weekend on Saturday, "Senior officials in Louisiana's emergency planning agency already were awaiting trial over allegations stemming from a federal investigation into waste management and missing funds, when Hurricane Katrina [vanden Heuvel] struck. Federal auditors are still trying to track as much as $60 million in unaccounted-for funds that were funneled to the state from FEMA dating back to 1998." All of this goes back to the Clinton years.
When you back track it, it all goes back to the Clinton years, which, I'll tell you another thing, one of the reasons that Clinton went on Stephanopoulos Sunday, there's a reason he went on Stephanopoulos. He knows Stephanopoulos is going to let him talk. Stephanopoulos is going to let him have diarrhea of the mouth. Stephanopoulos wants to get back on Clinton's good side after writing a book about him when he left that administration that was not all that flattering. So, you know, Stephanopoulos is not going to stand up to him, so he just gets to rewrite history just as he did after 9/11. The whole purpose of the Clinton administration after 9/11 was to deflect any aim at their administration and put it on the Bush administration (story).
The same thing is happening here, folks. It's identical. Self-preservation. An administration that is still in search of a legacy because the only legacy they really have is one of oral sex in the Oval Office, utilizing cigars and interns. That's the legacy they've got. They're trying to rebuild a legacy. That's what this Clinton global initiative and all about, that and sponsoring Hillary's presidential bid -- and now Clinton is out there knowing full well that none of what he had access to in the nineties dealt with the potential threats of either terrorism or natural disasters. He knows it as well as anybody does. So he has a friendly media, and he has a willing bunch of accomplices throughout all the other networks and newspapers to help rewrite history now to try to blame this on the current federal government. What is the news media's new favorite word right now? "Federal." Isn't it? Do you not hear the world federal used more often than any other word they use? Federal here, federal there, federal this, federal that! The effort, the news cycle still exists, it's all George Bush's fault. How is this going to hurt Bush? How can we make it hurt Bush? That is the sole focus of everybody in the mainstream press today, it seems. (Coughs.) Excuse me. As I say, folks, if you're just joining us I'm under the weather today. I'm doing my best to struggle through, and were it not for the cough I doubt that you would have even known, unless you were here at the top of the program where I mentioned it just to cover my bases. But the fact remains here that it ought not be too difficult dealing with this because the left presents us no new challenge. They're rewriting history. They are looking at every news story through the prism of that one news cycle. They're just living in that moment and it's all about: How does this hurt Bush? How does this help Bush?
By the way, have you heard about the Rasmussen poll? The Rasmussen poll was the most accurate presidential poll in 2004, and the Rasmussen poll has consistently had Bush's approval numbers at 46%. He hasn't dipped below 46%, I don't believe, in the Rasmussen poll. Have you seen that poll reported anywhere in the media. Noooo, you haven't, and you won't. Now, if the Rasmussen poll had been bad for Bush, you would have heard about it but it's not. Now they're even complaining -- some of the Democrats even complaining -- that they used generators to light up the church behind Bush on Thursday night in the speech that it was artificial, and it portrayed a visual of New Orleans that wasn't genuine -- and, as usual, the White House not responding to any of this. It's their policy, obviously. They just keep going, and they know they've got defenders out there (ahem), and they know that they're also confident that it's so obvious what the left and the media are doing that it really doesn't gain a whole lot of traction.
But it's just laughable here to look at all of this that was done. We haven't even talked about what the environmentalists did, damage-wise, to that region that set this region up for flooding, which is really what happened here: a flood occurred. The hurricane went through there, really didn't do much of the damage you see on TV. It was the flooding that occurred long after the hurricane had gone through and had passed, that created the scenes on television that we saw -- and you find that so much thought went into this back in the nineties, and you saw that so much money was spent on this back in the nineties, and you see that all the money that was sent down there was not used for the purposes of which it was intended, and then we hear Clinton on TV Sunday decrying -- really coming out with the kook fringe liberal playbook, folks, reciting word after word after word from the kook fringe liberal playbook on what all went wrong. This is not to mention I find it interesting, too, that so many of the reporters talking about this. "You know, it must really be bad out there because ex-presidents don't do this. Ex-presidents don't criticize the current occupant." Don't break my leg. What do you mean, this is the first time? Bill Clinton has been doing this since 2001, for crying out loud! How many times did Bill Clinton go to Europe during our debates before the Security Council of the United Nations and try to sandbag our policy with his European socialist buddies? How many times did he go across the pond and make such speeches critical of this administration? It's been countless times. This is by no means the first time Clinton has done this. "It's really unusual to see a former president break with the current president during the current president's term," blah, blah. It may have been, but it's not anymore -- not since Bill Clinton became an ex-president.
END TRANSCRIPT
"These colors don't run"
_________________
Peace is acheived through victory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I B Squidly
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 879
Location: Cactus Patch
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you belive anything uttered by Bent Crank Bill you either drank the KoolAid or have an IQ waiver. This being America it's a mixed blessing you're allowed to vote.
_________________
"KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!"
-Wlm Shakespeare |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
happened to catch part of OReilly tonight, was he ever ripping Clinton a new one, along with the NYTimes for perpetuating the lies spewed from Clinton
soo many possible reasons Clinton is doing this Bush bashing now
add Able Danger to the list
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kate wrote: | | ....add Able Danger to the list |
Yes, you are right. The sleeper in the whole Able Danger thing is 9/11 Committee member Jamie Gorelick, the architect of the "Intel Wall", whom the Committee is frantically trying to protect along with her boss, Janet Reno and HER boss, Clinton.
I sincerely hope that Bush cuts off honoring Clinton with legacy-enhancing special assignments and makes him persona non grata. Dick Morris, on the same O'Reilly show, was correct in noting that Clinton's emergence from the shame of his squalid presidency is largely due to Bush's generosity. It's past time to cut it off.
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
