[narlus]

this is getting kind of fun watching these self-important sychophants bloviate.

you rang?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

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

[emphasis mine]
Way to change the subject. Clinton is talking about Conservatives asking him to get out of Somalia and this guy is talking about the military. And, from the transcript, the interviewer certainly was trying to link pulling out of Somalia with 9/11.

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

Well, not every president orders the intelligence services to give faulty intelligence to back up policy a la Bush with Iraq.

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.

This is opinion. Have there been any serious studies to link the 1993 bombing and the response to it with 9/11?

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

While these might have been mistakes, it might also seem prudent to inform a nuclear nation that we are going to be shooting cruise missile in their area so that they don't pull the trigger against India.

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.

Again there's so equivocation going on here. Clinton is saying that the criticisms of him are being used as attacks by his right-wing opponents and this guy answers by saying that they are right wingers because Clinton failed, even though his harshest critics were right wing before 9/11.

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.

Certainly we can lay blame on lots of people, not just Bush. Reagan and Bush I can also shoulder some of the blame here.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

not as fun as watching some here lap up this hot porridge like the holy words of the kkkoran, but it'll do.

Hot porridge, such as?

 

[Silver]

Certainly we can lay blame on lots of people, not just Bush. Reagan and Bush I can also shoulder some of the blame here.

Carter too. He started the whole monkeying around in Afghanistan thing.

You can't blame Reagan though. He just forgot to do anything about it. (Sorry narlus!)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Carter too. He started the whole monkeying around in Afghanistan thing.

You can't blame Reagan though. He just forgot to do anything about it. (Sorry narlus!)

Actually, he was buddy buddy with Saddam and supplied weapons. The Republicans assert that Saddam was in league with the terrorists. So, by their own assertions, shouldn't they have to condemn Reagan for helping Saddam, thus helping the terrorists?

 

[BurlyShirley]

oh yeah, n8...i got keith frikkkin olbermensche:

this is getting kind of fun watching these self-important sychophants bloviate.

not as fun as watching some here lap up this hot porridge like the holy words of the kkkoran, but it'll do.

Damn.
You know, Im not sure exactly how important Bin Laden was shown to be to the Bush admin as the Clinton admin swapped out, but I do know there is factual evidence that Bush was briefed on the situation to some extent. I think Olberman takes it a little far with bashing the GOP for the Lewinski stuff, I mean, after all, it is just politics and the democrats would've done exactly the same thing. This will always be a case of he said/he said. But the facts are that Clinton went after Bin Laden and Bush was in office when 911 happened. There's no refuting that at all. Although Im not sure what the point is of "assigning blame" at this juncture. I guess Im just more 'solutions-oriented'. Blaming one another is just dirty politics and a vote grab now, and that's not what we need. We need a TRUE PLAN which INVOLVES OTHER COUNTRIES to finish the f*** up in Iraq and Assramistan, and then get the **** out. That's it. All the rest is bull ****.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Damn.
You know, Im not sure exactly how important Bin Laden was shown to be to the Bush admin as the Clinton admin swapped out, but I do know there is factual evidence that Bush was briefed on the situation to some extent. I think Olberman takes it a little far with bashing the GOP for the Lewinski stuff, I mean, after all, it is just politics and the democrats would've done exactly the same thing. This will always be a case of he said/he said. But the facts are that Clinton went after Bin Laden and Bush was in office when 911 happened. There's no refuting that at all. Although Im not sure what the point is of "assigning blame" at this juncture. I guess Im just more 'solutions-oriented'. Blaming one another is just dirty politics and a vote grab now, and that's not what we need. We need a TRUE PLAN which INVOLVES OTHER COUNTRIES to finish the f*** up in Iraq and Assramistan, and then get the **** out. That's it. All the rest is bull ****.

Right on.

 

[$tinkle]

you rang?

candygram:

"i made like, infinity of those at scout camp"

 

[$tinkle]

quickly OT: wtf is up w/ buggy hotlinked pix? is it a rm thing? clearly, my desired img is in fact in the post (check the src for this page). i'm running mozilla 1.5.0.7

 

[llkoolkeg]

It's funny how both Clintonites and Bushies each looove their guy and develop a blind spot for his shortcomings, yet remain vigilant to "the other guy's" transgressions. Clinton was most definitely NOT an eloquent statesman- he was a slick, shady, redneck used car salesman that was able to sweet-talk his constituents into "feeling pretty" enough to schlob his crooked knob down to the base. Dubya is naught but a spoiled, fortunate son trying vainly to clean up the Big Bush's mess in hopes of earning daddy's approval, yet still falling short despite winning a second term afforded him by unabashed waving of the bloody flag. If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions, they might actually be trusted again with the presidency. All Dubya had to show to beat a bonehead like Kerry was that the timing was not favorable in time of conflict for a midstream change of coxswain.

 

[Transcend]

Damn.
You know, Im not sure exactly how important Bin Laden was shown to be to the Bush admin as the Clinton admin swapped out, but I do know there is factual evidence that Bush was briefed on the situation to some extent. I think Olberman takes it a little far with bashing the GOP for the Lewinski stuff, I mean, after all, it is just politics and the democrats would've done exactly the same thing. This will always be a case of he said/he said. But the facts are that Clinton went after Bin Laden and Bush was in office when 911 happened. There's no refuting that at all. Although Im not sure what the point is of "assigning blame" at this juncture. I guess Im just more 'solutions-oriented'. Blaming one another is just dirty politics and a vote grab now, and that's not what we need. We need a TRUE PLAN which INVOLVES OTHER COUNTRIES to finish the f*** up in Iraq and Assramistan, and then get the **** out. That's it. All the rest is bull ****.

Holy crap, you took your coherency pills this morning didn't you?

Well said.

 

[SeaPig]

This is why I Mountain Bike. When I'm hucking my bike off of something there is no spin unless I am crashing then there is a lot of spin. Even though I support more of Clinton's policies then Bush's, I do believe Clinton F*** Up because he was too vain. Bush on the other hand is F***ing Up because he is too arrogant.

 

[$tinkle]

hippie *





* cool site (b/m), however

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Clinton was most definitely NOT an eloquent statesman- he was a slick, shady, redneck used car salesman that was able to sweet-talk his constituents into "feeling pretty" enough to schlob his crooked knob down to the base.

Ah, but that does make him a good politician.

If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions, they might actually be trusted again with the presidency.

What are you talking about? Kerry did everything he could to out-god Bush. Both of them walked around with "God loves me better" signs on their backs for the whole last 2 months of the campaign.

 

[N8 v2.0]

What are you talking about? Kerry did everything he could to out-god Bush.

But god hated him anyway

 

[llkoolkeg]

What are you talking about? Kerry did everything he could to out-god Bush. Both of them walked around with "God loves me better" signs on their backs for the whole last 2 months of the campaign.

My comment was a generalization("If the Dems...") and not specific to Kerry's candidacy.

The Kerry part was relative to Republicans' not-so-subtle suggestion that changing executives in time of war may not be such a good idea.

?Comprende?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

My comment was a generalization("If the Dems...") and not specific to Kerry's candidacy.

The Kerry part was relative to Republicans' not-so-subtle suggestion that changing executives in time of war may not be such a good idea.

?Comprende?

Well, the dems did have a candidate that met your description and Bush won by waving the flag, as you say. But, I hardly think that using the right's talking points to villify the candidates of the party that represents a third of the country is called for. Besides, politicians do enough to villify themselves. They don't need your help.

 

[llkoolkeg]

But, I hardly think that using the right's talking points to villify the candidates of the party that represents a third of the country is called for.

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em regardless of party affiliation. I see the Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same coin...like two rabid dogs fighting over the same piece of meat. Both parties seek to beguile and rob the middle class in order to redistribute their collective wealth to the organizational bases that supported them, be it rich, corporate pukes or poor, shiftless slobs. Both parties seek to meddle in the private affairs of our citizens "for the common good", be it what intoxicants we consume and who we diddle with our sexual bits or what tools of self-defense we possess and how we should spend our discretionary income. Politics is the fine art of fistfvcking men then conning then into believing it was in their best interest...and the most successful politicians are the ones who are even able to convince you that you liked it. What difference does it really make whether it was the right fist vs. the left fist that violated you when you're still wearing a colostomy bag?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em regardless of party affiliation. I see the Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same coin...like two rabid dogs fighting over the same piece of meat. Both parties seek to beguile and rob the middle class in order to redistribute their collective wealth to the organizational bases that supported them, be it rich, corporate pukes or poor, shiftless slobs. Both parties seek to meddle in the private affairs of our citizens "for the common good", be it what intoxicants we consume and who we diddle with our sexual bits or what tools of self-defense we possess and how we should spend our discretionary income. Politics is the fine art of fistfvcking men then conning then into believing it was in their best interest...and the most successful politicians are the ones who are even able to convince you that you liked it. What difference does it really make whether it was the right fist vs. the left fist that violated you when you're still wearing a colostomy bag?

I find it rather ironic then that you use the right's talking points then to describe the left.

 

[$tinkle]

I find it rather ironic then that you use the right's talking points then to describe the left.

we don't talk about sex, thank you very much!

 

[RenegadeRick]

We need a TRUE PLAN which INVOLVES OTHER COUNTRIES to finish the f*** up in Iraq and Assramistan, and then get the **** out. That's it.

Here is a plan that might work:

 

[Transcend]

Here is a plan that might work:

Ya that works great, and leaves absolute bedlam and a political vaccuum in it's wake.

 

[$tinkle]

Here is a plan that might work:

been there, done that:

 

[MMike]

finally watched the full videos...all 15 mins, Clinton totally pw3d Wallace.......

 

[stevew]

..... pw3d .......

you still are tainted by your time in america.....

 

[MMike]

you still are tainted by your time in america.....

That, and a pathetic attempt to still appear young and hip

 

[RenegadeRick]

Ya that works great, and leaves absolute bedlam and a political vaccuum in it's wake.

But why is that the US's problem?

Shouldn't the land of the free simply just let people be free to create bedlam or vaccuum or whatever the funk they want? Just one more way we can help spread freedom around the globe... by leaving people the funk alone and keeping our noses out of other people's business.

And while we are at it, you think there is any kind of stability anywhere besides the green zone?

 

[MMike]

I've always wondered why people the likes of N8 give a crap a bout "liberating the oppressed" and spreading democracy. It's all going on outside the lower 48, so who cares? Why do they WANT their gov't wasting billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on kick-ass shooting ranges and Walmarts?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

been there, done that:

Talk about a non sequitur.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I've always wondered why people the likes of N8 give a crap a bout "liberating the oppressed" and spreading democracy. It's all going on outside the lower 48, so who cares? Why do they WANT their gov't wasting billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on kick-ass shooting ranges and Walmarts?

Becuase more than anything, guns and death are most exciting.

 

[llkoolkeg]

I find it rather ironic then that you use the right's talking points then to describe the left.

I don't read from a 3x5 card and say only what I believe to be true regardless of the source. Please tell me what, in your opinion, are the "talking points" of the left? I'll be more than happy to share my opinion as to their veracity and relevance.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I don't read from a 3x5 card and say only what I believe to be true regardless of the source. Please tell me what, in your opinion, are the "talking points" of the left? I'll be more than happy to share my opinion as to their veracity and relevance.

What does it matter what the talking points of the left are? The irony remains that a self-professed iconoclast would parrot out lines like, "If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions..."

It's not productive when either side reduces the other to sound bytes and it's certainly not productive when those sound bytes are uncritically repeated.

 

[$tinkle]

What does it matter what the talking points of the left are? The irony remains that a self-professed iconoclast would parrot out lines like, "If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions..."

It's not productive when either side reduces the other to sound bytes and it's certainly not productive when those sound bytes are uncritically repeated.

you're right, they don't promote it, but they do enable it. think about it: if you wanted that above named trifecta, and knew nothing about a candidate beyond which letter they affix to their name, which candidate would you turn to?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you're right, they don't promote it, but they do enable it. think about it: if you wanted that above named trifecta, and knew nothing about a candidate beyond which letter they affix to their name, which candidate would you turn to?

Oh please. Fighting against god is political suicide for any candidate. No one is promoting "drive-thru abortions". And, no one is asking to repeal the second amendment. Give it a rest.

 

[llkoolkeg]

What does it matter what the talking points of the left are? The irony remains that a self-professed iconoclast would parrot out lines like, "If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions..."

It's not productive when either side reduces the other to sound bytes and it's certainly not productive when those sound bytes are uncritically repeated.

I didn't repeat or parrot a word! I typed that sentence based on beliefs I hold as true! Google away if you fancy me a plagiarist! Are you telling me that you weren't aware of Democratic candidate, appointee and ACLU lawsuits aimed at sanitizing the country in accordance with agnostic/atheist precepts? Are you telling me that you were not aware that by a large margin, Dems outstrip Repubs in their efforts to repeal the 2nd amendment through lawsuits against U.S. gun manufacturers, usurious taxes on ammunition, bans on certain calibers and accessory configurations, etc?? Are you telling me that you were unaware that Dems favor by a wide margin any efforts to curtail, limit, or outlaw abortions of varying degrees of wickedness??? You need to read more, son, if you think me uncritical or uninformed.

The Republicans house is just as dirty, but just in different rooms. They cater to rich, paranoid, xenophobic geezers and do all they can to facilitate the continued pillaging of the earth, its resources and its people, especially if they're brown. No amount of cruelty and brutality is beyond them when you threaten either their current wealth, their continued ability to fleece it from the rest of us or the expansion of their influence into new markets(LDCs). Many are religious in word alone, using it as a mechanism of control to keep the worker bees docile, productive and unconcerned with their station in this world because, after all, it's the afterlife that really matters. They look spitefully down on the masses and think that they should be admired and serviced by them...that because of how much monetary wealth has been accumulated in their name, they should enjoy a live of privilege free of the stresses and concerns regarding health care, living wage and retirement.

I despise them both equally and can think of only a single reason why people would choose to identify with either one- that primary elections are restricted to registered party members. I understand the arguments both for and against our two-party political system, but feel that restricting primary elections to registered party members is undemocratic. I have been a registered voter my entire adult life and have never missed an opportunity to vote, but I cannot fathom why individual voters- regardless of official affiliation- cannot vote in the primaries of any party they choose. I would love to vote in ALL the primaries, selecting for each the candidate I feel most qualified. Instead, I get to select between two electable bums or a host of unelectable "silent protest" candidates.

Now look what you've done- it's only 11:00am and I'm already in a pissy, ornery mood.

 

[valve bouncer]

Bravo LL, by the far the best post you've ever made in this forum. Maybe we should piss you off more often

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I didn't repeat or parrot a word! I typed that sentence based on beliefs I hold as true! Google away if you fancy me a plagiarist!

You might not be parroting words specifically, but parroting party lines for sure.

Are you telling me that you weren't aware of Democratic candidate, appointee and ACLU lawsuits aimed at sanitizing the country in accordance with agnostic/atheist precepts?

Oh please. Now the ACLU and the Democrats are the same? The Dems don't go far enough. I seem to recall a unanimous vote in the senate recently against the Ninth Circuit's ruling about having "Under god" stricken from the pledge. Oh yeah, those godless Dems must have been lying when they voted for it and when they sang "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps. Oh, and let's not mention the ACLU lawsuits in favor of student groups that wanted to pray in school and were illegally told not to, even though they were doing it on their own time.

Are you telling me that you were not aware that by a large margin, Dems outstrip Repubs in their efforts to repeal the 2nd amendment through lawsuits against U.S. gun manufacturers, usurious taxes on ammunition, bans on certain calibers and accessory configurations, etc??

One of the platforms of the Dem. party is to push for more gun control. That's a far cry different from saying that every Dem is in favor of it, or that they want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Are you telling me that you were unaware that Dems favor by a wide margin any efforts to curtail, limit, or outlaw abortions of varying degrees of wickedness???

See above, only substitute pro-choice into the argument.

You need to read more, son, if you think me uncritical or uninformed.

I definitely think that the way you have presented yourself makes you come off as uncritical and uninformed. From other posts you have made in other threads I don't believe that is the case.

The Republicans house is just as dirty, but just in different rooms. They cater to rich, paranoid, xenophobic geezers and do all they can to facilitate the continued pillaging of the earth, its resources and its people, especially if they're brown. No amount of cruelty and brutality is beyond them when you threaten either their current wealth, their continued ability to fleece it from the rest of us or the expansion of their influence into new markets(LDCs). Many are religious in word alone, using it as a mechanism of control to keep the worker bees docile, productive and unconcerned with their station in this world because, after all, it's the afterlife that really matters. They look spitefully down on the masses and think that they should be admired and serviced by them...that because of how much monetary wealth has been accumulated in their name, they should enjoy a live of privilege free of the stresses and concerns regarding health care, living wage and retirement.

Both houses are so dirty that not only would I never eat off the floor, I don't even want to step inside. That still doesn't excuse painting with such a broad brush. Just as I don't think it is right to say all Dems this or all Dems that, it's also not right to say all Reps this all Reps that. If you want to critique the current state of the policies fought for and enacted by certain parties, that is one thing, but that's not what you are doing.

I despise them both equally and can think of only a single reason why people would choose to identify with either one- that primary elections are restricted to registered party members. I understand the arguments both for and against our two-party political system, but feel that restricting primary elections to registered party members is undemocratic. I have been a registered voter my entire adult life and have never missed an opportunity to vote, but I cannot fathom why individual voters- regardless of official affiliation- cannot vote in the primaries of any party they choose. I would love to vote in ALL the primaries, selecting for each the candidate I feel most qualified. Instead, I get to select between two electable bums or a host of unelectable "silent protest" candidates.

I also deplore the state of our country's politics. I deplore the fact that I realistically have only 2 choices in any given election.

Now look what you've done- it's only 11:00am and I'm already in a pissy, ornery mood.

Rant away, but let's not devolve into sound byte spouting know-nothings simply because we are disenchanted with the current political climate.

 

[Transcend]

But why is that the US's problem?

Shouldn't the land of the free simply just let people be free to create bedlam or vaccuum or whatever the funk they want? Just one more way we can help spread freedom around the globe... by leaving people the funk alone and keeping our noses out of other people's business.

And while we are at it, you think there is any kind of stability anywhere besides the green zone?

It's your problem because you started the entire mess.

 

[$tinkle]

Oh please. Fighting against god is political suicide for any candidate. No one is promoting "drive-thru abortions". And, no one is asking to repeal the second amendment. Give it a rest.

you misread my post, where i plainly (or so i thought) laid out the dems aren't actively opposing abortion, god, & guns, but are certainly more than willing to "defend the rights" of those who wish to, all at the behest of those who don't wish to.

i hope my position is now crystal clear: in our 2 party system, if you want abortion-on-demand, if you want to tell all the jebus-freaks to STFD & STFU, and if you want to defang all the frednecks, don't look to the GOP to take you under their wing

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you misread my post, where i plainly (or so i thought) laid out the dems aren't actively opposing abortion, god, & guns, but are certainly more than willing to "defend the rights" of those who wish to, all at the behest of those who don't wish to.

i hope my position is now crystal clear: in our 2 party system, if you want abortion-on-demand, if you want to tell all the jebus-freaks to STFD & STFU, and if you want to defang all the frednecks, don't look to the GOP to take you under their wing

So, what? You are saying the Dems are better defenders of the First Amendment? Good job.