An angry Clinton on Fox

[Random]

Sorry. That's exactly what he wrote:

I see that I am going to have to clarify what I mean with that statement. I meant to say that the media went after Clinton non-stop for years, and relentlessly pushed every new scandal like it was a major constitutional crisis, even though it was in fact a bunch of puffery.

Troopergate- Man who hates Clinton pays two state troopers thousands of dollars to say they brought him girls to sleep with.

Filegate- Hillary Clinton touched some paperwork while she was working as a lawyer. That paperwork was lost, then found again.

Whitewater- Clintons loose thousands of dollars in a crooked land deal. A convicted perjurer offers to say Bill did something wrong in order to get a reduced sentence.

Travelgate- I don't think I have heard a right-winger provide a coherent accusation on this one. Near as I can tell, some White House staffers were giving people too many free perks and Clinton fired them.

Vince Foster- It was suicide. Deal with it.

And all the time the media was going along with it. They slavered over every cherry-picked, spoon-fed tidbit that Ken Starr illegally leaked out of his office from his massive smear machine, paid for with $40,000,000 of taxpayer money. They went after Clinton like a pack of rabid hyenas.

I am sorry if you misinterpreted my previous statement.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorry. That's exactly what he wrote:

I see that I am going to have to clarify what I mean with that statement. I meant to say that the media went after Clinton non-stop for years, and relentlessly pushed every new scandal like it was a major constitutional crisis, even though it was in fact a bunch of puffery.

The news was quite specific.

Clinton had a problem with the women. The Gennifer Flowers affair was first, and during his initial campaign. After conservative news outlets reported it ad nauseum, the "mainstream" media reported it as a "non-scandal."

We had lots of "non-scandals" after that, including the Monica affair.

So, yeah. There were lots of "non-scandals." I'm not sure if those are better than GWB and his wife (who I suspect might make Lorena look like the trash that she was), but I'm sure if GWB pulled that kind of BS, he'd get what he deserved.

He would from me..........

Troopergate- Man who hates Clinton pays two state troopers thousands of dollars to say they brought him girls to sleep with.

Filegate- Hillary Clinton touched some paperwork while she was working as a lawyer. That paperwork was lost, then found again.

Whitewater- Clintons loose thousands of dollars in a crooked land deal. A convicted perjurer offers to say Bill did something wrong in order to get a reduced sentence.

Travelgate- I don't think I have heard a right-winger provide a coherent accusation on this one. Near as I can tell, some White House staffers were giving people too many free perks and Clinton fired them.

Vince Foster- It was suicide. Deal with it.

And all the time the media was going along with it. They slavered over every cherry-picked, spoon-fed tidbit that Ken Starr illegally leaked out of his office from his massive smear machine, paid for with $40,000,000 of taxpayer money. They went after Clinton like a pack of rabid hyenas.

I am sorry if you misinterpreted my previous statement.

Hyenas are attracted to the scent of blood, and they're scavengers.

No Troopergate, travelgate, filegate, Whitewater, or Vince Foster involved with this administration.

No blood.

 

[RandFan]

I see that I am going to have to clarify what I mean with that statement. I meant to say that the media went after Clinton non-stop for years, and relentlessly pushed every new scandal like it was a major constitutional crisis, even though it was in fact a bunch of puffery.

Troopergate- Man who hates Clinton pays two state troopers thousands of dollars to say they brought him girls to sleep with.

Filegate- Hillary Clinton touched some paperwork while she was working as a lawyer. That paperwork was lost, then found again.

Whitewater- Clintons loose thousands of dollars in a crooked land deal. A convicted perjurer offers to say Bill did something wrong in order to get a reduced sentence.

Travelgate- I don't think I have heard a right-winger provide a coherent accusation on this one. Near as I can tell, some White House staffers were giving people too many free perks and Clinton fired them.

Vince Foster- It was suicide. Deal with it.

And all the time the media was going along with it. They slavered over every cherry-picked, spoon-fed tidbit that Ken Starr illegally leaked out of his office from his massive smear machine, paid for with $40,000,000 of taxpayer money. They went after Clinton like a pack of rabid hyenas.

I am sorry if you misinterpreted my previous statement.

Wow, still crazy after all these years.

Let's at least get Whitewater straight.

Whitewater- Funds from a failed savings and loan are illegally funneled into Bill Clinton's campaign. Only 4 people could have been involved. Susan McDougall was given immunity to testify and she refused which put her kiester in jail. Bill Clinton denied it. Hillary Clinton denied it. James McDougall first said Bill didn't know anything and then said he did. Jim had serious credibility problems as did Susan. But Susan refusing to testify was quite telling. All she had to do was tell the truth. She claimed that if she testified that Bill was innocent that she would be put in jail so she preferred to go to jail rather than tell the truth and, well, go to jail.

To date we don't know the truth. There clearly was never enough evidence to take Bill Clinton to court. But we know that Bill Clinton was the only one to benefit from those funds. It's possible that he didn't know. I kind of doubt that.

I don't quite agree with some of your other statements of the other incidents but I don't care enough to correct them.

 

[fuelair]

May be he was "dead" wrong...though here are some additional Senators who seem to be calling for quick withdrawl from Somalia at least:


GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993


"I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option. "

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993


"Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home."


GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993


"I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . . "

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:


"All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now."

Of course, that is when the GOP was against "nation building" ...

Oooh we have me started again. The idiots sent our troops in with only thin-skins not heavy armor - only a complete idiot sends people into combat (humanitarian my.......)without heavy armor and heavy weapons, Blackhawk down? You send in 15 heavily armed Blackhawks , tell them to only return with enough of it to defend on way back and they take down the buildings and whatever hides in them. Our men, dead, dragged through the streets? Destroy the streets and the buildings around them as a monument. Letter a memorial stone with the blood of the rectums that lead. Little ah local tyrant/leader doesn't follow instructions go in pull him out shoot him in the street, ask who wants to take over for him and make sure they know enough English to follow our instructions. OR, don't bother sending our troops in.

 

[fuelair]

No comment:

Nothin' wrong with Shrub pdaing with one of his bboys.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am not very up on photoshopping so don't know if these photos were doctored or not. I recall getting the pix I posted from google images and in searching there again just now found the following:

http://images.google.com/images?q=bush+kissing+abdullah&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

So, you can't provide a reference to a photo that sure looks photoshopped.

Wow. I sure am glad that I don't have to worry about Claus's obsession with irrelevent details derailing this thread.

It is hardly irrelevant if someone posts photoshopped pictures to support his contention. You may be willing to overlook that (perhaps because I point it out?), but I don't.

 

[Huntster]

...GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:

"All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation....

....But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now."

Of course, that is when the GOP was against "nation building" ... Oooh we have me started again.

Wow. You're started.

Hold the Halls of Congress! Alert Pork-Barrel Byrd! Fuel-Air has been "started."

The idiots sent our troops in with only thin-skins not heavy armor - only a complete idiot sends people into combat (humanitarian my.......)without heavy armor and heavy weapons,

Gee. Ho and General Giap did it. Did it against an army of armor.

Worked, too.

Blackhawk down? You send in 15 heavily armed Blackhawks , tell them to only return with enough of it to defend on way back and they take down the buildings and whatever hides in them. Our men, dead, dragged through the streets? Destroy the streets and the buildings around them as a monument. Letter a memorial stone with the blood of the rectums that lead. Little ah local tyrant/leader doesn't follow instructions go in pull him out shoot him in the street, ask who wants to take over for him and make sure they know enough English to follow our instructions. OR, don't bother sending our troops in.

Before the Blackhawks arrive, how about a good, old fashioned carpet bombing? Napalm, maybe? Or even just that old fashioned HE?

If nobody was left around the LZ, there would be no need to land there, and there would damned sure not be anybody around to shoot our troops up.

 

[SteveGrenard]

No comment:

I was advised this morning by DARAT that my Post#15 in this thread was edited to remove the picture of President Bush kissing the King of Saudi Arabia on the lips.

This editing was done without explanation in the body of the message leaving only the words "No Comment" which by themselves convey nothing. I might construe that this was a deliberate attempt engineered by a frequent poster here to suppress the official record but I won't do that. I am not allowed to go back and add the URL of a source for the news
photograph(s).

Lest there be any doubt that many of such un-retouched news photos exist, and for the record, I refer readers to the following page full of photographs. You can find many more on the web as well, all taken from different angles and snapped seconds apart in the embrace.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Bush+kissing+Abdullah



I trust this Google Images website will not be censored or edited.

While I had no comment before, the reason King Abdullah and the President kiss each other on or near the lips is undoubtedly based on the close relationship between the Bush family + their friends and associates and the millions, maybe billions of dollars in business their associates at Halliburton and subsids and the Caryle Group get from the work they do for ARAMCO. The President's father regularly gets $100,000.00 fees from talks he gives to groups sponsored by the Caryle Group. For the kind of money involved here I am surprised that Dubya was only kissing his lips.

 

[CFLarsen]

I was advised this morning by DARAT that my Post#15 in this thread was edited to remove the picture of President Bush kissing the King of Saudi Arabia on the lips.

This editing was done without explanation leaving only the words "No Comment" which by themselves convey nothing. I might construe that this was a deliberate attempt engineered by a frequent poster here to suppress the official record but I won't do that.

Don't look at me, Steve. When you cheat, I want it to stay visible to all.

Lest there be any doubt that many of such un-retouched news photos exist, and for the record, I refer readers to the following page full of photographs. You can find many more on the web as well, all taken from different angles and snapped seconds apart in the embrace.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Bush+kissing+Abdullah

A google search does not constitute evidence. Where did you get the photo from, Steve?

 

[WildCat]

Another thread Larsenized™.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A google search does not constitute evidence. Where did you get the photo from, Steve?

From behind the grassy knoll?

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

It sure looks like it.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Lest there be any doubt that many of such un-retouched news photos exist, and for the record, I refer readers to the following page full of photographs. You can find many more on the web as well, all taken from different angles and snapped seconds apart in the embrace.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=Bush+kissing+Abdullah

Steve, if you click on the second photograph on your link you can see that it really appears to be a poor Photoshop job that was probably never even meant to be taken as genuine but intended as poking fun of when they kissed each other on the cheek (where video of that instance actually exists).

 

[SteveGrenard]

Steve, if you click on the second photograph on your link you can see that it really appears to be a poor Photoshop job that was probably never even meant to be taken as genuine but intended as poking fun of when they kissed each other on the cheek (where video of that instance actually exists).

The source is as given. Not MY link but Google Images. I cannot tell photoshop alterations from none so just offer the link. There are many of these photos floating around and I said in my remarks on or NEAR the lips which includes the cheeks, well the ones on the face anyway.

Bottom line he kissed the Saudi King, held hands with him and then showed him a field of Blue Bonnet wildflowers which could, of course, have been added with paintbox.

 

[CFLarsen]

The source is as given. Not MY link but Google Images. I cannot tell photoshop alterations from none so just offer the link. There are many of these photos floating around and I said in my remarks on or NEAR the lips which includes the cheeks, well the ones on the face anyway.

Bottom line he kissed the Saudi King, held hands with him and then showed him a field of Blue Bonnet wildflowers which could, of course, have been added with paintbox.

You have not provided a source for the picture in your post #15.

 

[HarryKeogh]

The source is as given. Not MY link but Google Images. I cannot tell photoshop alterations from none so just offer the link. There are many of these photos floating around and I said in my remarks on or NEAR the lips which includes the cheeks, well the ones on the face anyway.

fair enough.

 

[Upchurch]

It is hardly irrelevant if someone posts photoshopped pictures to support his contention. You may be willing to overlook that (perhaps because I point it out?), but I don't.

...to support his contention that Bush is schmoozing (or smooching) the Saudi royal family. What does that have anything to do with Clinton's interview, how he handle terrorism during his presidency, or his claims about what the Bush adminstration has or has not done (i.e.: the thread topic)?

Yes, whether or not the photo that Steve posted was faked is, indeed, irrelevent to the topic at hand.

 

[CFLarsen]

...to support his contention that Bush is schmoozing (or smooching) the Saudi royal family. What does that have anything to do with Clinton's interview, how he handle terrorism during his presidency, or his claims about what the Bush adminstration has or has not done (i.e.: the thread topic)?

Yes, whether or not the photo that Steve posted was faked is, indeed, irrelevent to the topic at hand.

I notice that you don't attack Steve derailing the thread, but instead attack me for pointing out that Steve uses faked evidence.

You need to sort your priorities.

 

[davefoc]

Keith Olberman had some opinions about the interview:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/42155/#more

 

[Upchurch]

I notice that you don't attack Steve derailing the thread, but instead attack me for pointing out that Steve uses faked evidence.

He made one comment and let it go. You not only questioned the legitimacy of the photograph, but when he presented more photos showing the same thing, you started obsessing about the origins of the original photograph.

Does it really matter? The origin of the first picture does not matter to his argument, when he can provide ample other evidence that still suports his point. I doubt anyone else really questioned the first picture because I'm guessing most of us remembered when the event itself actually happened. The picture itself may have been tongue-in-cheek (so to speak), but we all knew what it was in reference to.

Remember our talk on calls for evidence on irrelevant details as a way to avoid actually discussing something? This would be another example.

You need to sort your priorities.

Oh, you are just the king of irony.