Former President Clinton is a liar of the first magnitude as well as being the most ruthlessly calculating political animal I've ever seen.

Correction: He is the second most ruthlessly calculating political animal. You forgot Hillary.

I think she is the driving force behind him and in many ways, manages his life as well as Political career. She is undoubtedly even more ruthless and cunning than he is.

"He lies for the sheer thrill of seeing if he can get away with it"--- that actually comes from years of free rides by the MSM and their actual lies to cover for his sorry ____. In a poker game one is supposed to have Clinton state what his cards are, without showing the cards! The same with his golf scores. Now those outside the MSM are requesting to see the cards and hold him accountable for mulligans.

Fox and the internet have created a method to actually deliver facts.Bill wants to be able to continue lie about the opposition but does not want to have those lies exposed. Not the great Willie, serial hugger of minorities.

Former President Clinton is a very big man.

Maybe in terms of physical stature, but in every other respect he is really a very small man, and if historians are honest, that's the way he will be remembered.

I loved watching Clinton on this....it was the same impassioned "how dare you" question me remarks he's had so many times in the past and each time caught lying his ass off.

Sorry Billy, you've lied so much in the past you're the boy who cried wolf and I just don't believe you.

Conservatives calling clinton a liar;

Pot-Kettle-Black

Bush has lied and been caught lying more times than any president in US history, possibly more than all the past presidents combined.

I thought he was going to explode into a ball of flames.

Name one, Axis and not the Bush Lied People Died crap, real ones.

Axis...name a lie that Bush has told.

Thanks

Meanwhile here are the ones we have on record with Clinton

"I didn't inhale"
"Gennifer Flowers"
"I didn't sexually assault Paula Jones"
"I will have the most ethical presidency in US history"
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"

On and on and on and on

Let's here those Bush lies that have been proven...thanks.

On the other hand, Clinton is also not the sharpest knife in the drawer

Uhhh...you support George W. Bush. You probably shouldn't cast aspersions on the intelligence of other presidents. By the way, Mark, why are you so entirely motivated of hate for Bill Clinton? Why are you a slave to your Hate Clinton agenda? Is it because you hate the nightmare of peace and prosperity he unleashed upon the country?

Clinton schooled Wallace deftly. He debunked the falsehoods behind the stupid question, and he correctly identified the impetus for the question. Six years of Bush has almost made me forget what an articulate, informed politician sounds like.

Clinton really handled this poorly. Although this interview was about his global initiative, he had a good chance to defend his administration's recond with Al Qaeda or just give a short answer, like 'yes', and move on. However, seeing as he nearly blew up instead of being being calm and composed, this interview will not be remembered for anything other than the fact that he got angry. I've had CNN on in the background and I've heard his interview ten times since noon and the pundits are not exactly interested in the content of Clinton's argument, but rather the spectacle he created.

Clinton and Bush are both responsible for why bin Laden has not been apprehended and it is useless for them to be arguing about who should take more of the blame. Both have missed key opportunities to get him and the fact that one man can evade the US for so long is questionable at best.

If anyone wants to see this ahole in lying action just look at the video below when he was at Ron Brown's funeral.

He's all smiles and then he sees the camera and in about 2 seconds goes from smiles to "crying" and wiping away tears.

The man is incredible and idiots everywhere bought his lies and worship the liar still today. It's incredible.

Here's the link...Happy, happy..oh there's a camera...see everyone I'm crying because of Ron's funeral

Liberal,

Correct - he should have said, "certainly, we all could have done more"...which answer would be (a) true and (b) nothing to write home about, and thus Clinton could have gone right on with talking about his initiative.

I'm not so sure that this wasn't a caculated response from Clinton. The man is the consumate polition, and doesn't seem to do anything without there being a political motive for it. On the other hand, Clinton is also a pathological liar, and I can see him trying to lie his way out of the question posed. The sad thing is that his pathology rubs off on everyone around him. Jamie Gorlick said on one news show this morning that there was no wall, and the prohibitions placed on the FBI and CIA were instituted by AG Ashcroft. Amazing since Ashcroft was not the AG during the Clinton admin. Sandy Burger stuffed classified documents in his pants and later distroyed them and the excuse was, "Oh that's Sandy being Sandy!" And then there are the 45 people with connections to the Clintons that met mysterious deaths. All one has to do is to look at the number of investigations and indictments of Clinton staff to know that this was perhaps the most corrupt admin in the history of this country.

Sees,

You might want to wipe off your chin.

Mark, I don't understand your hatred for pride so much? Could you explain why pride is such a terrible thing in your eyes.

Mark,

I would love it if both administrations would admit that they failed to prevent 9/11 from taking place. As you state, Clinton should say that he could have done more, but I would like to see the same admission from Bush as well. I think Clinton getting angry at Chris Wallace is just childish, but Bush claiming that there were no warnings about 9/11 is not helpful either. It will be difficult for both of them as Clinton will have to explain why he chose not to go after bin Laden after the embassies, U.S.S Cole etc., and Bush will have to explain why he didn't heed pre-9/11 warnings, but at least the blame game could end.

Clinton kicked Wallace's ass! Hahah..I love how the man thinks and speaks for himself. Everything he said was true. If you confronted George W with that question (and no, I will not call him by something more respectful, since you guys insist on calling Mr. Clinton "Bill" and "asshole", among other things), he would sputter and mutter something about national security and the American people and 9/11, say "That's a good question," and proceed to quote some canned line from his handlers.

Clinton doesn't need handlers. The man is sharp. The man is raising billions for the good of ungrateful saps like you all. Wallace is no better than a guy who asks, "So how long have you been beating your wife?" and then when you get mad, says, "Heyyyy...it's just a *question*! Geez...you don't have to *attack* me. Pity me, pity me! It's all about MEE."

Right. That's all - have a nice day (you too, Mr. Moderator! Will you post this one or not? I still haven't figured out the method to your madness. Was I obsequious enough? I didn't go near keefer-territory, but was I bend-over-backwards polite enough? Probably not.)

I'm reminded an old debate between Bush and Gore, one of the turning points of the campaign. Gore came out from behind his podium, essentially getting into Bush's space. Of course Bush stood his ground, not entirely sure what Gore was up to, and didn't flinch despite what was essentially a bullying tactic. If he could win the debate with his words, then why didn't he do that?

And here we have the same tactic, using physical bullying, getting in Chris Wallace' face. If he could answer the question with his words, then why didn't he do that? Instead, he did an appeal to pathos, attempting to use emotion (his anger and Wallace' fear) to win an argument rather than using reason or logic. You'd think that people who claim to be so opposed to physically intimidating prisoners wouldn't go around physically intimidating their political opponents, but that assumes their words are more than appearance and image, that they are actually principles. This should wake all of us up to what we can expect to see in terms of political tactics for the next two years.

For those who didn't see the interview, the entire transcript is here

One of the most interesting portions of the entire interview was this answer from Clinton in response to a Wallace question about Clinton being tired of Karl Rove's BS:

.....But even if they agree with us about the Iraq war, we could be hurt by Karl Rove's new foray if we just don't make it clear that we, too, care about the security of the country. But we want to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, which they haven't for four years. We want to intensify our efforts in Afghanistan against bin Laden. We want to make America more energy-independent. (emphasis - mine)

Seeing as how the Commission released its final report on 7/22/04, I not sure how Clinton comes up with "four years", but when he threw in the part about Democrats wanting to make America more energy-independent, you could almost see his nose grow.

Liberal,

A sitting President cannot admit error in our current political climate - if he does, then the debate becomes about the error rather than about the solution to the problem. It'd be nice if our MSM and our politicians would only make fair comment, but as everything these days is used and misused for political advantage, a President - any President - has to control the terms of the debate as much as possible, lest he get bogged down in arguing over details.

A former President, however, is someone who is naturally going to be asked to reflect on what he did and the long-term affects of the policies he carried out while in office - Clinton really should have seen this coming and been better prepared to deal with the issue in a generous manner.

More importantly, however, is that if we are arguing about the past, then we put the future at risk - other than examining the past for lessons on how to proceed in the future, we shouldn't be even trying to figure out who was responsible for the failures that led up to 9/11...we should be leaving that to historians.

USA,

Pride is, of course, one of the seven deadly sins - and, in my view, the very worst sin a man can be guilty of...and, of course, I admit to being guilty of prideful thinking and behaviour all the time - I am trying to control it and always trying to keep in mind that humility is vital to the conduct of a rational life.

Pride is corrosive - it makes a person think of himself above all others and makes him act from anger and resentment when his pride is injured, either in actuality or even in mere impression. It is ok to be proud of the United States (for instance), but to take pride in one's self is deadly wrong.

What pre- 9/11 warnings were there? According to the 9-11 Commission Report, there were none.

The problem in what Clintune said in the interview is that it opens himself up to more questions.

Retired Spook caught one.

Clinton also said that Richard Clark got demoted. Not true, read the 9-11 report. Clark asked to be transfered to cyberterrorism position.

In addition, Clintune said he almost got Bin Laden. Well the missile strike missed by 3 hours per the 9-11 report. In December of 2001, Bin Laden received a chest wound from a U.S. Strike. This is documented by the CIA.

There are countless other examples.

Sees you may want to back off the intelligence argument. Bush went to Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, hardly lightweight. That argument is just for libs stuck on stupid.

Picked up the wrong play book eh?

There is an Audio of Clinton specifally declining to take Bin Laden when he was offered. I would also like to know what those documents said that Berger pilfered.

Anger is the resort of the scoundrel when they are trying to defend the indefensible.

VW

Mark, I don't understand your hatred for pride so much?

Oh, he only hates it when people he doesn't like are proud. Bush being proud? Good thing. Clinton being proud? Awful! Because Noonan absolutely hates Clinton, which is funny, considering how he considers any criticism of Bush as purely irrational hatred. But, you know, Noonan isn't much for consistency. Or insight. Or reality.

Clinton and Bush are both responsible for why bin Laden has not been apprehended and it is useless for them to be arguing about who should take more of the blame.

Uh, nobody's arguing, Liberal, except Clinton, because Slicky Blue Dress thinks he's blameless.

Both have missed key opportunities to get him and the fact that one man can evade the US for so long is questionable at best.

It may be questionable to you, Liberal, but try asking a soldier who's been to Afghanistan about the terrain. Also, let's not forget that if OBL went into Pakistan, the troops weren't allowed to pursue him.

You're starting to sound like the DNC talking points...

It would be helpful for the debate if Chris Wallace shows us the documentation he says he has where he asked either Condi, Chaney or Bush what efforts they took between January 20th 2001 and September 11th 2001. to get Bin Laden in response to the Cole attack.

If Wallace can't produce anything, then the interview was just another Karl Rove orchestrated. setup. In such a case President Clinton has every reason to be angry.

"Pride is corrosive - it makes a person think of himself above all others and makes him act from anger and resentment when his pride is injured, either in actuality or even in mere impression. It is ok to be proud of the United States (for instance), but to take pride in one's self is deadly wrong."

Ah, very interesting Mark, I did look into it and I think the sin your talking about is actually hubris, which is exaggerated pride or self-confidence. Pride without warrant. Unreasonable self-esteem. Pride with warrant is something else all together.

To call it pride is not an accurate translation of the original latin.

On to my comment about the Clinton outburst. This clearly defines Republicans as not being able to understand the higher emotions. Confusion and astonishment result from the Republican mind. And put-downs for the hatred of such emotions. And inaccurate explanations of Clinton's motives.

There are countless other examples.

Posted by: Tina at September 24, 2006 08:14 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No matter how many examples are presented. The libs wont care. They will all of a sudden become deaf, blind and dumb and never even hear or see the words presented to them.

Clinton obviously lost it in this interview. He was borderline rambling and foaming at the mouth.

Claims of this being a calculated response and scripted are ridiculous.

My money says Hillary is behind those claims trying damage control to keep B.J. from hurting her chances at POTUS.

Hillary has to be so pissed at this outrageous behavior of BJ, but she will come out once again,
calling it a "right wing conspiracy". Isn't it always about blaming someone else with these two?
I think Ole Willy, was STILL angry over the movie
"Path to 9/ll", and when Wallace asked him THE question, he just "LOST IT". STILL trying to 'rewrite history, and HIS legacy'..
Slick Willy took the interview where HE wanted it to go-trying to 'clear his name'. Like that is ever going to happen. Too much documented info out there(except for the ones Sandy Berger stole in trying to cover up their ineptness) As far as
Ole Willy trying to say the film had Sooooo many inacurracies referring to himself-he is lying. I understand that in dramatic license, they showed
Albright dealing with the Pakistanis-and Sandy Berger hanging up the phone...Geezzz, this was the
"big objections"? Not good enough. He is still angry, that the movie showed him in bad light along with Hillary and the rest of his tainted Administration, and when you want to 'write your own legacy, and have the public swallow it like baby pablum, it can make you angry when confronted
with the printed truth, and what other people are saying isn't quite the truth'. This guy is the consumate politician, slick, slimy and a liar, if there ever was one. He, like most pathological liars hate one thing.....'NOT GETTING AWAY WITH IT
AND BEING PUT ON THE SPOT'

Slick Willy didn't leave office as other men, with
grace, dignity and respect of the country. He did
things that disgraced himself and the whole country and with his inept handling of Terrorists
HE, and his cronies(and his partner-Hillary) gave them the opening for the big bang-9/ll. If he had
shown true leadership, he would have stopped the strikes against Americans dead in their tracks, and they would not have felt we were weak and a
very vulnerable target. Even Bin Laden, said, we
were a "paper tiger".....and it emboldened him and
his savage Terrorists to strike the big bang-9/ll

My money says Hillary is behind those claims trying damage control to keep B.J. from hurting her chances at POTUS.

Lew, I think your money is well placed. I don't know how many people saw the interview, but MY MONEY says that a lot of people who saw it said to themselves "we don't want this guy back in the White House, even if it is as First Husband".

Bill Clinton has always been about image - he is a man of immense pride

Mark, I remember how Clinton's supporters portrayed him, as an essentially good man who had one obvious weakness, his sexual appetite. What I realized back then is that his real weakness is selfishness. This is a man who bad-mouthed the Republicans, but took credit for some of their ideas. For example, in his nomination acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic convention, he listed among his administration's accomplishments some of the provisions of the Contract With America, such as getting Congress to obey their own laws.

Remember when feminists were telling us that rape is the "sexual expression of violence"? (Which, by the way, I'm not disputing.) Thanks to Mr. Bill, I learned that adultery is the sexual expression of selfishness. Here was a man who wanted it both ways. He wanted the dignity and respect that comes with being a married family man, but also the freedom to fool around as if he's single.

Seeing Clinton b****h-slapping Wallace is a joy to behold. If only more Democrats would be as "unhinged" in dealing with right-wing shills.

Chris Wallace and anyone who works at Fox cannot seriously be called patriots. Their interests are merely to get richer selling their "Clinton/liberal bashing" propaganda to traitors who put their ideologue/stupidity first before their country.

Mr. Clinton has a demon and always has had one, best to put people like Willy behind bars for the rest of their lives!!

Jeremiah

It would be helpful for the debate if Chris Wallace shows us the documentation he says he has where he asked either Condi, Chaney or Bush what efforts they took between January 20th 2001 and September 11th 2001. to get Bin Laden in response to the Cole attack.

First off, Josh, there are a couple of things that you Lefties conveniently forget about the 1/20/01 to 9/11/01 time frame. First of all, with the 2000 election not being decided until nearly Christmas, the Bush Administration was slow getting key positions filled in a timely manner. Second, during the first half of 2001, Democrats stalled, delayed and obstructed confirmation of key individuals (remember the Ashcroft/AG hearings?)

Now, all that said, Wallace just interviewed Condi last week, and he wasn't exactly throwing her softballs:

CHRIS WALLACE: Let's start with the big picture. Five years later, where do we stand in the war on terror? Where do we stand in the conflict against Islamic extremism?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZA RICE: I think it's clear that we are safe — safer, but not really yet safe............

WALLACE: Any failures? (emphasis - mine)

RICE: Well, certainly. I'm sure there are many things that could be done better........

WALLACE: But anything specifically that you say that, you know, five years later, the war on terror hasn't gone as well?

RICE: History will have to judge, Chris. I think that the record will show that the last five years have been years of reorganizing the United States government, reorganizing our international alliances for this long war, and reorienting our strategic policy toward one that simply will not accept the conditions in the Middle East and in other places that have allowed extremism to flourish at the expense of moderation.

.......................

(Chris Wallace) Secretary Rice, why didn't we finish the job in Afghanistan?

RICE: Well, it was not possible, Chris, to, quote, "finish the job" in Afghanistan. This is going to be also a long process of bringing stability to Afghanistan.

We have made enormous progress over the last 4 1/2 years in Afghanistan. You actually have a national government that is elected in Afghanistan, whose forces are fighting alongside of us rather than the Taliban, which was both harboring Al Qaeda and giving them support. You now have for the people of Afghanistan the possibility of a better life. Women are not being beaten in stadiums that were given to the Taliban by the international community.

You have a situation in which, yes, the Taliban is trying to make a strike at the Afghan government because they do not want it to succeed. But the Taliban is not going to succeed. And they're not going to succeed because you have strong NATO and coalition forces and U.S. forces that are beating them back. The Taliban is taking a beating in this.

Go read the whole transcript, Josh. I was just trying to point out the types of questions that Wallace asked her -- not a great deal different from what he asked Clinton. If you want to see what kinds of questions Wallace has asked Bush and Cheney, there's this really cool Internet tool called GOOGLE. Try it, you'll like it.

USA,

No, not precisely - while hubris is wrapped in in pride, it is pride that is the deadly sin...hubris is more unwarranted pride...but we should even stay away from warranted pride...any manifestation of pride on one's self is deadly. If I do well, then I have only done my duty and deserve no praise for it - that you may give me praise is a wonderful and generous deed on your part, but I should never consider myself cheated if my good work goes unpraised.

At the end of the day, one guy had 8 years to work on terrorism, including the first WTC attack in his 2nd year in office...CLINTON.

The other guy had 8 months in office. As anyone can tell you, when you are a new president it takes months to get your cabinet through Senate confirmation hearings, your people up to speed, etc.

Just think how you were on your last job and how long it takes to get up to speed.

Now throw in the fact that Bush inherited a Recession he was working on also.

So 8 years vs 8 months.

Sorry, both administrations are to blame but ClinTOON gets 90% of the blame as he had 8 years to work on it and Bush had 8 months including trying to get his administration in place.

"Sees you may want to back off the intelligence argument. Bush went to Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, hardly lightweight. That argument is just for libs stuck on stupid."

Yea, Rhodes Scholars that get fellowships at Oxford like Bill Clinton. Those are the light weights.

It's hilarious watching the libs here think he b###slapped Wallace. Clinton looked just like he did on the Monica Lewinsky scandal where he wagged that finger at all of us and told us with the same 100% passion he didn't do anything.

He lied then (and many other times) so there is no reason not to believe he lied here also. Of course the libs will not sit around to have Der Leader called into question...God Forbid.

Spook,

But Fox News is part of the Vast, Right Wing Conspiracy...

What amazes me is that 6 years after leaving office, Clinton is still able to make his supporters jump through hoops whenever he needs it.

Great photo - click here

A Few More

Ph How True

Caption Bill Clinton wagging his finger

During the time the Clintons were in power I had a few problems with them.
1. I didn't like the fact that they used tanks to kill American citizens in Waco, though I know the Davidians were wackos.
2. I didn't like the fact that the FBI was ordered to shoot, not arrest at Ruby Ridge and ended up killing innocents.
3. I didn't like the crazy assault weapons ban. The liberals attack on this civil right cost them several states in the Gore-Bush election. Though Democrats are quiet about it now, you don’t have to scratch very hard to get an intense anti-gun reaction. I will continue to vote against Democrats so long as this is the case.
4. I didn't like Hillary's attempt to impose socialized medicine.
5. I was disappointed with the whole Clinton sex thing. To me, it seemed to come at him from his past with the reports of State Troopers bringing him women and all the rest. I honestly did NOT care about Lewinsky. But I did have a problem about the President lying under oath. It was shame that the whole mess happened.
6. I did not like the way we seemed to give so much technology to the Chinese.

Economically, it was a good presidency. It was fueled near the end by a stock bubble and specifically the dot com bubble. Indicators were there, but not spoken of because of elections. I remember they accused Bush of "talking down" the economy.

I was OK with going into the Balkans. I was torn on the Elian Gonzalez thing.

Well, I guess that’s it. What else did he do?

Unarguable fact: Bill Clinton is a pathological liar.

Great pics, Warrior, especially the one of the guy with the poster, heh.

Opening statement regarding Chris Wallace’s post interview thoughts:

Former President Clinton is a liar of the first magnitude as well as being the most ruthlessly calculating political animal I've ever seen. On the other hand, Clinton is also not the sharpest knife in the drawer

How predictable you have become. In the context of modern media in which the sound-byte is king, you once again demonstrate that Republicans are more concerned with character assassination than substance. In addition, your hypocritically fixate on Clinton being a ‘liar’, yet you fail to take the current President to task for the same fault.

I will agree with you that Clinton was not a saint, and did not always make the best decisions. However, the same can be said for our current President. The past is the past, the best thing to do is let the truth come out and learn from it.

Partisanship has a definite role in American politics, but it should be in the vocalized in defense of one’s principals and party affiliation and not used to denigrate one’s opponents.

A. "Partisanship has a definite role in American politics, but it should be in the vocalized in defense of one’s principals and party affiliation and not used to denigrate one’s opponents."

B. "This clearly defines Republicans as not being able to understand the higher emotions."

C. "Seeing Clinton b****h-slapping Wallace is a joy to behold. If only more Democrats would be as "unhinged" in dealing with right-wing shills."

I know this one: C is to B as B is to C.

Woops, make that C is to B as B is to A

After the recent release of "The Path to 9/11" in which Clinton's inaction was called into question, Wallace's question was a logical one. (BTW notice Larry King and others failed to even bring that up in recent interviews. I wonder why?)

Clinton did himself no favors by his irrational response. His finger waging reminded virtually everyone watching of the famous....

"I did not have sex with the woman" TV appearance.

He could have easily brushed it aside...but noooo.
Clinton is positively pathological.

Mike,
Why should one take President Bush to task for the same fault when the topic is Clinton? Could it be the BDS, you know blame him for global warming, hurricanes, and high gas prices? Of course it is.

And the Bush lies are? Even Democrats describe Clinton as a very accomplished liar. And every Democrat agenda--education, health care, economy, defense is----nothing---except bash Bush.

Clinton is the topic here, take your meds.

1. I didn't like the fact that they used tanks to kill American citizens in Waco, though I know the Davidians were wackos.

2. I didn't like the fact that the FBI was ordered to shoot, not arrest at Ruby Ridge and ended up killing innocents.

6. I did not like the way we seemed to give so much technology to the Chinese.

I actually agree with all of these, Kahn. As for this one:

4. I didn't like Hillary's attempt to impose socialized medicine.

my beef was basically the unanswered question: "How is Hillary qualified to do this?" To just hand such a massive program--and potential massive overhaul thereof--to her smacked of cronyism.

One of Clinton's comments does puzzle me. "We contracted with people to kill [Bin Laden]." Has anyone heard of this before? Maybe I'm cynical, but is the MSM going to soon "discover" the documents stolen by Berger, and how they say that Clinton had contracted with people to kill Bin Laden and given them the order to do it?

Why can't he just get imprisonment for the rest of his life? After all the disaster and mayhem he has caused, namely, nine eleven. And also, get him to cough up the reason for the plane crash in the desert afew years back, he knows full well what happened I am in good strong faith that he does, he has caused more distruction and corruption than any president in the history of the United States.

I mean REALLY! A man of this magnitude of corruption, does not deserve to be free,no?...

Jeremiah

Clinton and Bush are both responsible for why bin Laden has not been apprehended and it is useless for them to be arguing about who should take more of the blame. Both have missed key opportunities to get him and the fact that one man can evade the US for so long is questionable at best.

Posted by: Liberal at September 24, 2006 06:27 PM

Liberal, Why stop there though? We don't live in a dictatorship(regardless of the conspirist on your side), we could just go right on down the line pointing fingers and accusing people of screwing up! What frickin good does that do for any of us!!! To all the Clinton bashers(you know, the guys on my side), is there any point whatsoever to the pointing of fingers? Bush doesn't do it, and that's good enough for me!

Seeing Clinton b****h-slapping Wallace is a joy to behold. If only more Democrats would be as "unhinged" in dealing with right-wing shills.

Chris Wallace and anyone who works at Fox cannot seriously be called patriots. Their interests are merely to get richer selling their "Clinton/liberal bashing" propaganda to traitors who put their ideologue/stupidity first before their country.

Posted by: civilbehavior at September 24, 2006 09:47 PM

It's idiots like this that bring a smile to my face. You lefty's want us to take the high road when it comes to national security(you know, no TORTURE for terrorists), but you enjoy seeing your guys bitchslap the opposition! You guys wouldn't know how to run a country if it was handed to you on a silver platter. Civilbehavior, #1 change your name, it doesn't fit! #2 Your the perfect example of WHY you guys will never have power back! Losers!!!

Mark,

You accuse Bill Clinton of being a liar of the first magnitude, but you idolize George W. Bush, who is a pathological liar. Unlike Bill Clinton, who lied about personal matters, George W. Bush lied about issues that affect the entire nation. He lied about his drunk driving arrest. He lied about the cost of the Medicare prescription drug plan to get fiscally conservative congressmen to vote for it, he told many lies leading up to the Iraq war. He recently lied when he denied that he linked Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. The following link is one of many articles that documents the lies of George W. Bush:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031013/corn

Brian,

The Nation is slightly less reliable as a source than National Enquirer...you'll have to do much better than that when you come here to slam President Bush.

Mike,

But President Bush hasn't lied even once...meanwhile, Clinton lied about whether or not he inhaled, and that was just the first of his Presidential lies...

Mark, I am so tired of this argument that both President Clinton and President Bush are both responsible for 9/11. There was a span of 8 1/2 years between the 1993 WTC attack and 9/11. Clinton was president for 8 of those years. While clinton was president, this country was attacked over and over and clinton did nothing in response. His only response was when he fired off those rockets like 2 days before the impeachment vote. Immediatly afterwards, all the dems got up and said we must delay the vote. How can we have a vote when there is fighting going on. With all due respect to dick morris, everyone thought it was wag the dog because it was wag the dog. It was incredibly obvious at the time. bin laden saw american weakness and lack of backbone and the planning of 9/11 began in 1996. Clinton was president then. Many of the 9/11 highjackers began taking flying lessons AND had entered the USA while clinton was president. So the 9/11 attack was conceived, planned, coordinated and set in motion all while clinton was president. Most of the key highjackers were already in the USA and taking flying lessons while clinton was president. The actual attack was origininally planned for the very end of 1999. President Bush's inauguration was on January 21, 2001, 7 months and 3 weeks before 9/11. The sore loser dems immediatly tried to hold up many of President Bush's appointments, so a full month was lost trying to get the full government together. During the summer the china airplane incident occurred. During all this, President Bush was planning a major attack on al queda, which had been planned to occur after 9/11, but the USA was attacked first. The dems make a big deal about a memo entitled bin laden wants to attack the USA. Its contents were all based upon old information about the history of bin laden. Everyone was aware that bin laden wanted to attack the USA because he had been attacking us all those past years. There was no actionable intelligence in the memo. The only shot we had to stop the attack was to get into mousoui's computer. We could not because of a wall put up by the clinton administration and a FISA judge who said no. Based upon the above, how can anyone say that somehow both clinton and Bush are responsible for 9/11. The fault of 9/11 lies with the highjackers and the planners. However, the dems started this blame game because they couldn't allow President Bush's approval to stay at 90 percent. If there was any governmental negligence involved, it lied with the clinton administration.

Morris,

That is a little odd - though I think its more of fantasy that Clinton had being turned in to mental reality by a man who doesn't even tell the truth to himself.

The Nation....Good Lord. Why didn't you just put the Communist Manifesto as a source.

The Nation...what a joke those "journalists" are.

Brian...please tell us the "lies" of George Bush. Thanks.

Funny how the conservatives want to blame Clinton for 9/11 even though Bush was in office when it happened. It was also Bush who received the "Bin Laden Determined to attack" memo. Not Clinton.

Typical Republican swift boating -- go on the offensive to recreate history.

Wow, nice smackdown of those liberals without the mental resources to put forward a cogent argument. However, I am here to ask if any of you saw the more soft and gentle Clinton on Meet the Press. Did you notice how he constantly had his hand on his cheek while smiling...that is a weird sign that he is turning from metro to gay sexual. I guess getting boffed by the Hildebeest will do that to a horny man; but man that was kind of a girly look for him.

Warrior and Mark: I am still waiting for Axis to respond, but it seems to have ticked tail as well when challenged on the alleged Bush lies. The silence is deafening.

You have to forgive the libs for defending their boy.

Battered Wife Syndrome, don'tcha know.

Patterico has a good round up of what all Chris Wallace has asked Bush Administration officials (JoshKeaton's question from around 9PM Sunday night) about what they did to respond to/go after bin Laden during the first 8 months of 2001.

A word of caution, Josh. Don't ask questions that you don't already know the answer to.

Patterico also links to Tammy Bruce's live blogging of the Clinton interview. She catches Slick in a number of lies, including this stunner:

And here it is, "nobody knew in 1996 that al-Qaida existed" ?????? (emphasis - mine)

My god, this man lies as easily as he breathes. Does he think a bunch of us aren't out here in our "pajamas" reminding people of the truth? Amazing.

Here's a couple of questions I would have liked to hear Wallace ask Clinton (especially after blaming the CIA, FBI and the military for his failure to kill OBL ... when they ALL report to HIM):

Why did Monica spend more time in the Oval Office than the Director of the CIA?

What does Hillary think of your relationship with Belinda Stronach?

Liberal, Why stop there though? We don't live in a dictatorship(regardless of the conspirist on your side), we could just go right on down the line pointing fingers and accusing people of screwing up! What frickin good does that do for any of us!!! To all the Clinton bashers(you know, the guys on my side), is there any point whatsoever to the pointing of fingers? Bush doesn't do it, and that's good enough for me!
- bearmanUSMC

bearmanUSMC,
I am a bit confused by your reply to me. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Also, am I the idiot you are referring to or is someone else?

Republican Swift Boating...I always wondered what that term meant since the swift boats told the truth. Has Kerry released his medical forms yet?

LOL

The swiftboater claims have been proven to be false again and again but people continue to ignore that. Here are just a few...Or is factcheck.org too left?

Navy Records Contradict Swiftboaters Claim

Are you saying our military is lying?

Silver Star Clarification

Another...

Morphie, welllll almost. Kerry still has refused to sign the forms for the military to release HIS records. Your links are tied to existing and known public documents.

How about the claim in Kerry's book that he was in Cambodia under Nixon? 1. He was out of the Navy when Nixon took over and 2. He was never in Cambodia.

Kimberly, the question I would have liked to heard Wallace ask was "what was in the documents that Sandy Burgler stole from the National Archives and destroyed?"

I'm glad you at least concede the fact that he was in Vietnam which alot of people don't believe. I don't care if Kerry was in Cambodia just as I don't care that people in Bush's guard unit never saw him once and not to mention the fact that certain military records of his were 'shredded' accidently. I wish Kerry would release his records. What if his records were destroyed, would you be as understanding?

RS: That would have been an excellent question! Burgler ... heh.

Morphie, I don't care if he was in Cambodia either. You libs always try to sidestep the issue---he stated he was in Cambodia, knowing it was a lie. Fake war hero is a liar, and just like Clinton does not expect the MSM to call him on it, and they don't, in fact they cover for their lies, advance the lies and pronounce them truthful just as you do.Over and over again. But the truth will not go away.Then they sling mud as their defense as do 2 year olds.

However there is a new delivery in town. The internet. Lib falsehoods and dead voters are finished. Democracy. And remember it is the Democrat Party, not Democratic Party as advanced by the MSM.

Well, coudos to SeesThroughIt for making my Asinine quotes category. Do you honestly believe you what you said or are you as delusional as Clinton is?

Morphie, if you believe that then why has John Kerry threatened to sue the Swift Boat Vets and still has yet to do so?

The answer is simple...he would lose.

FactCheck is run by former CNN newsman Brooks Jackson.

He is a noted liberal and Factcheck is a liberal page in the disguise as something neutral. It most certainly isn't neutral.

Plenty of docs out there that show the SWBVT were dead on right...or are you calling all of those Admirals, Captains, Medal of Honor winners liars?

You also seem to be tying in one claim by ONE member of the SBVT to crap on all of them. Sorry, but all those guys are not lying and that's exactly why Kerry won't release his records and why he won't sue them. Because he knows he would lose and he knows he is lying.

Now that some time has passed since the Clinton interview, many people have researched Clinton's claims and found much of them to be without merit and in many instances outright lies. Clinton cited Richard Clarke's book several times concerning specific items, but upon examination of Clarke's book when referring to those items, it shows Clarke contradicts Clinton's claims. Also I heard some audio from some folks who worked within the Clinton administration who have reacted with surprise as to the falsehoods and misrepresentations Clinton provided during the interview with Wallace. These are people who aren't part of any alledged "right-wing conspiracy" and are liberalists in of themselves. The more people examine and disect Clinton's words from the Fox interview, the more Clinton's going to come out looking worse than ever before. Clinton's dishonesty and megalomanic tendencies will be some of what's remembered as his Presidential legacy. He's not helping his own cause by making baseless accusations and false claims in news interviews.

So only ONE of them lied? Is that what you are telling me? I have reviewed 'plenty of docs' to disprove the others.

Who sponsors the Swifties? Thats right, a rich Republican who has given millions to the repuplican party. When they first showed themselves,they wanted to make it look like a grassroots campaign but it wasn't. It was a well orchestrated smear campaign. Brilliant actually.

Kerry did sign the SF-180 form permitting release of his service records and medical records to reporters.

'...or are you calling all of those Admirals, Captains, Medal of Honor winners liars?"

You mean the large group of guys that wern't there and didn't serve with Kerry? Yes, I am calling them liars. They have no first hand knowledge whatsoever of the events being disputed.

Mark,

I would love it if both administrations would admit that they failed to prevent 9/11 from taking place.

(disagree), you don't admit faults that can be used against you in a time of war(period).

As you state, Clinton should say that he could have done more, but I would like to see the same admission from Bush as well.

(Disagree, not the sitting president! Not the one that is ACTUALLY out fighting the war, it would do more harm than it would good!)

I think Clinton getting angry at Chris Wallace is just childish, but Bush claiming that there were no warnings about 9/11 is not helpful either. It will be difficult for both of them as Clinton will have to explain why he chose not to go after bin Laden after the embassies, U.S.S Cole etc., and Bush will have to explain why he didn't heed pre-9/11 warnings, but at least the blame game could end.

(Disagree, the blame game will never end! There are to many politically motivated on both sides of the isle! The difference is, our guy doesn't respond 99.99% of the time! When he does its purpose is to shore up resolve in the hearts & minds of the people.)

Posted by: Liberal at September 24, 2006 07:13 PM

Clinton really handled this poorly. Although this interview was about his global initiative, he had a good chance to defend his administration's recond with Al Qaeda or just give a short answer, like 'yes', and move on. However, seeing as he nearly blew up instead of being being calm and composed, this interview will not be remembered for anything other than the fact that he got angry. I've had CNN on in the background and I've heard his interview ten times since noon and the pundits are not exactly interested in the content of Clinton's argument, but rather the spectacle he created.

(Agreed, He should have said, "In the interests of national security, I have know comment", Instead he was worried about his legacy and what people think about him. Thank God Bush could give a crap about polls & pundints!)

Clinton and Bush are both responsible for why bin Laden has not been apprehended and it is useless for them to be arguing about who should take more of the blame. Both have missed key opportunities to get him and the fact that one man can evade the US for so long is questionable at best.

(Disagree, there will always be breakdowns throughout the chain of command, we are however human! If any should take the blame for Bin Laden(dead or alive) it should be the people of the United States as a whole! We are a free nation, we decide who leads,we decide what laws are passed, we decide when to go to war or not, we decide/we take the blame! Of course I'm still trying to figure out what the blame is and how it will help us in the future! Was there negligence in the Clinton Admin? Well we are at fault for electing him twice, not me personally, but definitely we collectively! Were there mistakes on the Bush admin. part? Most assuredly as we are human beings, neglect though? Hell no! That's the one thing I am sure of!)

Posted by: Liberal at September 24, 2006 06:27 PM

As for the IDIOT lib, reread my post! A poster with the name civilbehavior talking about bitchslapping someone, was that you posting under an alias? If not, then I was not speaking of you!

Oh, and how many Swift Boat Veterans released their records to prove their point and show they have nothing to hide? Zero!

sorry for the spelling typo's, I'm in a hurry!!!

"Methinks he (Clinton) doth protest too much..."

That this one question sent him off into a tirade of emotional and vituperative comments seems to indicate that Chris Wallace hit a huge raw nerve.

This "unmasking" of America's first certified convicted perjurer President was surely not what ex-President Clinton had hoped to come out of the interview.

Instead of putting Mr. Wallace's question into a context that would help to resolve the issue for America, Slick Willie, as usual, turned the whole thing into a referendum on him. Notice how often the words "I," "me," and "my" are used in his answers and subsequent rant...

Was it just me, or did anyone else come away from watching this spectacle, scratching their heads, wondering why, after all these years, it is STILL 'All About Bill..."?

Morphie - nice try. Clinton is the subject here.

bearmanUSMC,

Thanks for clearing a few things up. You responded to us both in the same post so I couldn't be sure exactly which statements were meant for whom.

I've noticed many people here explain the philosophy that a president should not admit error during a time of war, though I don't know exactly why this is detrimental. Could you or someone else explain?

Morphie...sorry pal, I'm going to take the word of 50+ vets over a man who has lied over and over again, a man that has dishonored the uniform, a man that sullied the names of countless US military personnel, and a man that gave the enemy great conviction to keep up the good fight and eventually win that war.

If you want to throw your support behind him, be my guest.

By the way, you mean if a rich Republican finances the campaign therefore it is somehow not factual or must be GOP in nature? Well that might be one of the silliest things I've ever heard. That must mean the same is true then when a rich Democrat (George Soros) for example does the same thing...hugh Muphie?

Here's another Clinton finger wagging session...he sure loved to wag that finger.

FINGER WAGGER - This time at Peter Jennings

Wow! The Klinton Rumpswabs have showed up to defend him with their "new math":
8 years = 8 months
Moonbat "outcome based" education!!

Morphie, Kerry's complete and full records have yet to be released. Feel free to read the following article:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lip09.html

Apparently Kerry still hasn't allowed his complete and full records to have been released.

But as it has been pointed out to you, we are speaking about Bill Clinton and his dishonesty in the interview with Chris Wallace.

Liberal I just erased a long explanation, oops!

I wish I had more time to explain. The best example I can present would be sports. How many world class athletes do you know of that walk onto the field, court, arena etc. and proceed to tell their competitor all their failings and weaknesses? Not many, if any! Especially not the ones that win!

Not only would the terrorist use these weaknesses against us, but so would Bushes political foes!

In the military, we do not question our superior officers in the midst of the battle! If after the battle we need questioning and accountability, so be it! But not in the heat of the battle, not when our brothers lives could be jepordized! Some call it blind faith. I call it common sense, I don't see the bigger picture, I have no right to wag my finger!

bearmanUSMC,

I understand where you are coming from. However, If we cannot admit error, how are we ever going to find a way to fix it? Our enemies are no doubt aware of the defensive holes that were present before 9/11. After all they could not have pulled off the attack if they did not exist and since the event has already taken place what is the harm in admitting the errors that led up to them? If the President were to admit the defensive holes that we currently have then that would be a different story, but what is the harm in admitting error about an event that has already taken place? Being a civilian allows for the luxury of questioning your leaders. As for sports, most athletes know their competitors from head to toe and little of their knowledge comes from what the athletes choose to tell eachother.

Also, are you currently serving or are you a vet? I'm interested in knowing about your military experience, if you are willing to share it of course.

Bill Clinton will be remembered by serious Historians in the same breath as Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore or Chester Arthur. In fact, Nixon will be rated a better president than Clinton 20 years down the road. Clinton is nothing more than a redneck who got into the presidency because of one man, Perot. It's so damned nice to see a democrat have to answer tough questions; this is something we republicans have been doing throughout our history.

"Clinton is nothing more than a redneck"

Yep, and a poisonous one at that...

Some people lie so much, they honestly believe their lies. Clinton surely falls into this category. Don't blame him, blame President Bush... It's that medical condition, "Blame-Bush Syndrome".

What would you describe as Clintons major accomplishments?

"No, not precisely - while hubris is wrapped in in pride, it is pride that is the deadly sin...hubris is more unwarranted pride...but we should even stay away from warranted pride...any manifestation of pride on one's self is deadly. If I do well, then I have only done my duty and deserve no praise for it - that you may give me praise is a wonderful and generous deed on your part, but I should never consider myself cheated if my good work goes unpraised."

Nonsense. I just explained it to you and it went in one ear and out the other.

Another one of Clinton's absurd lies during the interview was that his right wing opponents critisized him for being "obsessed with OBL"

Huh??? No evdence of that in anywhere. Its almost if Clinton has forgotten that the internet allows for fact checking his attempts at re-writing history.

Reagan The Great Communicator
Clinton the Great Confabulator
...history will remember them this way.

"During the time the Clintons were in power I had a few problems with them.
1. I didn't like the fact that..."

Kahn, I have a problem with Bush.

The genocide of 50,000 people.

Makes your issues seem pretty petty.

USA,

Do you know what genocide is?

You know, before you toss around $5 words, you should have some basic familiarity with what they mean.

Great response

THE BILL CLINTON ANTI-TERROR MYTH FACT

________________________________________

MYTH: President Clinton Said He Was Besieged By "Conservative Republicans" Who Thought He Was "Too Obsessed" With Osama Bin Laden:

Former President Bill Clinton: "I think it's very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn't do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush's neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Conservative Republicans Praised President Clinton For Going After Bin Laden:

FLASHBACK 1998: "President Clinton Won Warm Support For Ordering Anti-Terrorist Bombing Attacks In Afghanistan And Sudan ... From Many Of The Same Lawmakers Who Have Criticized Him Harshly As A Leader Critically Weakened By Poor Judgment And Reckless Behavior In The Monica S. Lewinsky Scandal." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Critics Of President," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)

"[M]ost Lawmakers From Both Parties Were Quick To Rally Behind Clinton In A Deluge Of Public Statements And Appearances ... A Marked Contrast To The Relatively Sparse And Chilly Reception That Greeted His ... Statement On The Lewinsky Matter." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Critics Of President," The Washington Post, 8/21/98) Then-Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich (R-GA): "I think the President did exactly the right thing ... By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists. ... Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing ... It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Critics Of President," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), Senate Majority Leader: "[The attacks are] appropriate and just." (Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin, "Tough Response Appeals To Clinton Critics," The Washington Post, 8/21/98)

"On The Other Hand...There's The Mainstream Media. The Conservative Media Research Council Noted That 'Every Network Did Raise The "Wag The Dog" Scenario.' And Indeed, According To The MRC Story ... CBS ABC And NBC All Raised The Notion ..." (Jake Tapper, "The Truth About Clinton And 'Wag The Dog'," ABC News, 9/24/06)

MYTH: President Clinton Said Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Had Nothing "To Do With Black Hawk Down":

Former President Bill Clinton: "There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Experts Agree, Black Hawk Down Was Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda's "First Victory" Against The U.S.:

Osama Bin Laden Considered Black Hawk Down His First Victory Against The U.S. "The international community turned away from the country after a 1993 battle that killed 18 U.S. troops the basis for the 'Black Hawk Down' book and movie and a U.N. peacekeeping mission ended in failure in 1995. Osama bin Laden considered the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia his first victory against America." (Nick Wadhams, "New U.S.-Organized Group Lends Support To Somalia's Weak Interim Government," The Associated Press, 6/15/06)

Mark Bowden, Author Of Black Hawk Down: "The lesson our retreat taught the world's terrorists and despots is that killing a few American soldiers, even at a cost of more than 500 of your own fighters, is enough to spook Uncle Sam." (Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down, 1999, p. 355)

Gregory Alonso Pirio, President Of Empowering Communications, And Hrach Gregorian, President Of Institute Of World Affairs: "[The dangerous jihadist organization, Al Itihaad Al Islamiya] has actively worked with al-Qaida since 1993 to carry out acts of aggression against the United States, including the 'Black Hawk Down' incident in Mogadishu and the bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi, Kenya." (Gregory Alonso Pirio and Hrach Gregorian, Op-Ed, "Jihadist Threat In Africa," United Press International, 7/8/06)

Pirio And Gregorian: "Osama bin Laden and some of the Al Itihaad leaders have apparently known each other from their Afghan mujahidin days. Al-Qaida and Al Itihaad became closely allied in opposing the U.S.-led humanitarian intervention in Somalia known as Operation Restore Hope." (Gregory Alonso Pirio and Hrach Gregorian, Op-Ed, "Jihadist Threat In Africa," United Press International, 7/8/06)

Pirio And Gregorian: "Bin Laden has claimed that al-Qaida operatives helped orchestrate the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident - the downing of a U.S. army helicopter in Mogadishu and the subsequent loss of life of 18 American soldiers. There is now substantial evidence to back up bin Laden's claim." (Gregory Alonso Pirio and Hrach Gregorian, Op-Ed, "Jihadist Threat In Africa," United Press International, 7/8/06)

MYTH: President Clinton Said No One Knew Of Al Qaeda In 1993:

Former President Bill Clinton: "[No one] even knew Al Qaeda was a growing concern in October of '93." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Osama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Were Well Known By The Time Clinton Was Inaugurated:

Richard Miniter, Author Of Losing Bin Laden: "One of the big myths about the Clinton years is that no one knew about bin Laden until Sept. 11, 2001." ("Clinton's Loss," National Review Online, 9/11/03)

Miniter: "In fact, the bin Laden threat was recognized at the highest levels of the Clinton administration as early as 1993. What's more, bin Laden's attacks kept escalating throughout the Clinton administration; all told bin Laden was responsible for the deaths of 59 Americans on Clinton's watch." ("Clinton's Loss," National Review Online, 9/11/03)

Miniter: "President Clinton learned about bin Laden within months of being sworn into office. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake told me that he first heard the name Osama bin Laden in 1993 in relation to the World Trade Center attack. Lake briefed the president about bin Laden that same year." ("Clinton's Loss," National Review Online, 9/11/03)

Miniter: "In addition, starting in 1993, Rep. Bill McCollum (R., Fla.) repeatedly wrote to President Clinton and warned him and other administration officials about bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. McCollum was the founder and chairman of the House Taskforce on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare and had developed a wealth of contacts among the mujihedeen in Afghanistan. Those sources, who regularly visited McCollum, informed him about bin Laden's training camps and evil ambitions." ("Clinton's Loss," National Review Online, 9/11/03)

MYTH: President Clinton Said His Foes Wanted To Cut-And-Run From Somalia:

Former President Bill Clinton: "All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave [Somalia] the next day." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Many Republican Leaders Wanted To Finish The Job Done In Somalia, Not Cut-And-Run:

"'Foreign Policy Will Drift And Get Sloppy In Execution If The President Doesn't Pay Attention To These Things,' Said Sen. Richard Lugar Of Indiana, A Ranking Republican On The Foreign Relations Committee Who Lined Up With Clinton In Opposing A Precipitous Withdrawal From Somalia." (Leo Rennert, "Deadly Ambush Casts A Pall On Clinton's Domestic Focus," The Modesto Bee, 10/9/93)

Sen. Lugar: "It would be a disgrace to cut and run in a way in which we lost more lives and put more people in jeopardy simply because we went into a national panic." (Tom Raum, "Clinton Says U.S. Must 'Conclude Our Role' In Somalia," The Associated Press, 10/6/93)

Then-Speaker Gingrich: "If Clinton is determined to protect the people of Somalia and defeat General Aidid, we should use overwhelming power and get the job done. If not, we should admit the limitations of power and withdraw." ("The Furor Over Somalia Voices," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/7/93)

MYTH: President Clinton Said Al Qaeda Was Not Active In Somalia:

Former President Bill Clinton: "[In Somalia] there was no Al Qaeda ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: President Clinton's Own Adviser Worried Somalia Was Haven For Al Qaeda:

According To "A Report By The Crisis Group Africa, A Regional Crisis-Monitoring Group ... Some Operatives With Links To The World's Most Deadly Terror Cells Have Been To Kenya From Their Bases In Somalia." (Kamau Ngotho, Op-Ed, "The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)

"The US Has Long Kept A Watchful Eye On Somalia As A Potential Haven For Terrorists, Including The Al-Qaeda Network." (Kamau Ngotho, Op-Ed, "The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)

"As Early As 1998 When The (Bill) Clinton Administration Launched Cruise Missiles At Terrorist Training Camps In Afghanistan, The Head Of The Counter-Terrorism Group, Richard Clarke, Became Concerned That Osama Bin Laden Was Planning To Adapt Somalia As An Alternate Refuge ..." ("The Terrorist Next Door," Africa News, 7/31/05)

Beverly Kelley, Professor At California Lutheran University: "Gung-ho Americans were caught off guard, however, when a stunning counterattack by Aidid's militia, armed and trained by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, turned the seemingly simple extraction into an 18-hour bloodbath. The final death toll came in at 18 Americans and 500 Somalis." (Beverly Kelley, "Saddam and 'Black Hawk Down'," Ventura County [CA] Star, 4/7/03)

MYTH: President Clinton Said Richard Clarke Was Nonpartisan And "Loyal" To All Presidents He Worked For:

Former President Bill Clinton: "[Richard Clarke] has a variety of opinion and loyalties now, but let's look at the facts: He worked for Ronald Reagan; he was loyal to him. He worked for George H. W. Bush; he was loyal to him. He worked for me, and he was loyal to me. He worked for President Bush; he was loyal to him." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Richard Clarke Had Close Ties Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) 2004 Campaign And Was Used By Liberal Groups Trying To Defeat President George W. Bush:

Richard Clarke Repeatedly Praised John Kerry During The Height Of The 2004 Presidential Campaign. "Richard A. Clarke ... credits Kerry with having seen beyond the national-security tableau on which most of his colleagues were focused." (Matt Bai, "Kerry's Undeclared War," The New York Times, 10/10/04)

Clarke: "He was getting it at the same time that people like Tony Lake were getting it, in the '93-'94 time frame ... And the 'it' here was that there was a new nonstate-actor threat, and that nonstate-actor threat was a blended threat that didn't fit neatly into the box of organized criminal, or neatly into the box of terrorism. What you found were groups that were all of the above." (Matt Bai, "Kerry's Undeclared War," The New York Times, 10/10/04)

Kerry/Edwards Campaign Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers Called Clarke His Best Friend Of 25 Years. CNN's Judy Woodruff: "At today's White House briefing secretary Scott McClellan called Rand Beers, quote, 'Clarke's best buddy.' So I guess the first question is are you best friends with Mr. Clarke?" Kerry Adviser Rand Beers: "Dick Clarke and I have been friends for 25 years. And, yes, I think we're best friends." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 3/22/04)

Clarke Confirmed Beers' Description Of Their Friendship. "'[M]r. Clarke said by telephone from New York ... that he had been friends for 25 years with Mr. Beers, 'and I'm not going to run away from him just because he's John Kerry's national security adviser.'" (Elisabeth Bumiller and Judith Miller, "Ex-Bush Aide, Finding Fault, Sets Off Debate As 9/11 Hearing Opens," The New York Times, 3/23/04)

In 2004, MoveOn.Org And Another Liberal Group, America Coming Together, Used Clarke's Claims To Solicit Campaign Donations:

2004 MoveOn.Org Email: "As you may have heard, Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush... We're committed to stopping that from happening by making sure that the American public hears Clarke's extraordinary comments. If we can raise $300,000 in the next few days, we can run a hard-hitting ad nationally that highlights his message." (MoveOn.Org Email, 3/24/04)

2004 America Coming Together Email: "If you didn't see 60 Minutes on Sunday night, I'm sure by now you've read about it. Richard Clarke, President Bush's former top terrorism expert, revealed convincing proof of the administration's failure to focus on terrorist threats ... Please consider giving online to speed your donation to our effort to help elect progressive candidates at the federal, state, and local levels." (America Coming Together Email, 3/24/04)

MYTH: President Clinton's Said His Record Against Terror Was Made Clear By Richard Clarke's Book:

Former President Bill Clinton: "All I'm asking is, anybody who wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Clarke's Book Riddled With Inaccuracies, His Record Marked By "Glaring" National Security Weaknesses:

The National Journal's Stuart Taylor: "Richard Clarke served his country for many years with extraordinary dedication. But it is deeply irresponsible for him to create the false impression that if only we had listened to him, this administration could have prevented the September 11 attacks." (Stuart Taylor Jr., "How To Rebut Clarke Without Slinging Mud," The National Journal, 4/3/04)

Taylor: "Even Mr. Clarke himself admits - very quietly - that immediate adoption of every one of his recommendations would have made no difference." (Stuart Taylor Jr., "How To Rebut Clarke Without Slinging Mud," The National Journal, 4/3/04)

Taylor: "Consider his claim that during a January 2001 briefing on Al Qaeda, Condi Rice's 'facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term before.' in fact, she had used the term, quite publicly. He could have looked it up." (Stuart Taylor Jr., "How To Rebut Clarke Without Slinging Mud," The National Journal, 4/3/04)

"Clarke Says In His Book That Bush Asked Him To Look Into A Possible Iraq Connection To 9/11 In An 'Intimidating' Way. No. Two Other Witnesses Say There Was Nothing Intimidating About Bush's Manner." (Editorial, "Clarke's Self-Immolation," National Review Online, 3/25/04)

"A Senior National Security Official [Franklin Miller] Who Worked Alongside Richard A. Clarke On Sept. 11, 2001, Is Disputing Central Elements Of Mr. Clarke's Account Of Events In The White House Situation Room That Day, Declaring That It 'Is A Much Better Screenplay Than Reality Was.'" (David E. Sanger, "Colleague Of Ex-Official Disputes Part Of Account," The New York Times, 3/30/04)

"In The Book, Mr. Clarke Describes Himself As 'The Nation's Crisis Manager' That Day, Though He Acknowledges Periodically Turning Over His Seat In The Situation Room, In The Basement Of The West Wing, To Mr. Miller." (David E. Sanger, "Colleague Of Ex-Official Disputes Part Of Account," The New York Times, 3/30/04)

"[M]r. Miller, A Senior Aide To Condoleezza Rice, The National Security Adviser, Suggested That Mr. Clarke's Version, While It Would 'Make A Great Movie,' Was More Melodramatic Than The Events He Recalled." (David E. Sanger, "Colleague Of Ex-Official Disputes Part Of Account," The New York Times, 3/30/04)

Clarke Claimed To Have Seen Sec. Rumsfeld On A Video Conference When A Plane Hit The Pentagon. "The morning of 9/11 was a blur for many Americans and must have been for Clarke, too. But Clarke relates in vivid detail a secure videoconference of the national security team. The World Trade Center had been hit moments earlier. 'As I entered the Video Center, Lisa Gordon-Hagerty was taking the roll and I could see people rushing into studios around the city: Donald Rumsfeld at Defense and George Tenet at CIA.' Moments later, according to Clarke, NSC staffer Roger Cressey 'stepped back in to the video conference and announced : 'A plane just hit the Pentagon.'" Clarke replied: 'I can still see Rumsfeld on the screen, so the whole building didn't get hit.'" ("The Daily Kos, Richard Clarke, And More," The Weekly Standard, 4/12/04)

"[I]t Didn't Happen Like That. Rumsfeld Was In His Office When The Plane Hit The Pentagon But Not On Video. He Had Come Directly From A Meeting With Members Of Congress And, After The Attack, In One Of The Most-Chronicled Events Of That Day, Went To The Site Of The Impact To Help Load The Injured Onto Stretchers." ("The Daily Kos, Richard Clarke, And More," The Weekly Standard, 4/12/04)

Former Deputy Secretary Of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "[Clarke] has Secretary Rumsfeld attending a critical September 4th meeting that the secretary wasn't even at. He has the secretary in the Pentagon on a secure videoteleconference, a rather dramatic, memorable moment, when the secretary didn't turn up until an hour later." (Paul Wolfowitz, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/20/04)

MYTH: President Clinton Said He Left "Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy" For President Bush:

Former President Bill Clinton: "[I] left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy ..." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Clinton And Bush Administration Officials Agree "There Was No War Plan ... Turned Over":

Former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "Now, the second question you asked - which comes off the Time Magazine story, I think, was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. If I could address that. The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had - I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information - what was going on and what situations they faced. Number one among those was terrorism and Al-Qaeda, and I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly so I'm not violating any pr ivate conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing - on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." (Sandy Berger, Select Committees On Intelligence, U.S. Senate And U.S. House Of Representatives Hearing, 9/18/02)

Richard Clarke In 2002: "[T]here was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." (Richard Tomkins, "WH Throws Own Words Back At Clarke," United Press International, 3/24/04)

"[T]here Was A Strategy In Place Dating From 1998 That The Clinton Administration Had Not Acted On." (Richard Tomkins, "WH Throws Own Words Back At Clarke," United Press International, 3/24/04)

Unnamed Former Clinton Administration NSC Official: "There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism ... It was certainly not a formal war plan. It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn't have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration's ongoing efforts and threat assessments." (Byron York, "Clinton The Anti-Terrorist," National Review, 9/2/02)

"A Senior Bush Administration Official Denies Being Handed A Formal Plan To Take The Offensive Against Al-Qaeda, And Says Clarke's Materials Merely Dealt With Whether The New Administration Should Take 'A More Active Approach' To The Terrorist Group." (Michael Elliott, "They Had A Plan," Time, 8/12/02)

MYTH: President Clinton Said He "Worked Hard" To Go After Bin Laden:

Former President Bill Clinton: "I worked hard to try to kill [bin Laden]. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 9/24/06)

FACT: Clinton Administration Repeatedly Missed Opportunities To Stop Bin Laden:

9/11 Commission Report: "[Former CIA Director George] Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to 'turn off' the operation [to capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan]. He had simply informed [Sandy] Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger's recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision." (National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, "The 9/11 Commission Report," 7/24/04, p. 114)

2000: "Clinton Spurned Sudan's Offer To Hand Over Bin Laden Because The United States Lacked Enough Evidence To Indict Him In Earlier Attacks In Somalia, Yemen And At The World Trade Center In 1993. (So Clinton Let The Sudanese Send Bin Laden To Afghanistan ..." (Dick Polman, "Sept. 11 May Taint Clinton's Legacy," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/14/02)

9/11 Commission Report: "In early May 1996, the CIA received intelligence that Bin Ladin might be leaving Sudan. Though this reporting was described as 'very spotty,' it would have been passed along to the DCI's office because of high concern about Bin Ladin at the time. But it did not lead to plans for a U.S. operation to snatch Bin Ladin, because there was no indictment against him." (National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, "The 9/11 Commission Report," 7/24/04, p. 479)

Former President Clinton: "At the time, in 1996, he had committed no crimes against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." (Robert Sam Anson, "Bill And His Shadow," Vanity Fair, 6/04)

After 1998 Embassy Bombings In Africa, Clinton Administration Launched Failed Missile Strikes That Ignored Osama Bin Laden. "[There is] some evidence that at least some of the missiles may have missed their targets, and according to Pakistan, it says one missile landed on its soil killing six people." (CNN's "Newsday," 8/21/98)

"U.S. Officials Also Indicated That Bin Laden Himself Was 'Not Specifically Targeted' In The Attacks And Apparently Was Not Present At Any Of The Sites." (Art Pine, "U.S. Targets Heart Of Terror," Los Angeles Times, 8/21/98) "It's Also True That Clinton Looked Weak In 1998 By Firing A Cruise Missile At Bin Laden In Afghanistan, Missing Him (Narrowly, It Appears), And Failing To Follow Up." (Dick Polman, "Sept. 11 May Taint Clinton's Legacy," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/14/02) PDF Format

USA,

Actually, I think you just don't understand pride...

Liberal, I am a veteran of desert storm! Thanks for asking. Like my brother, I was a frontline man. I did not however have the 3 tours and first hand experience that my brother did in this war! Can you imagine invading a country where the military lines didn't exist? They had very little opposition coming into Iraq(although enough to make things dangerous), they did however experience the flowers, hugs & kisses from Iraqi children, mothers, fathers etc. That in itself will change a mans life and make it all worthwhile! My brother brought back a picture of him sitting in a barber chair in an Iraqi barber shop, with no less than 9 Iraqi men around him. Hugging him, arms around him!! Were they there to stab him in the back? I think not! We see a perspective that today is typically brushed aside or swept under the rug! Unfortunately, I have to admit, there are very few liberals(from my personal experience) that do not disdain what we do and/or why we do it! If I was given the choice(I'm a disabled vet), I would volunteer to go to Iraq, just to feel the way I felt(when we liberated Kuwait) again!!!

Liberal, we can admit error all day long and FIX our mistakes!!! There is nothing in the law, geneva convention, U.N. etc. that says we have to tell the N.Y.times our mistakes so they can preach it from the mountain tops. I think that is where I part with many! In this information age some things MUST be controlled, and who better than to control those SECRETS than the leaders I/You/We put in office! We can not know all things at all times, if we did we would never be in situations as this.

bearmanUSMC,

Thank you very much for your service to our country. I think you should read the post I made in the Army Recruitment 2007 post to understand my attitude about our military in relation to govt. and politics. I often disagree with the reasons for why they send you guys places. After all, I have a great deal of respect for all of you and do not want to see any of you get hurt needlessly, nor do I want to see any innocents get hurt either. I know some people on my side let their anger towards the war translate into their negative feelings about our servicepeople and for that they are wrong and I appologize on behalf of them.

I'd like you to know though, that I have never met a liberal, or anyone for that matter, that has hard feelings towards our military. Whether they are for the totally for the war or completely against it the only constant I see is that everybody appreciates the sacrifices you guys make and want to make sure you guys are treated right by our leaders. I am completely opposed to the Iraq War but I've never let my anger towards the war turn into anger towards our military.

You said you are disabled. Was this the result of some battlefield injury? Either way I hope you are receiving the care that you require and I wish your brother luck as well.

bearmanUSMC,

Thank you very much for your service to our country. I think you should read the post I made in the Army Recruitment 2007 post to understand my attitude about our military in relation to govt. and politics. I often disagree with the reasons for why they send you guys places. After all, I have a great deal of respect for all of you and do not want to see any of you get hurt needlessly, nor do I want to see any innocents get hurt either. I know some people on my side let their anger towards the war translate into their negative feelings about our servicepeople and for that they are wrong and I appologize on behalf of them.

I'd like you to know though, that I have never met a liberal, or anyone for that matter, that has hard feelings towards our military. Whether they are for the totally for the war or completely against it the only constant I see is that everybody appreciates the sacrifices you guys make and want to make sure you guys are treated right by our leaders. I am completely opposed to the Iraq War but I've never let my anger towards the war turn into anger towards our military.

You said you are disabled. Was this the result of some battlefield injury? Either way I hope you are receiving the care that you require and I wish your brother luck as well.

As more and more reputable sources examine Clinton's claims, the more foolish the man appears. Now even former aides to Clinton are coming forth contradicting him. For example there's this article from the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/455911p-383523c.html). An excerpt:

---

Former advisers ridiculed ex-President Bill Clinton yesterday for saying he had a plan to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban and kill Osama Bin Laden after jihadists nearly sank the destroyer Cole.
"The only order we got from [Clinton] after the Cole was to put together a target list for air attacks," said Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama Bin Laden under Clinton.

"What I was involved in could in no way be called a full-fledged plan to attack and overthrow the Taliban," he said.

---

Bill's being nailed to the wall this time on the whoppers he told in the Wallace interview. He's lost it big time. I sincerely hope this cripples any further effect and influence he may have on anything in the future. However, the liberal extremists will blind themselves as usual to Clinton's pathological lying and megalomania as proven by the hundreds and hundreds of comments left on leftist blogs like DU, Kos and Huff. Post.

Just a couple of thoughts on my part...

First, any time a member of the current administration is interviewed, they are asked hard questions and required to address all sorts of acusations from the other side... yet if Clinton gets asked a hard question, it's a conservative hit job. What a ridiculous double standard.

Second, in regards to the blame game... I don't remember anyone calling out Clinton's role in the run up to 9/11 until after all the attempts to blame Bush for it. As far as I can see, the attacks against Clinton are in fact counter-attacks to show context and point out the fallacies of trying to lay it all at Bush's feet, and there would likely have been no such counter-attacks if there had not been the over-inflated and unwarranted attacks against Bush in the first place.

In the military, we do not question our superior officers in the midst of the battle! If after the battle we need questioning and accountability, so be it!

Actually, if you are instructed to do something illegal, it is your responsibility to question it immediately. You cannot perform the illegal act and then question it. Well, you can, but you lost all ability to defend yourself.

8 years = 8 months

Actually, Bush has had 6 years to catch OBL and has not. And since everything changed after 9/11, I would think it is twice as important, at least, to catch him. This makes Bush more of the failure in this area. Unless you believe Noonan's paranoid conspiracy theory that OBL was killed back in 2001. I mean, with all the evidence that supports that claim how could you not believe it???? ughh

Clinton 8 years accomplishments ZIP ZERO NADA...well OK one dead night watchman.

BUSH 6 years accomplishments 50 MILLION liberated from tyranny, two democracies planted in muslim countries, 80 to 90% of the Al Queda leadership killed or captured. OBL hiding in a cave or dead.

...and NO ATTACKS ON US SOIL!!!

Thank you President Bush!!!

Ahhhh, spoken as a true civilian FOOL! You really shouldn't pretend to be the smartest guy on the blog fool, it just makes you......more the fool!

If in fact you and I had each others back(say a humV machine gunner & driver), and I hear an order come over the airwaves that makes me think twice, quess what fool, you just died! So sorry, please play again, lol! If I do not hesitate however and you and I come out alive, I may question away, and find that I'm not so smart as the man barking the orders! Believe it or not fool, it happens all the time in war! That's why there is a chain of command, & that is why we respect it!

Liberal, thanks for the thanks! You are a rarity and believe me, I know, as does history!

Read my post to the fool! There are alot of things that you and I don't know and shouldn't know! That is the reality of the situation. Our desire to know everything all the time need to be curbed with discipline, common sense & self control! Some things we should know, some we shouldn't. There is no way around that! If we can accept that and allow our leaders to do the job WE hired them to do then we wouldn't see the balances tipping toward one side of the isle or the other! As it stands, we have so many leaks due to politics & hate that our own children WILL be in more danger than we were before 9/11.

I'm sorry, but I don't get into details about my past in cyberspace! Too many unknowns.

Foolyoutwice

"Actually, Bush has had 6 years to catch OBL and has not. And since everything changed after 9/11, I would think it is twice as important, at least, to catch him."

Except that the complete incompetence by Clinton and Albright drove him underground. You guys had 8 years to nail him while he was wide open in the training camps and now we haven't even seen the guy in years...he could be dead, underground, who knows where. You drove him into hiding by screwing up!!

Congratulations.

President Bush was asked about Clinton's attempt at re-writng history and his legacy.

I loved the President's response:

"We'll let history judge all the different finger-pointing and all that business. I don't have enough time to finger-point, I've got to do my job, and that is to protect the American people from further attacks."

Thank you President Bush!!!