[Jaime_Souviens]

Scape Scape:

PT II

Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They Demoted Richard Clarke

They didn't demote Clarke, in his own book, the one Clinton was offering as a source in this interview, (but apparently did not read), Clarke volunteered to be reassigned.

So... Wallace never asked anyone about an incident that never happened.

Boffo.





.

[BartSimpson]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Clinton sounds desperate and pathetic.

For a American President to even engage in this kind of battle means he's lost the argument. Sitting Presidents and Former Presidents are not supposed to engage in this kind of bickering. Whether you agree with this or not, it's how it is, and how it will be understood in America.

Limbaugh will have a f'ing field day with this.

This doesn't blow the whole '06 election for the Left all in one stroke, but it goes toward that end.

And by the way, Scape-a-rino, nobody gives a rat's ass what Wallace asked anybody. Wallace doesn't have to win an argument, the question is, why is Clinton getting into it with some Washington journalist?

That Ariana Huffington is relying on Clinton coming back for the '06 or '08 elections is perfectly beautiful. As long as they're relying people out of the past to save their ass, it's an admission they've got no one now.

Yay!!!!

Clinton went off the reservation as a former President when he started criticizing Bush even before 9/11. And then Carter came out of the woodwork to do the same thing. Traditionally our Presidents shut up after they get out of office so as not to confuse the people as to who is actually in charge. It is a courtesy to the next guy who sits in the Oval Office and it prevents the kind of power struggles we see in turd-world countries.

So what's happened is that if a Dem takes over for Bush then if Bush criticizes the guy and foments a Constitutional crisis then it is Clinton's fault for undoing what had been a very practical tradition.

And by coming out and defending himself before a TV movie he looks really, really silly. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people, like myself, would not even have watched the movie at all without Clinton and the Democrats demanding it be censored.

[Zipperfish]

He did a lot more for his country than George Bush ever has. Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Dubya -- war and debt and torture. he's dragged the name of the US through the mud.

Clinton had a philosophy of hope--and still does. George Bush has a philosophy of fear.

[Hardy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Sitting Presidents and Former Presidents are not supposed to engage in this kind of bickering. Whether you agree with this or not, it's how it is, and how it will be understood in America.

Clinton went off the reservation as a former President when he started criticizing Bush even before 9/11. And then Carter came out of the woodwork to do the same thing. Traditionally our Presidents shut up after they get out of office so as not to confuse the people as to who is actually in charge. It is a courtesy to the next guy who sits in the Oval Office and it prevents the kind of power struggles we see in turd-world countries.

Oh, they all do it, and have been doing it for a while. You left out Bush Sr., so here are some examples of him, as a former president, complaining about Clinton.

$1:

* In an appearance at a San Antonio grade school on October 13, 1993, Bush expressed concern that the humanitarian mission to Somalia that he had launched nearly a year earlier was being "messed up" by the Clinton administration. "If you're going to put somebody else's son or daughter into harm's way, into battle, you've got to know the answer to three questions," Bush told the students. He said the president has to know what the mission is, "how they are going to do it," and "how they're going to get out of there." Several news reports noted that Bush's comments appeared to violate his earlier pledge not to publicly criticize Clinton during his first year in office. [The New York Times, 10/14/93; The Boston Globe, 10/23/93]

* In an interview published in the February 1994 issue of Washingtonian magazine, Bush criticized the Clinton administration's purported lack of a "general strategy" in the foreign policy arena and the "start-and-stop" failures it had exhibited. Bush pointed to the Clinton administration's handling of the situation in Haiti as an example and also criticized Clinton for his policy toward Bosnia:

"The specific point of difference I'd make with the current administration, however, is that when you send a US ship loaded with military personnel to go ashore, you don't say, 'They're going ashore' unless you mean it. And you don't get turned back by a group of thugs standing on the dock.

What that does -- starting and stopping -- is weaken the image of the United States as a strong, resolute leader. It was devastating, sent a horrible signal, when that troop ship was turned back -- a signal not just to Latin America, but to Europe and elsewhere. Where I find most fault in the Clinton foreign policy, the area where I find room for criticism, is this pattern of start-and-stop, start-and-stop.

[...]

The Clinton administration, you'll remember, began by attacking my administration and the Europeans for being weak and rewarding aggression, and they vowed to get tough. But a few months later, they were essentially where we were. They backed away from their bluster, but not without sending the unfortunate impression of a weak and inconsistent US leadership to the world."

* In a March 8, 1994, speech in Indian Wells, California, Bush repeated his criticism of Clinton's actions toward Haiti. According to a Riverside Press Enterprise article published the next day, Bush claimed "he did not want to be a carping critic, but said President Clinton must be more consistent in carrying out foreign policy. Bush criticized the president in particular for sending a shipload of troops to Haiti last year and then ordering them home when 'thugs' threatened them from the shore."

* On April 8, 1994, Bush gave a lecture at Carl Albert State College in Poteau, Oklahoma, during which he criticized Clinton's proposed health care reform legislation. "This may sound partisan," he told the audience, "but I don't believe it will pass and I don't believe it should pass." [Associated Press, 4/8/94]

* During a July 26, 1996, news conference with Bob Dole, then the Republican nominee for president, Bush "criticized Clinton for boasting of current economic stability," according to a Kansas City Star article published the following day. Bush argued that "he handed Clinton an economy that grew at about 5 percent in 1993." "That was not recession," he told reporters.

* While campaigning with Dole days before the 1996 presidential election, Bush suggested that Clinton had compromised the "integrity of the White House. "What matters to me now is the integrity of the White House," he said. "I believe in duty, honor, country," he continued. "I believe in service. I believe in keeping the White House above partisan politics, away from these puny, terrible disputes we're seeing." [Chicago Tribune, 11/1/96]

* In a letter released on April 23, 1998, Bush "criticized the White House and its allies for their continuing public campaign to criticize [independent counsel Kenneth] Starr and undermine his investigation," according to a New York Times article published that day. In the letter, Bush professed to hold Starr -- who at the time was investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair -- "in high regard."

It goes both ways.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He did a lot more for his country than George Bush ever has. Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Dubya -- war and debt and torture. he's dragged the name of the US through the mud.

Clinton had a philosophy of hope--and still does. George Bush has a philosophy of fear.

"Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity." ---Just not true, Zip. Eight years of fraud and inflated stock prices. Major corporations were reporting imaginary profits because there was no enforcement from Washington.

I've pointed this out before, but apparently you'd rather believe a fantasy.---Which gives great credibility to your endorsement of Clinton in the first place.

Bush will go down in history as the President who took on the tough problem of the madness that's gripping the Islamic world, and which Clinton ignored.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He did a lot more for his country than George Bush ever has. Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Dubya -- war and debt and torture. he's dragged the name of the US through the mud.

Clinton had a philosophy of hope--and still does. George Bush has a philosophy of fear.

"Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity." --Eight years of fraud and inflated reporting. Major corporations were incorrectly reporting profits, and making up numbers. Lots of people eventually were indicted. But it was lax enforcement from Washington that allowed for these abuses.

I've pointed this out before, that it was an economic bubble, and yet you continue to believe in it. You can believe what you want, but it says a lot about the value of your endorsement.


Bush will go down in the history books as the first President to do something about this growing madness that has been gripping the Islamic world.

[Jaime_Souviens]

$1:

... As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons. ...

In "Dereliction of Duty," published by Regnery in 2003, Patterson recounts an event in the situation room of the White House in which Berger was told by a military watch officer, "Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike."

Clinton, according to Patterson, did not return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour then said he wanted more time to study the situation.

Patterson writes: "We 'studied' the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed."

In another "missed opportunity," Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.

This whole song and dance Clinton gave in the interview "The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President." is just bull designed to give his loyal followers something to believe in.


The quote above:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898

[Zipperfish]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He did a lot more for his country than George Bush ever has. Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Dubya -- war and debt and torture. he's dragged the name of the US through the mud.

Clinton had a philosophy of hope--and still does. George Bush has a philosophy of fear.

"Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity." --Eight years of fraud and inflated reporting. Major corporations were incorrectly reporting profits, and making up numbers. Lots of people eventually were indicted. But it was lax enforcement from Washington that allowed for these abuses.

I've pointed this out before, that it was an economic bubble, and yet you continue to believe in it. You can believe what you want, but it says a lot about the value of your endorsement.


Bush will go down in the history books as the first President to do something about this growing madness that has been gripping the Islamic world.

What is with the ad hominem atatcks lately, Jaime. You're taking it all too personally. Mellow. I respect your opinion, and that of others on here. You do too, until recently.

Let's be honest, no one changes their minds much about anything here, no matter how eloquent and logical your argument.

Clinton wasn't perfect, but he was a lot better than Bush by virtually any yardstick. Especially economically.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He did a lot more for his country than George Bush ever has. Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Dubya -- war and debt and torture. he's dragged the name of the US through the mud.

Clinton had a philosophy of hope--and still does. George Bush has a philosophy of fear.

"Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity." --Eight years of fraud and inflated reporting. Major corporations were incorrectly reporting profits, and making up numbers. Lots of people eventually were indicted. But it was lax enforcement from Washington that allowed for these abuses.

I've pointed this out before, that it was an economic bubble, and yet you continue to believe in it. You can believe what you want, but it says a lot about the value of your endorsement.


Bush will go down in the history books as the first President to do something about this growing madness that has been gripping the Islamic world.

What is with the ad hominem atatcks lately, Jaime. You're taking it all too personally. Mellow. I respect your opinion, and that of others on here. You do too, until recently.

What ad hominem attacks? Would you prefer, "Zip, you asshat, you're a fucktard."??

In my post, quoted right there, I say that you can believe what you want. I think that's what "You can believe what you want" means. And then the farthest I go is to say that your belief diminishes the credibility of your endorsement. What is that? Too demeaning? Too abusive? Too harsh? I'm really going out to destroy you there, aren't I?

Please. Be serious.

(Conversely, be truly funny... )

[Jaime_Souviens]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Clinton wasn't perfect, but he was a lot better than Bush by virtually any yardstick. Especially economically.

Zip, you asshat, you're a fucktard.

[Zipperfish]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

He did a lot more for his country than George Bush ever has. Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Dubya -- war and debt and torture. he's dragged the name of the US through the mud.

Clinton had a philosophy of hope--and still does. George Bush has a philosophy of fear.

"Eight years of unparalleled peace and prosperity." --Eight years of fraud and inflated reporting. Major corporations were incorrectly reporting profits, and making up numbers. Lots of people eventually were indicted. But it was lax enforcement from Washington that allowed for these abuses.

I've pointed this out before, that it was an economic bubble, and yet you continue to believe in it. You can believe what you want, but it says a lot about the value of your endorsement.


Bush will go down in the history books as the first President to do something about this growing madness that has been gripping the Islamic world.

What is with the ad hominem atatcks lately, Jaime. You're taking it all too personally. Mellow. I respect your opinion, and that of others on here. You do too, until recently.

What ad hominem attacks? Would you prefer, "Zip, you asshat, you're a fucktard."??

In my post, quoted right there, I say that you can believe what you want. I think that's what "You can believe what you want" means. And then the farthest I go is to say that your belief diminishes the credibility of your endorsement. What is that? Too demeaning? Too abusive? Too harsh? I'm really going out to destroy you there, aren't I?

Please. Be serious.

(Conversely, be truly funny... )

Well have it your way, then. I relaize how depressing it must be to try to stand up for a disaster of an administration like this one. I mena, not jsut a pointless war in Iraq that has cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, but a reckless spending spree, a reduction in the freedoms of US citizens--and oh let's not forget the pinncacle of this man's humanity -- he brought back torure and arbitray arrest and detention to the US. He's run up a record deficit, made America less powerful and influential in Europe and elsewhere.

Trying to defend atrain-wreck of an administration like that, trying to defend that sheer level of abysmal failure must be pretty depressing.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well have it your way, then. I relaize how depressing it must be to try to stand up for a disaster of an administration like this one. I mena, not jsut a pointless war in Iraq that has cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, but a reckless spending spree, a reduction in the freedoms of US citizens--and oh let's not forget the pinncacle of this man's humanity -- he brought back torure and arbitray arrest and detention to the US. He's run up a record deficit, made America less powerful and influential in Europe and elsewhere.

Trying to defend atrain-wreck of an administration like that, trying to defend that sheer level of abysmal failure must be pretty depressing.

An administration that has taken an epochal move to bring into modernity a billion of the world's people, has reduced taxes, jumpstarted a flagging economy, stood for the defense of citizen's freedoms, has not resorted to torture, and has taken the vital and necessary steps to safeguard the people. The country is stronger, he called the European bluff and won, and has squarely placed the country in the forefront of all our futures.

Not bad at all.

All he had to do was stand up for decency and doing the right thing, and as it turns out, the idea of having a backbone is contageous.


Who the hell would want to go through the past few years, or through the next few years as one of these cowering, pessimistic, pathetic naysayers, always cringing in fear, always at the brink of despair, always flailing wildly in paroxysms of doubt, fear and anguish??? Who the hell wants to be a Leftist???

[Zipperfish]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

An administration that has taken an epochal move to bring into modernity a billion of the world's people, has reduced taxes, jumpstarted a flagging economy, stood for the defense of citizen's freedoms, has not resorted to torture, and has taken the vital and necessary steps to safeguard the people. The country is stronger, he called the European bluff and won, and has squarely placed the country in the forefront of all our futures.

Well, I suppose a steadfast denial of facts is one way of dealing with it. "Bring modernity to a billion of teh world's people." Have you seen Iraq lately. Yeah "modernity" doesn't exactly pop into mind.

Economy--well, I suppose that fundamental economcis might be a bit much for you. I'll give you a clue. Cutting taces is fine but you have to cut spending too. Otherwise it doesn't work. Sorry if that eluded you.

Torture -- Gunatanamo, Abu Ghraib, black sites in Europe, and let's not forget is big favour to Canada--rendering one of our citizens to Syrian torture chambers.

$1:

All he had to do was stand up for decency and doing the right thing, and as it turns out, the idea of having a backbone is contageous.

Backbone? Oh, thanks for reminding he's a warmongering draft-dodger too.

$1:

Who the hell would want to go through the past few years, or through the next few years as one of these cowering, pessimistic, pathetic naysayers, always cringing in fear, always at the brink of despair, always flailing wildly in paroxysms of doubt, fear and anguish??? Who the hell wants to be a Leftist???

Yer just mad 'cause the left is right. Hey did you see that new report by teh national intelligende estimates. Yeah, apparently Iraq has increased terorrism. Just like those on the left said. For the last five years.

Besides, don't give yourself too much credit--when it comes to debt, draconian government interference in everyones lives and government spending you're up their with there best of the socialists. Neocons are neo-socialists.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Torture -- Gunatanamo, Abu Ghraib, black sites in Europe, and let's not forget is big favour to Canada--rendering one of our citizens to Syrian torture chambers.

They're not torturing at Guantanamo, and Abu Gharib was institutional. perps caught and prosecuted. Unfortunate, but when you hold yourself to a higher standard, it's more work.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Who the hell would want to go through the past few years, or through the next few years as one of these cowering, pessimistic, pathetic naysayers, always cringing in fear, always at the brink of despair, always flailing wildly in paroxysms of doubt, fear and anguish??? Who the hell wants to be a Leftist???

Yer just mad 'cause the left is right. Hey did you see that new report by teh national intelligende estimates. Yeah, apparently Iraq has increased terorrism. Just like those on the left said. For the last five years.

The New York Times has already been outed by the White House on that for misrepresenting a classified report.

I'm not mad. I'm guaranteed long-term to be vindicated. All I have to do until then is laugh at the Left, not a bad deal.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Besides, don't give yourself too much credit--when it comes to debt, draconian government interference in everyones lives and government spending you're up their with there best of the socialists. Neocons are neo-socialists.

Lefty.

[Zipperfish]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

They're not torturing at Guantanamo, and Abu Gharib was institutional. perps caught and prosecuted. Unfortunate, but when you hold yourself to a higher standard, it's more work.

No one independent has really been to Guantanamo Bay, so really we only have the administartion's word for it, which isn't worth much.

Abu Ghraib was not institutional. It was in fact quite common, and one of the original generals figures that abuse of Iraqis who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time was instrumental in losing this war so badly.

And then there's the black sites. Not to much doubt what's happening there. And then there is Maher Arar.

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

The New York Times has already been outed by the White House on that for misrepresenting a classified report.

You mean they printed in before the White House could spin it.

$1:

I'm not mad. I'm guaranteed long-term to be vindicated. All I have to do until then is laugh at the Left, not a bad deal.

Well that's true. As an ideologue, you have the luxury of ignoring facts.

Like the fact that things were way better under Clinton.