Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld

[What is the deal? 1]

(hint...if there is no evidence to prove it, then we call that "hearsay")

I guess you could say that the notion "if we would have not been in Iraq we could have found Osama" is also hearsay then?

 

Well we can all agree on one thing. Life is precious. Thank God for Bush and his war against stem cell research.

Show me something that says Bush has a war against Stem Cell research. Just because he doesn't allow public funding of research, doesn't mean that he has a war against it.

[D_House 0]

Show me something that says Bush has a war against Stem Cell research. Just because he doesn't allow public funding of research, doesn't mean that he has a war against it.

i agree, Bush is not warring against stem cell research. You are incorrect in that he does allow public funding of embryonic stem cell research, although this funding is restricted to previously established ES cell lines.

[What is the deal? 1]

i agree, Bush is not warring against stem cell research. You are incorrect in that he does allow public funding of embryonic stem cell research, although this funding is restricted to previously established ES cell lines.

Thanks for setting me straight. My point still being the same.

[D_House 0]

Thanks for setting me straight. My point still being the same.

No problem! I'm sure this was the only time you posted something factually incorrect in a political post!

[Rude Rick 0]

No problem! I'm sure this was the only time you posted something factually incorrect in a political post!

[gocolts 300]

(hint...if there is no evidence to prove it, then we call that "hearsay")

 

No evidence?? Are you freaking kidding me???

 

Bill Clinton himself was asked about why we didn't get Osama from Sudan when he was offered to us on Larry King Live.Clinton said they offered Osama but he didn't think we had enough evidence against him.

 

 

You are even stupider than I could have imagined (I thought you might understand stupider). Let me guess, YOU have information on classified docs from other countries. Wow! you just got your a$$ handed to you and that was the most pathetic response I could imagine!

 

What a joke.You truly have no clue.

 

Even better. Now I bet you really did read these articles and they really were from a balanced/fair source as well. I bet, I just bet you no longer have links to these articles, now do you RP.

You make us fair and balanced peoples jobs too easy.

He's a Bush lover, remember. Uneducateded and stuck in the past!

 

fair and balanced

 

Who is that,NYTimes,CNN.

[footballpowers 0]

No evidence?? Are you freaking kidding me???

 

Bill Clinton himself was asked about why we didn't get Osama from Sudan when he was offered to us on Larry King Live.Clinton said they offered Osama but he didn't think we had enough evidence against him.

What a joke.You truly have no clue.

fair and balanced

 

Who is that,NYTimes,CNN.

 

 

You my "friend" are the reason people of this great country look at us hoosiers as backwood rejects. Open your mind not your mouth.

 

Bush is the suck and I am NOT a democrat. I am open minded enough to know an idiot when I see one.

[gocolts 300]

You my "friend" are the reason people of this great country look at us hoosiers as backwood rejects. Open your mind not your mouth.

 

Bush is the suck and I am NOT a democrat. I am open minded enough to know an idiot when I see one.

 

I'm not a big Bush fan either.I was just pointing out that Bill Clinton himself said the Sudan offererd up Osama.

[What is the deal? 1]

I'm not a big Bush fan either.I was just pointing out that Bill Clinton himself said the Sudan offererd up Osama.

Clinton is old news, nobody cares what he did or what kind of situation he left our country in. There too busy bashing Bush.

[Uh-huh 0]

Probably because Bush is the President NOW, whereas Clinton was Prez THEN. Clinton is old news... except to obsessed right-wingers.

 

Not to mention the country was a lot better off when Clinton left office.

 

No evidence?? Are you freaking kidding me???

 

Bill Clinton himself was asked about why we didn't get Osama from Sudan when he was offered to us on Larry King Live.Clinton said they offered Osama but he didn't think we had enough evidence against him.

What a joke.You truly have no clue.

fair and balanced

 

Who is that,NYTimes,CNN.

 

Your Sudan story is a NewsMax and Sean Hannity lie.

 

Fair and Balanced, eh?

[gocolts 300]

Probably because Bush is the President NOW, whereas Clinton was Prez THEN. Clinton is old news... except to obsessed right-wingers.

 

Not to mention the country was a lot better off when Clinton left office.

Your Sudan story is a NewsMax and Sean Hannity lie.

 

Fair and Balanced, eh?

 

It is not a lie.Nor did I get the info from Newsmax or Hannity.

 

I watched the program with my own eyes and listened with my own ears.Larry King Live.I thought everyone would at least watch Larry King when he had the great Bill Clinton on.

 

 

 

Guess not??

[Uh-huh 0]

It is not a lie.Nor did I get the info from Newsmax or Hannity.

 

I watched the program with my own eyes and listened with my own ears.Larry King Live.I thought everyone would at least watch Larry King when he had the great Bill Clinton on.

Guess not??

It's a documented lie.

[What is the deal? 1]

Not to mention the country was a lot better off when Clinton left office.

I am so glad you said that. Bush has had to clean up the mess Clinton left him.

 

First of all, let's talk about 9-11. This was completely planned under Clinton's watch.

 

You could also bring up the 11th hr pardons or the White House missing furniture...

 

I'd like to take a first look at the economy. Do you have any idea why the economy enjoyed the successes it's had? I'll let you know it wasn't because of Clinton he reaped the benefits of Reagan's tax cuts. When Reagan passed his tax cuts most organizations filtered that money back into research and development. That research and development led to technology development. That technology led to what is known as the tech bubble as many corporations and investors (during the Clinton Era) projected their growth at the rate they were. However, that growth was unsustainable and right after Clinton left people noticed this and immediately started to sell off their stocks, the markets tumbled, and it turned into a recession. Then the Enron scandal and 9-11 hit which had a further impact on our economy and the tax revenue that was associated with a good economy. Clinton did nothing to prevent this but raise taxes for the rich who are the backbone of this country because they spend and invest which are both vitally important to generating jobs.

[What is the deal? 1]

For some reason, they don't have the full transcript, but it is obvious that it was discussed...

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/03/clin...aden/index.html

 

Clinton 'full of regret' bin Laden got away

September 4, 2002 Posted: 1:15 AM EDT (0515 GMT)

 

 

 

Clinton told King that the September 11 attacks showed the world that bin Laden must be "eradicated."

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton is "full of regret" that the United States did not stop Osama bin Laden before the September 11 terrorist attacks, he told CNN Tuesday, but is confident about the end result of the U.S. war on terrorism.

 

In a wide-ranging interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Clinton said his first thought that day, after the second plane hit the World Trade Center, was: "Bin Laden did this."

 

His former adviser, Bruce Lindsey, narrated the events to Clinton, who was overseas at the time. "He said, 'How can you be sure?'"

 

"I said, 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this, and they (the Iranians) wouldn't do it because they have a country and targets. Bin Laden did it.'"

 

Realizing the al Qaeda leader was behind the attacks proved what he knew all along, he said -- that bin Laden is "smart" and has the resources to carry out his plans. But it also showed the world that bin Laden must be "completely defeated and eradicated," Clinton said.

 

"I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed, and I was full of regret that I didn't get him," he said.

 

President Bush is equally obsessed, as he should be, Clinton said, adding he has supported "everything he's done in Afghanistan." Clinton said he believes there will be future terrorist attacks but thinks the U.S. defenses will also improve.

 

"Could there be more? Of course there could be. Can we do a better job of defense? Yes, we can. Have we learned a lot from September 11? We have," Clinton said. "So I'm basically very, very confident about the long-run future of this. I just think we've got a lot of diligent, difficult work to do."

 

He said he believes bin Laden is still alive.

 

Consensus on Iraq

King then turned his attention to Iraq, asking both Clinton and former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, who was also on the program, whether the United States should attack.

 

"I think only if we not only consult with Congress, but have a vote," said Dole, who served in Congress for more than 30 years. "And then I think I would try the arms inspection one more time, but not let Iraq delay and dither and all those things."

 

Clinton agreed with Dole that the president should have congressional approval, not simply advice. And the former president indicated he favors cooperation with U.S. allies in making a decision.

 

He said he supports a new regime to replace that of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The challenge, he said, will be the lack of surprise this time around.

 

"If he has chemical and biological agents -- and I believe he does -- he will have no incentive not to use them if he knew he was going to be killed anyway and deposed," Clinton said. "He's got a lot of incentive not to use them now because he knows he'll be toast if he does."

 

The question is not whether to attack Iraq, but how, and under what circumstances, he said.

[gocolts 300]

It's a documented lie.

 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.I watched the program Larry King Live on CNN a few years ago.Bill Clinton was the guest.Larry asked him about this very thing.Bill Clinton himself said the Sudan offered up Osama,but Clinton didn't think we had enough on him to keep him in custody.You would think that the legend,The Great Bill Clinton,could have came up with something to get the guy on.......shessh

[What is the deal? 1]

where's the Libs to defend their boy Billy?

[D_House 0]

where's the Libs to defend their boy Billy?

You're right, let's impeach Clinton!

[torridjoe 48]

Who do you think we are fighting there now?

Not al-Qaeda, that's for sure. They bomb civilians. We are attacked by Iraqis. Even the Pentagon's estimate of al-Qaeda fighters is around 4% of the total resistance movement. This is a sectarian Iraqi civil war, through and through.

[Churchill610 0]

Not al-Qaeda, that's for sure. They bomb civilians. We are attacked by Iraqis. Even the Pentagon's estimate of al-Qaeda fighters is around 4% of the total resistance movement. This is a sectarian Iraqi civil war, through and through.

 

 

 

Then why do we keep capturing Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Saudis, Yemeni's, Egyptians, etc???

[Snuff 10]

Not al-Qaeda, that's for sure. They bomb civilians. We are attacked by Iraqis. Even the Pentagon's estimate of al-Qaeda fighters is around 4% of the total resistance movement. This is a sectarian Iraqi civil war, through and through.

 

And what was it before the mosque bombing?

[torridjoe 48]

And what was it before the mosque bombing?

That WAS before the mosque bombing. I assume you mean the one a few weeks ago.

 

Then why do we keep capturing Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Saudis, Yemeni's, Egyptians, etc???

 

Is that a trick question? 4% doesn't mean 0%.

[Snuff 10]

That WAS before the mosque bombing. I assume you mean the one a few weeks ago.

Is that a trick question? 4% doesn't mean 0%.

 

No terrorists in Iraq. Gotcha.

Wonder what this whole "Al Queda in Iraq" is then. And why the terrorists themselves have said Iraq is now their training grounds. hmmmm

[torridjoe 48]

No terrorists in Iraq. Gotcha.

Wonder what this whole "Al Queda in Iraq" is then. And why the terrorists themselves have said Iraq is now their training grounds. hmmmm

 

What part of "I said 4%, not zero," are you not grasping?

[mmmmm...beer 807]

What part of "I said 4%, not zero," are you not grasping?

 

 

JOOOOEE.... hey you old fat neckbeard wearing liberal commie portlandite!! Nice to see you around... theirs a post around here humping your leg... I think the boys missed you.

[parrot 789]

What part of "I said 4%, not zero," are you not grasping?

Tell us honestly you don't miss this stuff!

[Snuff 10]

What part of "I said 4%, not zero," are you not grasping?

 

You're the one that said "Not al-Qaeda, that's for sure."

[torridjoe 48]

You're the one that said "Not al-Qaeda, that's for sure."

 

..in response to who WE'RE fighting, not who's there. Obviously we are coming in contact with people loosely affiliated with a-Q, but foreign fighters are having little to nothing to do with the problems of Iraq right now.

[Snuff 10]

..in response to who WE'RE fighting, not who's there. Obviously we are coming in contact with people loosely affiliated with a-Q, but foreign fighters are having little to nothing to do with the problems of Iraq right now.

 

Agreed.

But wonder where all these suicide bombers are coming from that we see daily. That to me, is terrorism.

[torridjoe 48]

Agreed.

But wonder where all these suicide bombers are coming from that we see daily. That to me, is terrorism.

 

Sure, it is. Small numbers, big damage. But the real story is the street fighting between Sunni and Shia, particularly the Shia militia under control of people like Moqtada al-Sadr.

[What is the deal? 1]

I have talked to a few soldiers that were over there, they all said they are 100% sure that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

 

I need a link that says the Pentagon said 4% cause I am not buying it based off people who were on the ground pulling Syrians out of houses and what not.

[torridjoe 48]

I have talked to a few soldiers that were over there, they all said they are 100% sure that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

 

I need a link that says the Pentagon said 4% cause I am not buying it based off people who were on the ground pulling Syrians out of houses and what not.

 

It's been said many times. Look for it yourself. Here's a confirming piece last fall by Christian Science Monitor.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

[Rusty Syringes 478]

..in response to who WE'RE fighting, not who's there. Obviously we are coming in contact with people loosely affiliated with a-Q, but foreign fighters are having little to nothing to do with the problems of Iraq right now.

 

Much like you and your position relative to reality.

[Korben Dallas 0]

I'm not a big Bush fan either.I was just pointing out that Bill Clinton himself said the Sudan offererd up Osama.

 

 

This is true. I documented it earlier. However, At the time (pre-cole), they only had circumstantial evidence of his actions and nothing to hold him on. Yet the Clinton admin. was worried enough that they inquired. Second, (also in the 9/11 Comm Report) there was some real questions whether the offer was a legit one. Not that they made it, but that they could deliver on it. The Sudanese government is about as stable as RP. In fact, RP may very well be the Minister of Defense for Sudan.

 

Clinton specifically said that he regreted not just "doing the deal"-illegially. But that wouldn't have been practical in that environment-this was pre-blow job but Paula time and the GOP "revolution" has just occured. This was when the GOP was against world involvement.

 

I am so glad you said that. Bush has had to clean up the mess Clinton left him.

???

 

First of all, let's talk about 9-11. This was completely planned under Clinton's watch.

 

Not entirely true, but eliminating the organization that was tracking them was all Bush.

 

You could also bring up the 11th hr pardons or the White House missing furniture...

 

The first one is a classic, ever wonder why they weren't recinded? Look into Marc Rich and get back to me. That may have very well been a favor for the incoming President. It was fake outrage.

 

The second never occured, or certainly not on the scale they pretended. It was made up.

 

I'd like to take a first look at the economy. Do you have any idea why the economy enjoyed the successes it's had? I'll let you know it wasn't because of Clinton he reaped the benefits of Reagan's tax cuts. When Reagan passed his tax cuts most organizations filtered that money back into research and development. That research and development led to technology development. That technology led to what is known as the tech bubble as many corporations and investors (during the Clinton Era) projected their growth at the rate they were. However, that growth was unsustainable and right after Clinton left people noticed this and immediately started to sell off their stocks, the markets tumbled, and it turned into a recession. Then the Enron scandal and 9-11 hit which had a further impact on our economy and the tax revenue that was associated with a good economy. Clinton did nothing to prevent this but raise taxes for the rich who are the backbone of this country because they spend and invest which are both vitally important to generating jobs.

 

I started to reply, but this maybe is the most unfounded and stupid explanation of economics I have ever read. It looks like a high school eight grader wrote it. Nearly every single sentence is the opposite of even a reasonable position.

[gocolts 300]

This is true.

 

[Uh-huh 0]

 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.I watched the program Larry King Live on CNN a few years ago.Bill Clinton was the guest.Larry asked him about this very thing.Bill Clinton himself said the Sudan offered up Osama,but Clinton didn't think we had enough on him to keep him in custody.You would think that the legend,The Great Bill Clinton,could have came up with something to get the guy on.......shessh

 

I see your powers of comprehension are pretty flawed, or you apparently have selective memory. Some relevant links:

 

Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton

 

On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found "no reliable evidence to support."

 

As Media Matters for America has noted, the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002.

 

While addressing the Long Island Association's annual luncheon, Clinton said he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005

 

Here's the the 9/11 Commission statement:

These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

 

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussion, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

 

Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn over Bin Ladin to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

 

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hea...statement_5.pdf

[gocolts 300]

I see your powers of comprehension are pretty flawed, or you apparently have selective memory. Some relevant links:

Here's the the 9/11 Commission statement:

 

Say what you will.I watched it with my own eyes.Even Korben Dallas said it it was true.

 

Just because some liberal news site claims it is not true and has .org in the link,doesn't make it so.

[What is the deal? 1]

This is true. I documented it earlier. However, At the time (pre-cole), they only had circumstantial evidence of his actions and nothing to hold him on. Yet the Clinton admin. was worried enough that they inquired. Second, (also in the 9/11 Comm Report) there was some real questions whether the offer was a legit one. Not that they made it, but that they could deliver on it. The Sudanese government is about as stable as RP. In fact, RP may very well be the Minister of Defense for Sudan.

 

Clinton specifically said that he regreted not just "doing the deal"-illegially. But that wouldn't have been practical in that environment-this was pre-blow job but Paula time and the GOP "revolution" has just occured. This was when the GOP was against world involvement.

 

At least you admit this unlike others.

 

 

???

Not entirely true, but eliminating the organization that was tracking them was all Bush.

 

There is truth to it though. Bush was in the White House for only 9 months. You cannot really deny that Clinton had 7 years to shut down this threat as it rapidly expanded like the plague (from the 1st attempt on world trade).

 

 

The first one is a classic, ever wonder why they weren't recinded? Look into Marc Rich and get back to me. That may have very well been a favor for the incoming President. It was fake outrage.

 

How the hell was letting a criminal off that was evading taxes and trading illegally w/ Iran a favor to the president?

The second never occured, or certainly not on the scale they pretended. It was made up.

I really don't care if Hillary didn't clean or attempted to take some items or whatever, but this is funny.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604050002

 

Scarborough devoted entire segment to Hillary Clinton's purported lack of "housekeeping skills"

Summary: MSNBC host Joe Scarborough devoted an entire segment of Scarborough Country to purported housekeeping differences between First Lady Laura Bush and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), asking whether Clinton neglected housekeeping because she was "too busy trying to play assistant president."

On April 3, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough devoted an entire segment of Scarborough Country to purported housekeeping differences between First Lady Laura Bush and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), asking whether Clinton neglected housekeeping because she was "too busy trying to play assistant president." The segment was prompted by revelations in a book by Ronald Kessler titled Laura Bush: An Intimate Portrait of a First Lady (Doubleday Books, April 2006). Joining Scarborough on the program, NBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell reported that the "juiciest bit" of Kessler's book was that Laura Bush was " 'quietly dismayed' by the decor that the Clintons left behind in the White House." The remainder of the segment was devoted to a discussion among Scarborough; Antonia Felix, author of Laura: America's First Lady, First Mother (Adams Media Corp., 2002); and Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus about the importance of domestic concerns in the role of a first lady. Jacobus stated that "taking care of the White House and the decor and keeping it in order is basically what the first lady does," adding that when Clinton was first lady, she "didn't care" about the job and "didn't want the job" because she "wanted her husband's [former President Bill Clinton] job." Jacobus later said that Sen. Clinton "accomplished about as much as first lady as she has as senator, which is basically nothing."

 

From the April 3 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

 

SCARBOROUGH: And next here, Hillary Clinton is used to hearing Republican criticism from -- for her political work, but what about her housekeeping skills? Tonight, first lady wars -- straight ahead.

 

[...]

 

SCARBOROUGH: Did Hillary Clinton leave the White House in shambles? Well, according to a new book, first lady Laura Bush found worn and outdated furniture, frayed carpeting, and just absolutely tasteless decorations, from the Oval Office to the East Wing. Was Hillary too busy trying to play assistant president? Or is Laura too concerned with style, instead of substance?

 

We begin with somebody who has spent a fair share of time in the White House, MSNBC's chief Washington correspondent, Norah O'Donnell.

 

Norah, what you got?

 

O'DONNELL: Good evening, Joe.

 

Well, Laura Bush is very influential and immensely popular with the American public. But, unlike Hillary Clinton, she has always remained very quiet about the advice and power she wields in the White House. Well, this new book out by Ronald Kessler says that Laura Bush plays a much greater role in shaping White House policy and personnel than previously known.

 

But you mentioned it. The juiciest tidbit of all is that she was, quote, "quietly dismayed" by the decor that the Clintons left behind in the White House. This book reveals that Laura Bush thought that not only -- not only were the carpets and furnishings fraying and in disrepair, but that the Oval Office was done in loud colors, red, blue, and gold, also that the Lincoln Bedroom was outdated and needed updating.

 

But, despite her opinion of the decor, Laura Bush never said anything critical of Hillary Clinton. Still, the White House did get a huge makeover when the Bushes moved in.

 

[...]

 

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thanks a lot, Norah.

 

And here to talk about it are Antonia Felix. She's the author of Laura: America's First Lady. We also have Cheri Jacobus, a Republican strategist.

 

So, Antonia, what's going on here? Laura Bush, never critical, publicly, of anybody that I know of, and, yet, some of these sort of snarky attacks behind the scenes about Hillary Clinton's taste in decor.

 

FELIX: Yeah. It's interesting. It sounds like a rather petty remark to make about a first lady who had broken so many molds and really, I think, was on her way to transforming this whole role of first lady to bring it into the 21st century, to -- to modernize it, and to raise the bar very high for all first ladies to come.

 

So, if Hillary was -- was very busy trying to write some policy and really tackle head-on, trying to get health care for all Americans, as she was doing, maybe she was a little bit too busy to be supervising the dusting, and, you know, watching the fraying on the carpets.

 

I -- I don't think that a lot of people would argue with -- those priorities aren't -- are not real awful.

 

SCARBOROUGH: Cheri Jacobus, is this an example of Laura Bush choosing style over substance?

 

JACOBUS: Look, she knows what the job is. And Hillary Clinton probably knew and just didn't care. This is not a life-or-death situation. But the American people do care about this. And taking care of the White House and the decor and keeping it in order is basically what the first lady does.

 

Laura Bush wanted the job. Hillary Clinton didn't want the job. She wanted her husband's job. So, consequently, I don't think that the excuse that she was trying to do health care policy, when she was not elected to anything at that point to do that is really just sort of weak.

 

It just shows us a little bit more of the difference between the two first ladies. I also doubt very much that Laura Bush specifically sat down and made the criticism on Hillary about this. She merely was relaying, when she did a walk-through, what she noticed. She didn't hold a press conference --

 

SCARBOROUGH: But --

 

JACOBUS: -- or send out a press release on this. So, we might be making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I know, but Cheri, you know, the thing is, we have -- we have seen the presidents become closer as the years go by, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. But, at the same time, it -- it seems like Laura Bush's friends have made it known to anybody that wants to listen that she didn't think Hillary Clinton was a first lady the way a first lady was supposed to be.

 

JACOBUS: Well, yeah, and Laura Bush would know. She's first lady herself. And she, obviously, very well knows the predecessors to the Clintons, because it was her father-in-law and her mother-in-law. And, then, also, when her father-in-law was vice president, she saw the example that Nancy Reagan set. So, she pretty much is an expert, I would say, more than anybody.

 

She knows what a first lady goes through. She knows what the American people expect of a first lady. And she willingly and joyfully takes on that role. Hillary Clinton didn't. And I don't -- I don't think Hillary Clinton -- I -- I think she accomplished about as much as first lady as she has as senator, which is basically nothing. She has yet really to prove herself to the American people with anything, really.

 

SCARBOROUGH: You know, Antonia, when I look at these pictures of Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush, it's striking.

 

[...]

 

FELIX: When we talk about the role of first lady, and that, you know, "Hillary didn't want the job and Laura did," there's no official job description. There's nothing written down that says the first lady has to be the top hostess in Washington, who does so many dinners a year, or she has to commit herself to this particular facet of the Washington scene 20 percent at a time.

 

And, you know, there's -- there's nothing laid out by -- about that.

 

JACOBUS: There is, there is a tradition. And there's no arguing about that. There's an American tradition. And most first ladies know that. And, again, it's not a life-or-death thing.

 

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

 

JACOBUS: It's just gives us some insight into Hillary Clinton --

 

SCARBOROUGH: We're going to --

 

JACOBUS: -- which is what we will be doing for a while.

 

SCARBOROUGH: We are going to have to leave it there.

 

 

 

 

I started to reply, but this maybe is the most unfounded and stupid explanation of economics I have ever read. It looks like a high school eight grader wrote it. Nearly every single sentence is the opposite of even a reasonable position.

 

I wrote it in a hurry and it is the simple truth. Feel free to argue against, but Clinton just happened to be in the right place at the right time. The high tax rate that he had enacted did not help much either as people invested more of there money in a bubble economy rather in order to keep away from all of their money being taxed.

 

This about sums it up-

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/655239/posts

 

 

 

 

Lucky Bubble

 

As far as the economy goes, there is no doubt that Bill Clinton presided over a favorable economy and a remarkable expansion in the stock market. But remember that most of this expansion was due to the rise of the Internet and the resulting speculation on Internet stocks. Remember when the economy started to go south? That's right, just when the Internet bubble burst. Al Gore's attempt to take credit for inventing the Internet notwithstanding, nobody in their right mind would claim that the Clinton Administration was somehow responsible for the Internet boom.

 

 

But if you insist on crediting Bill Clinton with the rise of the stock market, then you must also blame him for the "irrational exuberance" that led to its collapse. You must therefore also blame him for the recession. Otherwise, you're crediting him for handing out the drinks at the party and blaming his successor--the guy who has to clean up the mess--for everyone's hangover the next day.

 

 

Getting back to my claim that Bill Clinton is a shallow man, it seems to me that someone who squanders an opportunity to achieve greatness and instead uses his power for nothing more than the satisfaction of his own wants and needs is shallow. Bill Clinton is pathologically self-absorbed, which is why he constantly found himself bungling into scandal after scandal.

 

 

Now, one may scream that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down Bill Clinton; even if you believe that nonsense, you have to wonder why Bill Clinton went out of his way to hand his enemies so much ammunition on such a regular basis. And when I say scandal, I'm not even thinking about the "lying under oath" thing, which Clinton supporters dismiss as inconsequential. I'm talking about other serious stuff, all of which is well-known to people who were paying attention, but most of which was underreported due to the media's focus on the more salacious--and therefore media-friendly--Clinton scandals.

 

 

Scandal After Scandal

 

If you'll recall: Under Bill Clinton, the White House became a glorified motel, where the Lincoln Bedroom was rented out to contributors who coughed up enough dough. Military secrets ended up in the hands of the Chinese, who laundered money that ended up in the hands of the Democratic National Committee just in time for Clinton's re-election campaign. Al Gore was dispatched to hold illegal fundraisers at Buddhist temples, where he collected money from dozens of nuns who--despite having taken vows of poverty--each managed to produce a $5,000 check for Clinton's re-election. His top fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, the current head of the aforementioned DNC, made $18,000,000 from a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, now bankrupt and under investigation for shady government contracts during the Clinton Administration. When Enron's Ken Lay was staying in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton Administration, Enron came to ask the federal government to underwrite foreign loans on 20 different occasions; on 19 of those 20 occasions, the Clinton Administration said yes, to the tune of $2 billion dollars. And let us not forget about selling presidential pardons to drug-runners and fat-cat tax-cheat felons on the lam in Europe. Or the looting of White House furniture for their new home, which is unfortunately located in my home state. And all that's without even getting into Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, or the perjury scandal.

 

 

Bill Clinton is a low-life thief, a petty swindler, and a smooth-talking scam artist more suited for Tammany Hall than the White House. But I will admit that Bill Clinton was a man of action, as long as that action involved greasing his palms (or anything other body part for that matter) or furnishing his house. Somehow, Bill Clinton found the time to conduct all of that "business", but he was too busy to take Osama bin Laden when the Sudanese government offered to hand him over to us in 1996. Think about it: we wouldn't be chasing bin Laden around the globe right now if Clinton had focused a little more on taking care of the threats against us and a little less on figuring out every conceivable way that he could cash in on his power or use it to get women.

 

 

Depends on What the Meaning of "Peace" Is

 

Which reminds me...as far as giving Clinton credit for presiding over a time of peace, what kind of peace was it? During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured. It seems to me that it's very easy to maintain the illusion of peace by ignoring the dangers that surround us. You may look back fondly at the 1990s as a time of peace, but it was a peace during which we relaxed while our enemies were getting stronger and preparing to annihilate us. That's a pretty shallow peace if you ask me.

 

 

Bill Clinton is shallow because he spoke often of his convictions but did nothing to realize them. He's shallow because he was given remarkable gifts and the opportunity to do great things with them, yet he achieved nothing substantial. In the end, his presidency amounted to little more than talk and corruption. He rarely took any action unless it somehow benefitted him. But whenever action mattered for the good of the nation, Bill Clinton was nowhere to be found. And that is why the man who spent the final days of his presidency fretting about his legacy will find it to be recorded quite accurately by history: Bill Clinton is a shallow, failed man.