| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Starkiller©" |
| Date: |
25 Sep 2006 07:01:53 AM |
| Object: |
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS |
On 24 Sep 2006 21:36:35 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:29:02 -0700, "bob9" <b@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159150451.459678.307770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ViperSpit wrote:
Bill "Woody" Clinton has given the gift of letting the American public
know
just who is stable, and who is not.]]
Thank you FoxNews and Chris Wallace !
Didn't Chris Wallace simply show himself to be a
lying-*****, GOP/right wing mouthpiece like all the
other useless f*ck Fox people who prey on dumbass,
gullible suckers like you?
Apparently, the interviewing concept needs to be explained here.
The "interviewer" [Wallace] asks questions of the "interviewee" [Clinton]
Got it?
How can the "interviewer" be a lying ***** merely by asking questions?
Common sense would indicate the only possible lying-***** would be the answers
from the interviewee.
Ah, but we are discussing common sense here.
As is typical they focus on the former presidents emotions rather than
his substance. Clinton got pissed therefore the reporter must have
done something to make him angry ergo Wallace must be a "lying *****".
Common left wing internet troll sense. LOL
See my other response, bright eyes, and then go
LOL.
-BC
Your other response shows nothing in regards to the interviewer being
a "lying *****".
You posted part of the interview where Clinton is bitching about
whatever questions he doesn't think have been asked of Bush in an
attempt to redirect and evade. Just like the left in usenet.
Don't see any proof of any lie from Wallace.
Regards
Starkiller©
"The Good Die Young......
And Pricks Live Forever."
Lewis Black
.
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS |
25 Sep 2006 07:57:57 AM |
|
|
"Starkiller©" <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mmgfh29r3mbkrbtnhsjoaubeo0pdu720c3@4ax.com...
On 24 Sep 2006 21:36:35 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:29:02 -0700, "bob9" <b@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159150451.459678.307770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ViperSpit wrote:
Bill "Woody" Clinton has given the gift of letting the American
public
know
just who is stable, and who is not.]]
Thank you FoxNews and Chris Wallace !
Didn't Chris Wallace simply show himself to be a
lying-*****, GOP/right wing mouthpiece like all the
other useless f*ck Fox people who prey on dumbass,
gullible suckers like you?
Apparently, the interviewing concept needs to be explained here.
The "interviewer" [Wallace] asks questions of the "interviewee"
[Clinton]
Got it?
How can the "interviewer" be a lying ***** merely by asking questions?
Common sense would indicate the only possible lying-***** would be the
answers
from the interviewee.
Ah, but we are discussing common sense here.
As is typical they focus on the former presidents emotions rather than
his substance. Clinton got pissed therefore the reporter must have
done something to make him angry ergo Wallace must be a "lying *****".
Common left wing internet troll sense. LOL
See my other response, bright eyes, and then go
LOL.
-BC
Your other response shows nothing in regards to the interviewer being
a "lying *****".
You posted part of the interview where Clinton is bitching about
whatever questions he doesn't think have been asked of Bush in an
attempt to redirect and evade. Just like the left in usenet.
Don't see any proof of any lie from Wallace.
Geez, what do you need for proof, an invitation? Wallace lied and tried to
lie. Wallace the Weasel tried to move up to slick from door mat and didn't
make it since he was up against one of the better politicians of our age.
Wallace tried to ask stilted question of the pres and got his but handed to
him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS |
25 Sep 2006 10:40:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:01:53 -0500, Starkiller©
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Sep 2006 21:36:35 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:29:02 -0700, "bob9" <b@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159150451.459678.307770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ViperSpit wrote:
Bill "Woody" Clinton has given the gift of letting the American public
know
just who is stable, and who is not.]]
Thank you FoxNews and Chris Wallace !
Didn't Chris Wallace simply show himself to be a
lying-*****, GOP/right wing mouthpiece like all the
other useless f*ck Fox people who prey on dumbass,
gullible suckers like you?
Apparently, the interviewing concept needs to be explained here.
The "interviewer" [Wallace] asks questions of the "interviewee" [Clinton]
Got it?
How can the "interviewer" be a lying ***** merely by asking questions?
Common sense would indicate the only possible lying-***** would be the answers
from the interviewee.
Ah, but we are discussing common sense here.
As is typical they focus on the former presidents emotions rather than
his substance. Clinton got pissed therefore the reporter must have
done something to make him angry ergo Wallace must be a "lying *****".
Common left wing internet troll sense. LOL
See my other response, bright eyes, and then go
LOL.
-BC
Your other response shows nothing in regards to the interviewer being
a "lying *****".
You posted part of the interview where Clinton is bitching about
whatever questions he doesn't think have been asked of Bush in an
attempt to redirect and evade. Just like the left in usenet.
Don't see any proof of any lie from Wallace.
apparently your analytical skills are deficient.....Wallace lied when
he both inferred and directly replied ....he had held the Necons feet
to the fire on the
Cole and on dispatching Bin Laden.as he was Clinton...he never had
done it....
He also told Clinton he would concentrate the interview on Clinton's
humanitarian work....When Wallace switched to a gotcha interview
concentrating on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden....Clinton
understandably...got pissed. America was the better for it....give
'em hell Bill.
Starkiller....you are reeking Blind ideology....lacking
objectivity............
even if you were right about this interview.....defending Fox anytime
is ignorance or obfuscation. Fox's constant pimping for the
military-industrial complex and the Religious Right....makes the
network a propaganda instrument...not a news organization serving a
democracy......
Fox deserves disdain any and all times....they are traitors to
America.....
Regards
Starkiller©
"The Good Die Young......
And Pricks Live Forever."
Lewis Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starkiller©" |
|
| Title: Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS |
26 Sep 2006 07:15:37 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:40:27 GMT, Carl
<CarlSwanson@nospamfrontiernet.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:01:53 -0500, Starkiller©
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Sep 2006 21:36:35 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:29:02 -0700, "bob9" <b@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159150451.459678.307770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ViperSpit wrote:
Bill "Woody" Clinton has given the gift of letting the American public
know
just who is stable, and who is not.]]
Thank you FoxNews and Chris Wallace !
Didn't Chris Wallace simply show himself to be a
lying-*****, GOP/right wing mouthpiece like all the
other useless f*ck Fox people who prey on dumbass,
gullible suckers like you?
Apparently, the interviewing concept needs to be explained here.
The "interviewer" [Wallace] asks questions of the "interviewee" [Clinton]
Got it?
How can the "interviewer" be a lying ***** merely by asking questions?
Common sense would indicate the only possible lying-***** would be the answers
from the interviewee.
Ah, but we are discussing common sense here.
As is typical they focus on the former presidents emotions rather than
his substance. Clinton got pissed therefore the reporter must have
done something to make him angry ergo Wallace must be a "lying *****".
Common left wing internet troll sense. LOL
See my other response, bright eyes, and then go
LOL.
-BC
Your other response shows nothing in regards to the interviewer being
a "lying *****".
You posted part of the interview where Clinton is bitching about
whatever questions he doesn't think have been asked of Bush in an
attempt to redirect and evade. Just like the left in usenet.
Don't see any proof of any lie from Wallace.
apparently your analytical skills are deficient.....Wallace lied when
he both inferred and directly replied ....he had held the Necons feet
to the fire on the
Cole and on dispatching Bin Laden.as he was Clinton...he never had
done it....
He also told Clinton he would concentrate the interview on Clinton's
humanitarian work....When Wallace switched to a gotcha interview
concentrating on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden....Clinton
understandably...got pissed. America was the better for it....give
'em hell Bill.
Starkiller....you are reeking Blind ideology....lacking
objectivity............
even if you were right about this interview.....defending Fox anytime
is ignorance or obfuscation. Fox's constant pimping for the
military-industrial complex and the Religious Right....makes the
network a propaganda instrument...not a news organization serving a
democracy......
Horse *****. The ***** got asked a question that is asked all
the damn time and he lost his ***** over it. If George Bush had said
the same thing as Clinton. "I failed", you assholes would be all over
it like stink on *****. Why the hell should Bush's feet be held to the
fire over an attack that happened in the previous administration?
Like Clinton you try to evade. Clinton is the one that sat and did
***** about the Cole. You all want to blame Bush not only for 9/11 but
for incidents occuring before he even took office. Another reason
Wallace hasn't asked Bush the same questions might also be that he
hasn't interviewed the President. He did interview Rice and without
"kid gloves" http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48297.htm
Although he didn't ask about her about the demoting of Clarke which
most folks don't care that much about in the first place.
And just how does asking a former president any question make one a
"propaganda machine"? Whenever Bush has a news conference or an
interview and someone throws ***** out of left field at him you all
think it's just great so your own partisan bias betrays you.
Poor little libs boy got his little feeling hurt 'cause he didn't get
his ***** kissed and you all act just like him.
All this ***** coming from the same people that swallowed the Dan
Rather fake documents hook line and sinker and still wanted to believe
it even after it was disclosed that they were fake.
Yeah yeah sure sure, ya'll keep digging.
..
Fox deserves disdain any and all times....they are traitors to
America.....
Regards
Starkiller©
"The Good Die Young......
And Pricks Live Forever."
Lewis Black
Regards
Starkiller©
"The Good Die Young......
And Pricks Live Forever."
Lewis Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Cunningham" |
|
| Title: Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS |
26 Sep 2006 08:20:00 AM |
|
|
"Starkiller©" <NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f5ih2t9vqu5sc6rm9ndnvigcekh6qsj6c@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:40:27 GMT, Carl
<CarlSwanson@nospamfrontiernet.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:01:53 -0500, Starkiller©
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Sep 2006 21:36:35 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:29:02 -0700, "bob9" <b@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159150451.459678.307770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ViperSpit wrote:
Bill "Woody" Clinton has given the gift of letting the American
public
know
just who is stable, and who is not.]]
Thank you FoxNews and Chris Wallace !
Didn't Chris Wallace simply show himself to be a
lying-*****, GOP/right wing mouthpiece like all the
other useless f*ck Fox people who prey on dumbass,
gullible suckers like you?
Apparently, the interviewing concept needs to be explained here.
The "interviewer" [Wallace] asks questions of the "interviewee"
[Clinton]
Got it?
How can the "interviewer" be a lying ***** merely by asking questions?
Common sense would indicate the only possible lying-***** would be the
answers
from the interviewee.
Ah, but we are discussing common sense here.
As is typical they focus on the former presidents emotions rather than
his substance. Clinton got pissed therefore the reporter must have
done something to make him angry ergo Wallace must be a "lying *****".
Common left wing internet troll sense. LOL
See my other response, bright eyes, and then go
LOL.
-BC
Your other response shows nothing in regards to the interviewer being
a "lying *****".
You posted part of the interview where Clinton is bitching about
whatever questions he doesn't think have been asked of Bush in an
attempt to redirect and evade. Just like the left in usenet.
Don't see any proof of any lie from Wallace.
apparently your analytical skills are deficient.....Wallace lied when
he both inferred and directly replied ....he had held the Necons feet
to the fire on the
Cole and on dispatching Bin Laden.as he was Clinton...he never had
done it....
He also told Clinton he would concentrate the interview on Clinton's
humanitarian work....When Wallace switched to a gotcha interview
concentrating on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden....Clinton
understandably...got pissed. America was the better for it....give
'em hell Bill.
Starkiller....you are reeking Blind ideology....lacking
objectivity............
even if you were right about this interview.....defending Fox anytime
is ignorance or obfuscation. Fox's constant pimping for the
military-industrial complex and the Religious Right....makes the
network a propaganda instrument...not a news organization serving a
democracy......
Horse *****. The ***** got asked a question that is asked all
the damn time and he lost his ***** over it. If George Bush had said
the same thing as Clinton. "I failed", you assholes would be all over
it like stink on *****. Why the hell should Bush's feet be held to the
fire over an attack that happened in the previous administration?
Like Clinton you try to evade. Clinton is the one that sat and did
***** about the Cole. You all want to blame Bush not only for 9/11 but
for incidents occuring before he even took office. Another reason
Wallace hasn't asked Bush the same questions might also be that he
hasn't interviewed the President. He did interview Rice and without
"kid gloves" http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48297.htm
Although he didn't ask about her about the demoting of Clarke which
most folks don't care that much about in the first place.
And just how does asking a former president any question make one a
"propaganda machine"? Whenever Bush has a news conference or an
interview and someone throws ***** out of left field at him you all
think it's just great so your own partisan bias betrays you.
Poor little libs boy got his little feeling hurt 'cause he didn't get
his ***** kissed and you all act just like him.
All this ***** coming from the same people that swallowed the Dan
Rather fake documents hook line and sinker and still wanted to believe
it even after it was disclosed that they were fake.
Yeah yeah sure sure, ya'll keep digging.
.
Star, get it straight, Clinton ate Wallace the Whiners lunch. Wallace and
the script writers thought they would ambush Clinton but he was waiting for
them. The results weren't pretty since Wallace is a cowering little toady.
Demotion here he comes!
Now get straight with us. The Bushies have polled on every thing that Bush
says. Every thing. Rove polls fanatically on everything. Bush has never
said an un-polled thing since he started his run for the white house.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS |
26 Sep 2006 09:56:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:15:37 -0500, Starkiller©
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:40:27 GMT, Carl
<CarlSwanson@nospamfrontiernet.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:01:53
even if you were right about this interview.....defending Fox anytime
is ignorance or obfuscation. Fox's constant pimping for the
military-industrial complex and the Religious Right....makes the
network a propaganda instrument...not a news organization serving a
democracy......
Horse *****. The ***** got asked a question that is asked all
the damn time and he lost his ***** over it. If George Bush had said
the same thing as Clinton. "I failed", you assholes would be all over
it like stink on *****. Why the hell should Bush's feet be held to the
fire over an attack that happened in the previous administration?
Like Clinton you try to evade. Clinton is the one that sat and did
***** about the Cole. You all want to blame Bush not only for 9/11 but
for incidents occuring before he even took office. Another reason
Wallace hasn't asked Bush the same questions might also be that he
hasn't interviewed the President. He did interview Rice and without
"kid gloves" http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48297.htm
Although he didn't ask about her about the demoting of Clarke which
most folks don't care that much about in the first place.
And just how does asking a former president any question make one a
"propaganda machine"? Whenever Bush has a news conference or an
interview and someone throws ***** out of left field at him you all
think it's just great so your own partisan bias betrays you.
Poor little libs boy got his little feeling hurt 'cause he didn't get
his ***** kissed and you all act just like him.
All this ***** coming from the same people that swallowed the Dan
Rather fake documents hook line and sinker and still wanted to believe
it even after it was disclosed that they were fake.
Yeah yeah sure sure, ya'll keep digging.
of course I detest Bush...."somebody give him a ***** so we can
impeach him"...
that Bush_Rove _Hughes have kept all Bush traveling speeches....purged
and closed to dissent is a matter of record. What kind of traitor are
you? An ideologue or gullible minion?. As a former Republican...I
take no pleasure in labeling the New Republican as a purveyor of:
misinformation
unbridled greed
censorship
militarism
deficits
bribery
extortion
retribution
theocracy
racism
corporatism
imperialism
cronyism
incompetence
The Democrats are not the issue...they are proven the least of the two
evils. Read John Dean, Pete Peterson, Richard Clarke, Mark Rich,
Seymour Hersh, Dwight D Eisenhower, Paul O'Neill
a previous poster said the Democrats are the same. As bad as they are
no thinking objectivist has seriously labeled the Democrats any of the
following:
the greediest among us
using war for fearmongering
censors
propagandists
militarists
imperialists
promoters of deficits
retributionists
theocrats
racists
corporatists
.
Fox deserves disdain any and all times....they are traitors to
America.....
that Fox News is a propaganda organization is flat out an unarguable
fact....the first to use public video bandwidth....
You say CBS or the New York Times was a propaganda organization? What
crap...we all know corporations control the MSM...and .the job of the
MSM is to hold governments feet to the fire regardless of who is in
office. Some do it very poorly...like the N Y Times and their agent
Judith Miller. When the WhiteHouse emails talking points to MSM
talking heads....Orwell's 1984 is HERE! When a political party OWNS a
network...uses it to squelch truth, ..unabashedly, like Fox...that
party is a traitor to America.
If the Republican Party had not been taken over by the Christian
Right... the military-industrial complex could have been held at bay
by the Republican Moderate. There are no moderates left ...they have
been purged by the ONE DOZEN kingmakers that control the GOP..with the
exception of a few....Snowe, Specter...even McCain and Hagel and
Graham cannot be considered moderates...
The GOP... and coalition of the greediest among us, the bigots and the
racists, the military-industrial complex....and the "religious
right"..they have no social redeeming value.
You want to talk about "Just in time for the elections"...then talk
about the unending, almost daily travels of Bush...fearmongering... or
th e oil companies cutting gas prices because their government agents
are at risk from losing power.
WAKE UP...always speak to power and right now...read Keith Olbermann
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/olbermanns-special-comment-are-yours-the-actions-of-a-true-american/
Olbermann’s Special Comment: Are YOURS the actions of a true American?
By: Nicole Belle on Monday, September 25th, 2006 at 6:30 PM - PDT
Keith pulled no punches and launched another smack down on Bush and
FOX News…
Video - WMV Video - QT
And finally tonight, a Special Comment about President Clinton’s
interview. The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong. It
is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a
monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President’s "portable public
chorus" has described his predecessor’s tone as "crazed."
Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by
an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda;
the nation’s "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda
company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit. Nonetheless.
The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have
done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the
current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill
Osama Bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all
of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months
to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful
and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as
courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as
liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before
9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its
predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled
"Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration… did… not… try.—
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current
administration, and in particular the President, has been given the
greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance, in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs
— some of them, 17 years old — before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for — if not the Great
Depression itself — then the disastrous economic steps he took in the
immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the
Civil War — though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as
1832.
But not this President.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one
would think someone else had been President on September 11th, 2001 —
or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the
Executive.
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps
we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up
takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except… for this:
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that
he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his,
and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without
conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to
make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst
presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by
proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News, Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: The very same weekend the National Intelligence
Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent
failure it is — not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it!
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and
its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired —
but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the
lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the
virtuous and reward the useless.
And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for
the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the
question.
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth un-told… about this administration’s
negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about Bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I — in one moment
surrendered all my credibility as a journalist — and been irredeemably
humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career
selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path
to 9/11."
Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply
put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr.
Bush’s new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica
Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this
slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it — who
try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through
entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews —
have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for
Bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense — why did these
same people not applaud him for having bombed Bin Laden’s camps in
Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20th of that year? For mentioning Bin
Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag
The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri — the future Attorney General
— echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the
Lewinsky witch-hunt — who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two
years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the
counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan,
who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early
1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them… in order to strangle us with the trivia that was…
"All Monica All The Time"?
Who… distracted whom?
This is, of course, where — as is inevitable — Mr. Bush and his
henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three
administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s
all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to
face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully
manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton… but by the
same people who got you… elected President.
Thus instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in
office on 9/11 and the lost months before it… we have your sleazy and
sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently redd
the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight
months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since
— a statement that might range anywhere from Zero, to One Hundred
Percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to
mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about
what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush — you got the name of the
supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles… wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us
have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months
and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be the textbook definition… Sir, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the
truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair — writing as
George Orwell — gave us in the novel "1984."
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as
familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not
interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power…
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one
makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is
torture. The object of power… is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the
far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global
Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union
address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence. He might
well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves — and then… we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps
enabled us, even at this late and bleak date… to save… our… country.
—
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush…
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done, to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us — then leveraged that failure, to justify a
purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more
American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your
predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture —
which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to
water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the
world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone
advocate.And there it is, sir:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
I’m K.O., good night, and good luck.
Regards
Starkiller©
"The Good Die Young......
And Pricks Live Forever."
Lewis Black
Regards
Starkiller©
"The Good Die Young......
And Pricks Live Forever."
Lewis Black
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BC" |
|
| Title: Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS |
26 Sep 2006 08:18:24 AM |
|
|
Starkiller=A9 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:40:27 GMT, Carl
<CarlSwanson@nospamfrontiernet.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:01:53 -0500, Starkiller=A9
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Sep 2006 21:36:35 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:
Starkiller=A9 wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:29:02 -0700, "bob9" <b@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159150451.459678.307770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ViperSpit wrote:
Bill "Woody" Clinton has given the gift of letting the American =
public
know
just who is stable, and who is not.]]
Thank you FoxNews and Chris Wallace !
Didn't Chris Wallace simply show himself to be a
lying-*****, GOP/right wing mouthpiece like all the
other useless f*ck Fox people who prey on dumbass,
gullible suckers like you?
Apparently, the interviewing concept needs to be explained here.
The "interviewer" [Wallace] asks questions of the "interviewee" [Cl=
inton]
Got it?
How can the "interviewer" be a lying ***** merely by asking questions?
Common sense would indicate the only possible lying-***** would be th=
e answers
from the interviewee.
Ah, but we are discussing common sense here.
As is typical they focus on the former presidents emotions rather th=
an
his substance. Clinton got pissed therefore the reporter must have
done something to make him angry ergo Wallace must be a "lying *****".
Common left wing internet troll sense. LOL
See my other response, bright eyes, and then go
LOL.
-BC
Your other response shows nothing in regards to the interviewer being
a "lying *****".
You posted part of the interview where Clinton is bitching about
whatever questions he doesn't think have been asked of Bush in an
attempt to redirect and evade. Just like the left in usenet.
Don't see any proof of any lie from Wallace.
apparently your analytical skills are deficient.....Wallace lied when
he both inferred and directly replied ....he had held the Necons feet
to the fire on the
Cole and on dispatching Bin Laden.as he was Clinton...he never had
done it....
He also told Clinton he would concentrate the interview on Clinton's
humanitarian work....When Wallace switched to a gotcha interview
concentrating on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden....Clinton
understandably...got pissed. America was the better for it....give
'em hell Bill.
Starkiller....you are reeking Blind ideology....lacking
objectivity............
even if you were right about this interview.....defending Fox anytime
is ignorance or obfuscation. Fox's constant pimping for the
military-industrial complex and the Religious Right....makes the
network a propaganda instrument...not a news organization serving a
democracy......
Horse *****. The ***** got asked a question that is asked all
the damn time and he lost his ***** over it. If George Bush had said
the same thing as Clinton. "I failed", you assholes would be all over
it like stink on *****. Why the hell should Bush's feet be held to the
fire over an attack that happened in the previous administration?
Like Clinton you try to evade. Clinton is the one that sat and did
***** about the Cole. You all want to blame Bush not only for 9/11 but
for incidents occuring before he even took office. Another reason
Wallace hasn't asked Bush the same questions might also be that he
hasn't interviewed the President. He did interview Rice and without
"kid gloves" http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48297.htm
Although he didn't ask about her about the demoting of Clarke which
most folks don't care that much about in the first place.
And just how does asking a former president any question make one a
"propaganda machine"? Whenever Bush has a news conference or an
interview and someone throws ***** out of left field at him you all
think it's just great so your own partisan bias betrays you.
Poor little libs boy got his little feeling hurt 'cause he didn't get
his ***** kissed and you all act just like him.
You seemed to have missed my other post on this
thread -- Clinton asked Wallace a question in return
that Wallace lied about, or at the very least tried to
weasel out of:
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to
know how many people in the Bush administration you asked
this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush
administration you asked: Why didn't you do anything about
the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you
fire ***** Clarke? I want to know...
WALLACE: We asked...
CLINTON:...
WALLACE: Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?
CLINTON: I don't believe you ask them that.
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of...
CLINTON: You didn't ask that did you? Tell the truth.
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth.
WALLACE: I...with Iraq and Afghanistan there's plenty
of stuff to ask.
CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting
up because you were going to get a lot of criticism from
your viewers because Rupert Murdoch is going to get a
lot of criticism from your viewers for supporting my work
on climate change. And you came here under false
pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking
about...
WALLACE: [laughs]
He better laugh -- Wallace has NEVER asked any Bush
person about the Cole:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/23/wallace-cole
Rice was asked about the Cole one time, but not by
Fox News -- it was by the 9/11 Commission. Go
look towards the bottom of this page to see what she
said:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html
All this ***** coming from the same people that swallowed the Dan
Rather fake documents hook line and sinker and still wanted to believe
it even after it was disclosed that they were fake.
Really? Those Killiian memos were proven fake? I
know a few things about them, and it has turned out
that they were likely created on a Diablo Daisywheel
printer, which was made beginning in 1969, common
by 1972, and obsolete by the mid-late 80's. They were
so common for high quality printing that their code set,
including a "proportional print mode," were include in
most of the early non-HP laser printers. It's also turned
out that you *can't* really replicate *all* of the memos
very well, or even that easily in Word, despite the
likes of Little Green Footballs taking the easiest one
to do, the CYA one, and using that to claim or strongly
imply that the same trick will work with all the others.
(Nope -- try it.) Also, it turns out that all the other
claims to how the memos had to have been forged
regarding Staudt (who retired as a general, and we
all know how uninfluential retired generals are),
formatting (the memos exactly matched Air Force
recommendations for formatting such documents)
and terminology (the Air National Guard is not quite
the same as the regular Guard since the former is
under the juristiction of the Air Force, which uses
terms like "billets"), how Bush met all his point
requirements (he was actuaolly 10 short for his last
year), and that there were no other proportionally
printed records (ignoring the fact that memos are
not official records and hance are handled differently,
there is indeed one proportionally printed official
record -- but it was easy to miss since it was wasn't
released until Sept. 24, 2004 -- literally just a couple
of days after CBS backed away from authenticating
the memos. I'm sure that was just an innocent
coincidence, even though it was suppose to have
been released much, MUCH earlier...) were likewise
all BS nonsense. The contents of the memos
matched up perfectly down to the smallest detail
with DoD docs covering the same issues.
What, you didn't know any of this stuff? Surely
the "liberal media" would have jumped all over such
things since everyone knows how much they hate
Bush.
Here, go amuse yourself:
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/bush_records
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf
-BC
.
|
|
|
| User: "NoNoBadDog!" |
|
| Title: Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS |
26 Sep 2006 12:28:55 PM |
|
|
"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159276704.733123.243670@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Starkiller© wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:40:27 GMT, Carl
<CarlSwanson@nospamfrontiernet.net> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:01:53 -0500, Starkiller©
<NoSpam.SKS_SKanz@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Sep 2006 21:36:35 -0700, "BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote:
Starkiller© wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:29:02 -0700, "bob9" <b@hotmail.com> wrote:
"BC" <callmebc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159150451.459678.307770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ViperSpit wrote:
Bill "Woody" Clinton has given the gift of letting the American
public
know
just who is stable, and who is not.]]
Thank you FoxNews and Chris Wallace !
Didn't Chris Wallace simply show himself to be a
lying-*****, GOP/right wing mouthpiece like all the
other useless f*ck Fox people who prey on dumbass,
gullible suckers like you?
Apparently, the interviewing concept needs to be explained here.
The "interviewer" [Wallace] asks questions of the "interviewee"
[Clinton]
Got it?
How can the "interviewer" be a lying ***** merely by asking questions?
Common sense would indicate the only possible lying-***** would be the
answers
from the interviewee.
Ah, but we are discussing common sense here.
As is typical they focus on the former presidents emotions rather
than
his substance. Clinton got pissed therefore the reporter must have
done something to make him angry ergo Wallace must be a "lying *****".
Common left wing internet troll sense. LOL
See my other response, bright eyes, and then go
LOL.
-BC
Your other response shows nothing in regards to the interviewer being
a "lying *****".
You posted part of the interview where Clinton is bitching about
whatever questions he doesn't think have been asked of Bush in an
attempt to redirect and evade. Just like the left in usenet.
Don't see any proof of any lie from Wallace.
apparently your analytical skills are deficient.....Wallace lied when
he both inferred and directly replied ....he had held the Necons feet
to the fire on the
Cole and on dispatching Bin Laden.as he was Clinton...he never had
done it....
He also told Clinton he would concentrate the interview on Clinton's
humanitarian work....When Wallace switched to a gotcha interview
concentrating on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden....Clinton
understandably...got pissed. America was the better for it....give
'em hell Bill.
Starkiller....you are reeking Blind ideology....lacking
objectivity............
even if you were right about this interview.....defending Fox anytime
is ignorance or obfuscation. Fox's constant pimping for the
military-industrial complex and the Religious Right....makes the
network a propaganda instrument...not a news organization serving a
democracy......
Horse *****. The ***** got asked a question that is asked all
the damn time and he lost his ***** over it. If George Bush had said
the same thing as Clinton. "I failed", you assholes would be all over
it like stink on *****. Why the hell should Bush's feet be held to the
fire over an attack that happened in the previous administration?
Like Clinton you try to evade. Clinton is the one that sat and did
***** about the Cole. You all want to blame Bush not only for 9/11 but
for incidents occuring before he even took office. Another reason
Wallace hasn't asked Bush the same questions might also be that he
hasn't interviewed the President. He did interview Rice and without
"kid gloves" http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48297.htm
Although he didn't ask about her about the demoting of Clarke which
most folks don't care that much about in the first place.
And just how does asking a former president any question make one a
"propaganda machine"? Whenever Bush has a news conference or an
interview and someone throws ***** out of left field at him you all
think it's just great so your own partisan bias betrays you.
Poor little libs boy got his little feeling hurt 'cause he didn't get
his ***** kissed and you all act just like him.
You seemed to have missed my other post on this
thread -- Clinton asked Wallace a question in return
that Wallace lied about, or at the very least tried to
weasel out of:
How did Wallace Lie?
Bobby
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
| Re: YEP, JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS
Bush plans troopr withdrawal just in time for november elections
Just in time for elections, Republicans campaign on fear
Artficial effect of Bush tax cuts wanes just in time for the elections
Saddam verdict just in time for Sunday news shows -- coincidence?
It's now just a matter of time, Bubba
AWOL Bush sez 'Just give Iraq war more time'. 3,728 American troops are dead
|
|
|
