1 I am firmly convinced that, having achieved the world stage's spotlight for 8 years, President Clinton is suffering "spotlight" envy to the depths of his pathologically needy little soul - or what passes for a soul.
 
Does he honestly believe that people aren't aware of the REALITIES of his feckless disregard for the security and safety of the United States of America and its citizens?
 
What this is is an attempt to bolster HRC's projected run in a little over a year - a run she claims (and of course we all believe her - not) she isn't going to make.  And this time, it is a failed attempt.
 
Pathetic loser.

2 Gayle, everything the lefturds do is based on the theory that if you
tell a really big lie and repeat it often enough, people will accept it
as truth.

3 Kind of like the repeated " safer now than before " rhetoric that does not jive with a leaked homeland security report that came out in April. I never pay attention to those articles anyhows! They do require reading skills!
Fore!  L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O7

4 It is difficult to imagine folks who believe Michelle Malkin is intelligent CAN read.  Ever see Michelle off her script?-  pathetic deer in the headlights.  If she weren't a pleasant looking piece of ass, she'd be nowhere in the blogsosphere.

Gizout!

5 or " not as safe as we could be " yeah! that sound's safer!                   Fore!   L o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O 7

6 Allow me to address Gizzard in the same fashion he seems so fond of as I'm pretty sure it's all he understands:



FOAD.



There were a few who questioned the timing, but the larger part of
Congress was supportive, both left and right.  Many were miffed as
even being in the Armed Services Committee and the International
Relations Committee, they were left out of the loop and found out only
minutes before Clinton announced it to the public.  For  the
Democrats to cry constantly that Bush doesn't "reach out" to the other
side of the aisle they sure didn't have a problem with Clinton's lack
of reaching out.



And you took Trent Lott's quote out of context. In the same, response
when he questioned the timing he also said he would support a more
comprehensive approach.  He described Clinton's attempt in 1998 as
a "cursory air strike" that wouldn't achieve anything.  He also
said,  "I will support serious and sustained action but will oppose action that
does not accomplish our larger, strategic goal."



Whether or not Clinton did it to divert attention is
irrelevant.  After years of Saddams flagrant thumbing his nose at
the US and the rest of the world Clinton finally decides to lob a few
shells and run back behind the fence.  There were 7.5 years before
that in which action would have been clearly justified, but the timing
he chose was poor at best.  Clinton stated over and over that he
supported the removal of Hussein and signed the Iraq Liberation Act. 
When did he plan to do anything about it?  Never - is my
guess.  Best to just ride out his Presidency and hand the problem
to someone else.  The fact is you're defending him for attacking
for the very same reasons that Bush did.  You're just a Clinton
apologist and will use any opportunity to sneer and snipe regardless of
hypocritical it makes you look.

7 I am a Clinton apolgist?  That is HILARIOUS! - I didn't even vote for him.

Sheppards' "destruction" is nothing but a hodgepodge of bullshit, rhetoric and misinformation..  The types, degree, and discussion of counter-ops is not something one will find when using Lexis/Nexis to search.  Someone should tell Noel.  Nor, when the executive essentially gives to the ok to attempt to execute a political target, is the discussion of such made available for all to hear.

I hardly think I am the hypocrite here.  I believe we should crush whoever hit us.  Bush and his followers don't feel that way.  Osama is still cozy in a hole somewhere, provided his cursed kidneys are still functioning, and our boys are caught up in an insurrection/civil war that we essentially created, or at least allowed to happen.  Read Cobra II and tell me that Rumsfeld had any notion what the fuck he was doing when the invasion plans were drafted.

And, as for hypocrisy, didn't President DimSon recently say that a future president is going to be the one who straightens all of this out, or something to that effect?  Who knows, Halfshell... Maybe we will get lucky and have a Democrat clean up the pigstye the GOP has created once again.  Then again, not likely with Diebold in the picture, I concede.

Gizout!

8 Interesting conflation there, Gizzard.

Clinton claimed that he had done all he could regarding Bin Laden. He had fought terrorism, in the form of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. That would mean that he was presumably referring to the attacks on the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant and the cruise missile attack on Afghanistan.

What you are referencing, by contrast, are the attacks on Saddam Hussein, specifically Operation Desert Fox.

Are you suggesting that Clinton's attacks against Iraq were somehow motivated by a desire to squelch terrorism?? More to the point, that attacking Saddam Hussein is somehow related to curbing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda?

9 Lurker-

I know, I know...  When you don't have the facts, make them up, right?  Predictable.

You say "Clinton claimed he had done all he could regarding Bin Laden".

Funny part is- he didn't say that, nor did I say that he did.  If you watched the interview or read the transcript you would see where he said that he didn't do enough, because bin Laden was still alive.  

Not that I really need follow up on a queston posed with false pretense, but what the heck- The quotations I provided were in the larger context of not only the Fox Sunday News show with Matthews, but the ABC "docudrama" insinuating the "wag the dog" stories as well and the recent GOP talking points that they always demontrated solidarity with Clinton's counter-ops, which of course we know is another outright lie..  While they do interconnect, I certainly do NOT tie Iraq with Al Qaeda, thanks for asking.  Upon review I do see I wasn't clear with respect to the original quotes, thus my regrets.

Gizout!

10

Please enjoy my <a href="http://tobypetzold.com/blog/2006/09/25/richard-ben-veniste-lying-partisan-hack/">takedown</a> of Richard Ben-Veniste on his appearance on Wolf Blitzer's show this evening.

11 Gizzard:

As Lurking Observer already stated, the instances of the criticism of Clinton's timing that you are citing are for the most part NOT from Operation Infinate Reach (the attacks on the Al Queda camps in Afghanistan and the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan which occured in August) but are part of Operation Desert Fox (which occured in December of the same year).  This is just a nitpick on my part however.

I believe the obstructionism that President Clinton is referring to is with regards to the time during Operation Infinate Reach occurred (since "Getting Bin Laden is also being discussed").  Operation Infinate Reach occurred during the "Monica Lewinsky Scandal" while Operation Desert Fox was ordered the same week impeachment hearings were being conducted.  Perhaps it is just coincidence but personally I find it to be very "interesting" timing that two separate military operations like this would be occurring during two rather controversial moments in President Clinton's presidency, don't you?

12 Umm.

No, not really. It isn't like he was running for reelection, nor was the "monica lewinisky scandal" that so many zealots found so relevant such a finite episode. Billy's one of the most talented Pols of the last 200 years- he knows sex sells over everything else.

I presume you find the raising of "TERROR ALERTS" in concert with W's numbers slipping in the polls during the 2004 campaign to be "interesting" as well, did you?

rt

13 Gizzard:

First of all, lets get this straight, I am not happy with President Bush's handling of the war to date, and of his time in office, and I believe there are alot of things that could have been done better.  Secondly, polling numbers do not mean much because they can be manipulated to say anything based on the questions asked and based on the population sampled.  I think that any politician who directs his or her actions based on what the polls says is seriously lacking in leadership.  However, this is not the gist of this thread, so lets try to stay on track please.  (We were talking about former President Clinton after all...)

I do find it quite humourus that you equate "TERROR ALERTS" with acts of war against several countries simultaneously.  I do not recall executive orders to launch cruise missiles at targets in foreign countries as each "TERROR ALERT" came out.  Aside from the destruction of the pharmaceutical factory (which from what I've read  still inconclusive if it had anything to do with chemical weapons production or not), I do believe that the striking of other targets by President Clinton was justified.  I simply take issue with your comparison of the DHS setting a threat level with cruise missile attacks on other countries.  I mean, since Bush is such a "warmonger", why didn't he just lob some cruise missiles at some targets somewhere, or if sex sells and thats what good politicians do, why didn't he start a sex scandal of his own?  Isn't it pretty boring in comparison to sex scandals and stuff blowing up, to change the colours on a "TERROR ALERT"?

I also find it quite funny that you equate "numbers slipping in the polls" to lying to a grand jury thus bringing about impeachment hearings.  Though I believe his behaviour with Lewinsky was inappropriate, and holding public office means one's life is not as private as one would wish (hazard of the job no less?) there was definately a game of "gotcha" going on.  As zealous as some Republicans may have been with the Lewinsky Scandal, he could have avoided the impeachment hearings by simply telling the truth while under oath in front of a grand jury.  As well, I find it somewhat disappointing that you see nothing wrong with the President of the United States committing perjury.  We should all be holding elected officials to the highest standards of ethics.

You previously wrote:

"Billy's one of the most talented Pols of the last 200 years- he knows sex sells over everything else."

Please pardon my being crude but I did not realize that using one's authority to get one's dick wet constituted being one of the most talented politicians of the last 200 years.  I tend to think traits like honesty, integrity, and providing leadership through decisive action in tough times were traits of talented politicians.  I would include Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Churchill, President Reagan and perhaps even my Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper as being some of the more talented politicians of the last 200 years, but I guess getting felacio in the Oval Office is a more important skill in a politician to some people.  I suppose its all about priorities.

A few comments back you wrote:

"I am a Clinton apolgist?  That is HILARIOUS! - I didn't even vote for him."

Perhaps you did not vote for him but it would sure seem that you are being an apologist for his behaviour.

14 Giz, you got your plow cleaned, again. Better head back to Kos. They will all get in the circle jerk with you and Clinton there. Have fun!

15 Jesusland, let's hope your rapture follows your brain rupture. Religion may be the only thing that can "save" an imbicile such as yourself.

I suggest you ask yourself, why are you preoccupied with circle jerks. Are you gay? Are you in the closet? I really don't care, just trying to help you connect with thoughts that seem to be important to you, like mutual male masturbation.


Canforce, God, where do I start? You clearly didn't understand the TERROR ALERT reference. I haven't the time to spoonfeed you- perhaps you should just read it until you get it.

Perhaps you are a prude, or we can consider you haven't experienced much higher level social interaction, particularly in a political environment, but try to understand this- a civilized nation doesn't question a party regarding marital fidelity under oath without an injured plantiff. I am married with children and certainly don't condone Clinton's behavior, but the issue wasn't one to begin with. It was merely a hit job, designed to appeal to the stupidest and most judgemental, as well as Republicans who believe they are entitled to the White House.

As for Clinton's politcal "talent"- keep in mind immediately AFTER the impeachment proceedings his popularity level was around 60%, nearly double what DimSon's is now. If you don't recognize that, there is little else I can do with you.

Gizout!