Clinton freaks out!

[niftydrifty]

To easyt65

easyt65, you may claim victory if you want. I give up. I did post links, for example, the article about the National Archives staff exonerating Berger. look again. And the documents were only copies, according to more than one article. You may choose to point to wording, and only believe the articles that are less specific. So, indeed, Paul Simon has got you nailed. disregard the rest. when I say, "I'm not so sure" ... I'm saying so in the face of conflicting information. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." This is you, to a tee. It isn't me, when I don't accept the word of a reporter over evidence. Evidence which I've posted in links. It's all there. and I'm including still more. so read on. I'm generously doing this all in an effort to help you.

regarding the pants, I'd like to remind you about what you actually said earlier in the thread:

Even after he is gone, we still have had to endure several scandals, my favorite being Sandy Berger stealing and stuffing classified federal documents down his pants in order to take home and shred the evidence of what a horrible job he had done at foreign policy and in the war against islamic Extremists that began on his watch and grew unchecked out of control!

Yeah, some great 8 years! From now on, when anyone mentions Clinton and 'legacy' in the same breath, I will forevermore think of Clinton's legacy being the TRUTH stuffed down someone's pants only to be hidden, stolen, and shredded for the sake of Bill Clinton's own ego!

Oh yeah, Clinton brough a LOT more honesty, integrity, dignity, respect, and security to America! Try scandal, lies, deceit, treason, immorality, cowardice, humiliation, degredation, selfishness, murder, theft, and weakness!?

Now I was laughing about this weeks ago. and I'm still laughing now. and I've pointed out over and over how the documents weren't "down his pants" and that the documents weren't originals. and I've posted a link showing that nothing original was lost, and nothing was withheld from the 9/11 commission. I've posted links, and evidence. Here they are again.

=====

"BERGER CLEARED OF WITHHOLDING MATERIAL FROM 9/11 COMMISSION"
The Wall Street Journal
Section A; Page 6, Column 1
BY SCOT J PALTROW
July 30, 2004, Friday

Link.

[The WSJ requires membership, so here's an excerpt:]

"National Archives officials find former Clinton administration National Security Adviser Samuel Berger did not remove any original documents from archives and nothing Berger reviewed was withheld from 9/11 Commission; several prominent Republicans had accused Berger of trying to conceal documents that were potentially damaging to Clinton's record."

=====

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64379-2004Jul20.html

from the above link:

"The documents that were removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals."

=====

I've been extraordinarily generous to you, easyt65. (and to TOT).

you say, "while you posted NO links to support this." I have, repeatedly.

you say, "you will read how there are documents MISSING, as in never to be seen again." ... and if you would try to do something about your own cognitive dissonance and believe that I have pasted links, you would learn that the documents were copies. Man, is evidence that doesn't jive with your cherished beliefs, invisible to you?

you say, "No one is going to dissuade or distract you with facts from your own thoughts and beliefs! You are not just going to take the word of a reporter, or an eye witness, or an investigator about what happened!" just keep making stuff up, easyt! As for me however, I am not so sure about your article. I'm not so sure, not because I'm a Lib. I'm not so sure, because there is evidence that the incoming administration WAS briefed. But, LO and behold! some news reporter says they weren't. again, you believe what you want to believe, and disregard the rest. I, and other sensible people, liberal, conservative, or whatever, remain skeptical, and seek the truth, and make conclusions based upon evidence.

I can tell you that evidence exists that the Bush administration was briefed, and you laugh about it. You won't accept my word, (or my previous examples and links). Well, okay, how about this one? Is this good enough for you?

"After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the Clinton Administration on many national security issues during the transition. The President-elect and I were briefed by George Tenet on terrorism and on the al-Qaida network. Members of Sandy Berger's NSC staff briefed me, along with other members of the new national security team, on counterterrorism and al-Qaida." - Condi Rice, April 8, 2004

Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040408.html

from your link:

We now know the documents verified that the Clinton administration never briefed the Bush administration on terrorism as alleged.

so, easyt, here we are confronted with a member of the Bush Administration, the then National Security Advisor contradicting a journalist. Rice has lied before, so I say I'm not so sure about all of this. Because I want to remain objective. You however, obviously, choose to believe what you want to believe and disregard the rest.

good luck, easyt65. I won't waste any more of my time with this, your fascination with Berger's pants, the central issue for debate, according to you, when the topic is the Wallace/Clinton interview. did Clinton go crazy during the interview? easyt65 could care less what Clinton says! hold on while he tells you all about Sandy's pants!

easyt, do let me know how the GOP probe goes! I'll be holding my breath to hear all about how it contradicts what the National Archives staff have to say about their own documents on their own premises.

 

[niftydrifty]

to TOT

and as for my other wingnut friend, TOT, all I can say is: my oh my oh my.

Well you are wrong he didn't remove copies he removed actual archive material it will all come out in the investigation

This is amazing. According to TOT, I am wrong, because of something that TOT assumes will be revealed in future! TOT, I'd like to borrow your crystal ball sometime! Talk about some solid evidence!! I do believe this may just be the weakest argument I've ever seen in my life.

like my fruitless lessons in logic with easyt, I could talk all day about what semantics is (generally speaking it's the study of meanings of words), and TOT will obviously never get it. If TOT makes a logical error, for example, misunderstanding that a specific group of people that happen to be Republicans isn't the whole GOP, well that's a logical error. Or a reading comprehension problem. Or it could even be brain damage. but it's not semantics.

here's another example. Tot says that the exact opposite of "conservative republicans," and "Bush's neo-cons," saying that Clinton was too obsessed with OBL, would be that they they were in full support of going after OBL. TOT, obviously, the exact opposite of calling someone obsessed would be to say that they are not obsessed. this is a logical error on your part, and has nothing to do with semantics. and, nevermind that Clinton was half talking about the Bush administration. and, also, keep in mind that your "full support" came from members of Congress, and that the "full support" was only in a couple instances, not in every way that Clinton sought to fight terrorism.

I don't expect TOT or easyt65 to believe it, because here are a few quotes that contradict their already-formed conclusions, some instances where it has been stated elsewhere that Conservative Republicans or Bush's neo-cons thought that Clinton was overly obsessed with bin Laden or fighting terrorism in general. Please note, fellas, that I haven't altered the wording to try to slip away from my earlier claims, as easyt65 and TOT often have in this thread.

“The only major criticism I have [of Clinton] is the obsession with Osama, which has made him stronger.” - Robert Oakley (http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/01/15/clinton/index_np.html?pn=1)

"Some members of the outgoing Administration got the sense that the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism. 'It was clear,' says one, 'that this was not the same priority to them that it was to us.'" Link: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story4.html

"No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States." - Paul Wolfowitz, as relayed by Richard Clarke

and here's another link, the one with the info that has a psychic hold on you wingnuts: http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6591 (but you should, uh, and I emphasize should, realize) this link focuses on members of Congresses response to one bombing, and says nothing about the neo-cons, like Wolfowitz. this link (http://newsbusters.org/node/7869) is equally, or perhaps more, blatantly disingenuous. It is entirely possible that Conservative Republicans could think that Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden, but still support one (1) missile strike. after all, many Republicans in congress accused Clinton of "Wagging the Dog," in response to Clinton's anti-terror actions. this is effectively belittling the action, or the threat that bin Laden posed. it can also be taken as a claiming a (wrongly-placed) obsession. when confronted with evidence that contradicts, even if just a little bit, I remain skeptical. I don't believe what I wish to believe and disregard the rest, as y'all do.

and btw, TOT, just in case it hasn't occurred to you, the exact opposite of Clinton's approach to terrorism would be the Bush Administration's War on Terror, circa January 2001-September 10, 2001. Attempting to do something, versus doing almost NOTHING.

"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?" - Paul Bremer, February 26, 2001

It's no wonder that you nutjobs are so obsessed, that's right, obsessed with Clinton.

 

[easyt65]

I've posted links, and evidence. Here they are again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2088217.shtml
Berger was permitted access to the National Archives to prepare for his commission testimony (and to help prepare President Clinton for his). He used that public trust as an opportunity to filch, on at least two occasions, highly classified information — stuffing some of it into his clothing to avoid detection. This bizarre behavior caused authorities to investigate and discover the theft. In the ensuing investigation, Berger brazenly lied. He told the government that his undeniable removal of the intelligence was an honest mistake … only to admit later (as the Washington Times reported) that he had quite intentionally stuffed the documents into his pants, jacket and a leather portfolio.


There you go, doing more of that 'original thinking' of yours! :rofl

AIR (BANKRUPT) AMERICA NEWSFLASH:
Berger admits guilt, smuggled clasified documents out in PANTS
-- Nifty says, 'NO - Berger lied, didn't do it!' :rofl

In your last thread, you said the reporterS were wrong, the investigators were wrong, the FBI was wrong, the judge was wrong, and NOW you are saying SANDY BERGER IS WRONG! (Can you hear the Paul Simon music in the background, playing JUST for you?) The man ADMITTED to smuggling out classified in his pants, and even the criminal's own admision is not good enough for you left wing nut jobs. Even after Berger's own testimony saying he did it, you and others like you will STILL argue to the death that he didn't!

That is what is so amazing, so funny, and yet so pathetic about the extreme liberal left. to discredit your whole post and argument, all I needed was Berger's own testimony/admission of guilt....yet you are still convinced that Berger is lying and did not do it! :rofl

THIS is also why it is not worth wasting time arguing with such people. Enjoy debating with yourself further.

 

[niftydrifty]

Show me where I said Berger didn’t do it, easyt65. My statements on this matter have all been about how your claims are wrong. and I’ve been correcting you, constantly. It's all here for everyone to see.

Show me where I said Berger didn’t do it.

"Such people" ... LOL! question for you easyt65, did I or did I not demolish your corny "Bush Admin was not briefed" argument? Was that not a debate with you? Your bruised ego is showing. Whine about it to your momma! and address your debating superior with more respect next time.

 

[easyt65]

Re: To easyt65

Show me where I said Berger didn’t do it.

OK:

I've pointed out over and over how the documents weren't "down his pants"...

Not only have you been pointing out over and over your side of the story, you have been WRONG!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2088217.shtml
Berger was permitted access to the National Archives to prepare for his commission testimony (and to help prepare President Clinton for his). He used that public trust as an opportunity to filch, on at least two occasions, highly classified information — stuffing some of it into his clothing to avoid detection. This bizarre behavior caused authorities to investigate and discover the theft. In the ensuing investigation, Berger brazenly lied. He told the government that his undeniable removal of the intelligence was an honest mistake … only to admit later (as the Washington Times reported) that he had quite intentionally stuffed the documents into his pants, jacket and a leather portfolio.

What everyone can plainly see is how the cr@p you have been pushing over and over again is BS! WRONG! Totally contradictory to even Sandy Berger himself!

The reporters reported the story.
The investigators reported what they did and found.
The FBI agents said they witnessed him stuffing classified down/in his pants.
Berger even said he did it.

You say he didn't, denied you ever said that, then challenged me to prove you had said it. So, I did!

Now how are you going to :spin: this discussion, nifty?

You said it yourself a few posts back - you don't care what some reporter says. you don't care what some FBI agent says. you obviously don't even care what Sandy Berger himself says!

You don't listen or pay any attention to what anyone else says...now obviously even to what YOU yourself has said in the past. You are an 'original thinker' who just makes it up and decides as he goes along! Good luck with that!

As far as 'debating superior', you just got schooled, nifty. BTW, serious debaters do not revert to insulting the ones they are debating with, especially with pathetically childish 'momma' references - it is a sure sighn that they have nothing left to stand on except personal attacks. But thanks for demonstrating that play out of the DNC Playbook we talked about earlier!

 

[niftydrifty]

Ah, easyt65, now your confusion has been revealed. when you claimed that "Berger put the documents down his pants," and I corrected you, you took that to mean that I was saying Berger didn't do it.

No, I was saying that Berger didn't put the documents down his pants, just as I stated. Berger didn't put anything down his pants. His pants pockets aren't down his pants. But this, again, as I've stated before, probably more than once, was something that I brought up, only, I repeat, only to make a point about how gullible you are. I listed the right-wing pundits that repeated this phony news. And you parroted it.

You say he didn't, denied you ever said that, then challenged me to prove you had said it. So, I did!

I didn't say he didn't do it. Jeez, you just don't give up.

I'm just a sucker for you, easyt65. I suppose I love to debate with you and TOT because it's such an easy win.

ps. this has what to do with the Clinton/Wallace interview?

 

[easyt65]

I suppose I love to debate with you and TOT because it's such an easy win.

I am done waiting for the debate to begin, nifty, so I am moving on.

You have been exposed - everyone has seen above that I proved you said something you said did not happen, exposing that much of what youhave said was, is, and continuees to be spin and BS. Meanwhile, while you proclaim yourself to be some 'Master Debator' in one breath, you demand some measure of respect you have certainly NOT earned. Driving that point home, you reverted to personal attacks simply because you had been proven wrong and had nothing left.

There is no debate here, nifty. Berger committed a crime for his old Boss Clinton, stealing and shredding classified documents. 6 years after their administration is over, they are carrying on their crime spree/scandals just as if they were still in office.

And, faced with THIS fact, Clinton and all the left wing libs try to justify his 'freak out' on TV! The main regret Bill Clinton has is that he does not have Professor Charles Xavier's (comic book leader of the X-Men) mental powers so that he could erase everyone's memory, selectively, to make them all forget what he actually did and did not do while in the White House. All the shredders in the world will not eliminate the truth!

He can freak out all he wants to - it doesn't change the truth anymore than his and Berger's failed attempt to rewrite his legacy by stealing and destroying documents!

While we are re-openning cases, can we re-open Pelosi's lobbyist-funded trips scandal, several of those Dem Sex Scandals - you know, the ones where the Dems still in office actually TOUCHED/HAD SEX with the pages, and several of those other old ones the Dems would rather forget about. I thought it was cool to see Slick Willey lose his cool. THAT's 'reality TV'! Maybe we can get Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, Pelosi, and Dean to Freak out! (Make that freak out AGAIN for Dean! Yeaaagghh!) :rofl

 

[Gill]

And the documents were only copies, according to more than one article.

Yes they were copies... copies used during Clinton Admin meetings that had ORIGINAL notes written on them.

Big difference...

 

[easyt65]

Hand-written In the Margin of the Able Danger Briefing Hand-out:

Hardmonica lessons tonight, don't forget cigar!
Al Qaeda THIS, Al Qaeda THAT. Blah, blah, blah....

:rofl

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: to TOT

like my fruitless lessons in logic with easyt, I could talk all day about what semantics is (generally speaking it's the study of meanings of words), and TOT will obviously never get it. If TOT makes a logical error, for example, misunderstanding that a specific group of people that happen to be Republicans isn't the whole GOP, well that's a logical error. Or a reading comprehension problem. Or it could even be brain damage. but it's not semantics.

You're accusing others of logical errors? All you do is play semantics games like when I said the whole of the GOP was in full support of Clinton's actions against OBL now what party are the neo cons and conservative Republicans a part of? If the whole of the GOP was in full support of Clinton's actions against OBL then that negates the possiblity that "Bush's neo-cons," and "Conservative Republicans thought he was to obsessed.

A) The GOP never said that Clinton was too obsessed with OBL they fully supported Clintons actions against OBL.

B) Bush's Neo-Cons and Conservative Republicans are all members of the GOP.

C) If A) and B) are true (which they are) then one can draw the logical conclusion that Bush's neo-cons and conservative republicans never said that Clinton was too obsessed with OBL and were also in full support of Clintons actions against OBL.

That's not a logical fallact that's logic 101. Next.

here's another example. Tot says that the exact opposite of "conservative republicans," and "Bush's neo-cons," saying that Clinton was too obsessed with OBL,

No I didn't say that I said "Bush's neo-cons" and "Conservative Republicans never said that Clinton was to obsessed and to the contrary they were in full support of his actions against OBL.

Contrary - 1. conflicting: not at all in agreement with something
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Now if they though Clinton was to obsessed with OBL how then could they be in total support for his actions? Thinking someone is to obsessed with something and fully supporting the supposed obsession are contradictory the former does not agree with the latter they are contrary to one another IE Clinton was lying.

 

[niftydrifty]

I am done waiting for the debate to begin, nifty, so I am moving on.

funny, I've been practically begging for you to focus on the topic of this thread. as long as you're moving on, be sure to move on over to the Iraq thread. you typed a whole bunch of kooky stuff there. I responded. I'd *love* to explore it with you.

somebody be sure to tell TOT that stuff that I've already typed refutes everything he's just posted above. oh, right, silly me. I forgot he can't read.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

somebody be sure to tell TOT that stuff that I've already typed refutes everything he's just posted above. oh, right, silly me. I forgot he can't read.

Umm no it didn't and to the contrary you were the one using logical fallacies and semantical arguments which my post clearly demonstrates.

 

[easyt65]

funny, I've been practically begging for you to focus on the topic of this thread.

I can understand how it has been hard for you to follow along, so I will type SLOWER so you can keep up.

Clinton 'freaked out' on national TV when asked why he didn't do more against Al Qaeda and to catch OBL.

My 1st thought is 'why in the world is he freaking out? It should have ben no surprise to him, especially since OBL was a hot topic in the news again at the time of the inetview, thast they would ask him about what he did and most importantly did NOT do.

OBL declared war on the U.S. during Bill Clinton's watch, and our Commander-and Chief IGNORED IT!

Al Qaeda then went about stalking and murdering Americans abroad without concern of retaliation or anything done about it. The Marine Commander, Kobar Towers, USS Cole, the attempt on the World Trade Center, 2 African Embassy bombings....and the most he did was shoot up some half empty (which he jnew before he ever ordered it) terrorist camp and bombed a milk factory that he tried to claim was a biological weapons plant (talk about 'NO WMD'!).

During that time, while Al Qaeda was already engaged in the war against us that OBL had declared, while Al Qaeda was growing stronger and bolder, Clinton was pre-occupied with committing the act of treason by selling the Chinese military missile technology they needed to finally be able to strike the U.S. with its nukes, appeased the the North Koreans by providing them with the nuclear material/capability it needed to build its weapons, committed adultery in the White House, totaly ignored an Able Danger briefing, lied about ever receiving it, committed felonious perjury and witness tampering before a Federal Court under oath, and was Impeached.

After it was all over and he was out, right after 9/11 and before the 9/11 Commission met, he then send in his toadie to steal and shred classified documents (consaining original handwritten notes among other things) so the 9/11 Commission (or anyone else) would discover the truth about what he did and did NOT do, all to preserve some shred of a legacy. No Ex-presidency plans and stes up a crime, theft & the destruction of Classified Federal Documents, without having something to hide. The only reason you destroy such material is because you don't ever want anyone to see what it is you are shredding. Berger himself stated Clinton asked him to go in and do what he did.

HOW does all this pertain to the thread 'Clinton freaks Out'? After all of THIS, which directly pertains to the question he was asked that caused him to 'freak out', Clinton has NO - ZERO - reason to 'freak out'! He made his bed, he did what he did and failed to do what he did not do, and it is those things that haunt him, those things (IMO) that caused him to become so defensive, and those truths that made the man freak out!

You can't change the past - you just have to learn to deal with it. Clinton needs to make peace with his past, not try to steal, hide, and/or shred it!