Clinton's Rosa Parks Eulogy

[easyt65]

Hmmm, let's see, Republican controlled congress makes a big deal over some one's own personal life. Clinton lies about it to keep it from his wife.

Just what was it that Clinton lied about again? What has Bush now lied about?

You Democrats keep trying to insist that Clinton was Impeached over his lying to the nation and his wife about Lewinski, but you're only fooling yourselves! Americans aren't as stupid as you both believe and hope. We remember that the pathelogical liar was Impeached because he committed a FELONY. He lied under oath in front of a Federal Grand Jury while testifying about his crime of sexually harrassing a woman years earlier. He broke the law, tried to strip a U.s. citizen of one of the Constitutional rights he swore an oath as President to protect, her right to a fair trial. He is a convicted criminal/FELON!

And thank you for telling me what YOU believe Bush knew or did not know, but I would rather believe historical FACT than your OPINION.

FACT: Al Qaeda bombed the Kobar Towers - Americans died - Cinton did nothing - Al Qaeda was emboldened and continued attacking the U.S.

FACT: Al Qaeda bombed the U.S.S. Cole - Americans died - Cinton did nothing - Al Qaeda was emboldened and continued attacking the U.S.

FACT: Able Danger DID brief Clinton on Bin Laden and the threat of Al Qaeda, despite (surprise, surprise) his LIES demanding he had never heard of or had been briefed by Able Danger.

FACT: Al Qaeda bombed 2 African Embassies - Americans died - Cinton did nothing - Al Qaeda was emboldened and continued attacking the U.S.

FACT: Sandy Berger, an EX-Clinton Admin Staff Weenie, was caught stealing classified documents. Further investigation un-earthed the fact that more stolen classified was found in his home, that he had been shredding much of it. The investigation also showed that the documents were about Able Danger's briefing to Clinton, what Clinton knew about Al Qaeda, and how he failed to do anything! Clinton had Berger do his dirty work to try to protect his 'legacy', knowing full well the damage these documents could do to him! Amazingly, the story was buried, Berger received the slap on the wrist of a fine - NO jail time, and even his security clearance was not revoked. If it had been anyone else, especially a Republican, they would STILL be in their early stages of their jail time and the story would be all over the news! If Clinton had nothing to hide, WHY was such an effort made to steal and destroy these documents?

Let's hear the Left-Wing Spin on this one!

:spin: :spin: :spin:

 

[libertarian_knight]

Every time Bush supporters try to defend his policys we hear the same old arguement. Instead of pointing out strong arguements showing why Bush is so great, they point to Clinton as a defense. It's a lame defense at best. As bad as Clinton was, he hasn't inflicted as much damage on this country as Bush has. Maybe someone can point out the positive aspects of Bush, because I can't seem to think of any.

Well, duh. I mean Clinton was the republican hero. Clinton was soooo bad, that republicans make an efffort to mimic his badness.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Bush is great because he is the 1st President in 13 years to actually spend more time focuising on the country than his own genitals or other interests.

Bush is great because he acts to defend Americans from terrorists instead of blowing it off and cutting deals with the chinese for campaign contributions.

Bush is great because he is a man of conviction who makes a decision based on his faith and what he believes is right instead of flip flopping and basing his decisions on the latest polls.

Bush is great because his ethics and morality come from his faith and up-bringing rather than from Hollywood.

Bush is great because he never committed treason like Kerry and Clinton have.

I could go on and on, but I have a meeting to go to. It is almost as easy to talk about all the reasons Bush is such a great President, which is why the Dems hate him, as it is to talk about clinton's CONTINUING scandals!

You are not really arguing that Bush is good, but rather Bush is different (which I disagree with). A "Good President" would be one who is judged on the contributions made, and whether the means used will achieve the ends sought. A persident can be "Good" without being compared to any other president or person. AT BEST, you may be stating that YOU value Bush because YOU think Bush has done something BETTER than someone else.

Hate to break it to ya, but someone can be "a better president" and still be a bad president.

 

[johnnyboy]

Since when did blogs ever become a credible source? Blogs = opinion.



The only problem with this entire thread is that so many idiots have thier heads so far up thier *** that even the slightest peep from Clinton or any other "liberal" that makes reference to civil rights movements or to relate with civil rights leaders gets such a drawn out response of how they're using this in such and such way. Nothing but extreemist partisan bickering, exactly what morons like Karl Rove encourage America to do, the more partisan you become the less attention you pay to actual matters and will follow blindly in thier footsteps.

Credible sources? Those who have folowed the reference int he first post of this series have found that the sources for blog referenced on the am 1280 website http://www.am1280thepatriot.com/for...px?PostID=10800
, were impeccably left wing.

The source for the transcript of Clinton's remarks was the site called "Democracy Now" ,

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/03/1545228&mode=thread&tid=25#transcript

which features an interview with Harry Belafonte. Radical right-wingers?

Another source for FACTS is the "Teaching for Social Change" website:

http://www.teachingforchange.org/busboycott/busboycott.htm

Which hardly impressed me as "rabidly pro-Bush".

Indeed, from there one can find the copy of Rosa Park's arrest warrant in the National Archives. Some people take truth seriously, unlike Bill Clinton and those who still support him, who, for the most part in this thread, have relied on insult ( i.e. "idiots, morons, head up their XXX",) instead of facts and basic reading skills.

They have come right out and said that they don't care about any lie unless George W. Bush is alleged to have said it, which is saying that they don't really care about lies, as such, at all. They certainly have a fanatical indifference to any evidence that Bill Clinton is lying - again.

In 1992 I voted for Bill Clinton, because I believed what he said. He didn't mean it when he said that he would negotiate a version of NAFTA which would protect American workers, he didn't mean it when he said that he would tie trade to China to human rights in China ( which effectively meant that he would reduce trade with, or rather from China, as a relic of the "China Card" of the cold war.) But, the Chinese saw right through Bill Clinton, as I did not at the time.

I could go on and on, but nothing condemns Bill Clinton as much as the indifference to truth of those who support him. His surrealistic dishonesty is what they actually like about him.

The besotting sin of the left has been that they have never embraced the idea that providing an alternative to evil does not confer, but rather, requires virtue. As a result, about all they ever do is impute their own sordid motives to their opponents, usually with fantastic exaggerations on top of that whose only function is perhaps to convince themselves that they are indeed the lesser of two evils.

 

[jfuh]

You Democrats keep trying to insist that Clinton was Impeached over his lying to the nation and his wife about Lewinski, but you're only fooling yourselves! Americans aren't as stupid as you both believe and hope. We remember that the pathelogical liar was Impeached because he committed a FELONY. He lied under oath in front of a Federal Grand Jury while testifying about his crime of sexually harrassing a woman years earlier. He broke the law, tried to strip a U.s. citizen of one of the Constitutional rights he swore an oath as President to protect, her right to a fair trial. He is a convicted criminal/FELON!

And thank you for telling me what YOU believe Bush knew or did not know, but I would rather believe historical FACT than your OPINION.


What makes you think that I'm a democrat? The donkeys under my name? Yes I'm a liberal but not a democrat.
Now that that's established. What exactly where the Republicans yelling when Libby was indicted for lieing to a federal grand jury with regards to the CIA leak case, which mind you leaking an undercover operative is treason? Is there a double standard?
Let's see now looking at your "facts":

FACT: Al Qaeda bombed the Kobar Towers - Americans died - Cinton did nothing - Al Qaeda was emboldened and continued attacking the U.S.

Yes towers were bombed, Clinton did nothing? Not ture, there was a response involving cruise missles launched by the air force.

FACT: Al Qaeda bombed the U.S.S. Cole - Americans died - Cinton did nothing - Al Qaeda was emboldened and continued attacking the U.S.

Again, true for the first part, false for the second. The USS cole was bombed and we released bombs again in Afganistan and captured some, though hardly all, of those invovled with help from the Egyptian government.

FACT: Able Danger DID brief Clinton on Bin Laden and the threat of Al Qaeda, despite (surprise, surprise) his LIES demanding he had never heard of or had been briefed by Able Danger.

So what does that say?
* CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
* FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04
* CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
* FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04

Fact is simple, no one did anything big about Al Qaeda until 9/11, even though everyone knew plenty about Al Qaeda. All adminstrations made the same assesment that FDR did in the 1930's. Assumption of inferiority of them and superiority of the US.

FACT: Al Qaeda bombed 2 African Embassies - Americans died - Cinton did nothing - Al Qaeda was emboldened and continued attacking the U.S.

True on the former, again false with the later. Cruise missles against the Taliban

FACT: Sandy Berger, an EX-Clinton Admin Staff Weenie, was caught stealing classified documents. Further investigation un-earthed the fact that more stolen classified was found in his home, that he had been shredding much of it. The investigation also showed that the documents were about Able Danger's briefing to Clinton, what Clinton knew about Al Qaeda, and how he failed to do anything! Clinton had Berger do his dirty work to try to protect his 'legacy', knowing full well the damage these documents could do to him! Amazingly, the story was buried, Berger received the slap on the wrist of a fine - NO jail time, and even his security clearance was not revoked. If it had been anyone else, especially a Republican, they would STILL be in their early stages of their jail time and the story would be all over the news! If Clinton had nothing to hide, WHY was such an effort made to steal and destroy these documents?

got a source for this?

Let's hear the Left-Wing Spin on this one!

:spin: :spin: :spin:

Left wing spin, how ironic because all you've shown are irrelevant rebuttles. Bush lies, nearly 2500 US soldiers dies. Bush ignores Al Qaeda threat even amongst credible intelligence of an impedeing attack on US soil in september of 2001 and Bush Inc does nothing, 3000+ killed. Should we compare the numbers? If you want to talk about spin, just go ahead and look at your own posts. You're so blinded by partisan arguments that you can see any reason.

 

[cnredd]

You are not really arguing that Bush is good, but rather Bush is different (which I disagree with). A "Good President" would be one who is judged on the contributions made, and whether the means used will achieve the ends sought. A persident can be "Good" without being compared to any other president or person. AT BEST, you may be stating that YOU value Bush because YOU think Bush has done something BETTER than someone else.

Hate to break it to ya, but someone can be "a better president" and still be a bad president.

While the bolded statement seems true on paper, what is left out are the situations that a President is placed in and how they react...

This "degree of difficulty" changes from Prez to Prez....

You can look back at any President we've ever had and see how easy or hard their jobs could've been based on four major issues...

1) Natural Events or issues that would've happened nomatter who was President...
2) UN-natural Events or issues that would've happened nomatter who was President...and how the President reacts to them...
3) Events or issues that the New President has to deal with due to the actions or reactions from the preceding President...
4) Events or issues brought about themselves...

If you look back to the 90s, Clinton didn't have to deal with #1 or #3 at all...There was nothing that comes close to Katrina during his administration and his policies were not intended to "undo" any damage he believes that Bush41 may have caused...

Some Presidents get that break, and some don't...

Going back to JFK...

Johnson's job was NOT to undo JFK's work...
Nixon's job WAS to undo Johnson's work...
Ford's job WAS to undo Nixon's work...
Carter's job WAS to undo Ford's work...
Reagan's job WAS to undo Carter's work...
Bush41's job was NOT to undo Reagan's work..
Clinton's job was NOT to undo Bush41's work...
Bush43's job IS to undo Clinton's work...

Notice the one anomaly?...Clinton, a Democrat, took over for Bush41, a Republican, and didn't have a directive or major obligation to change course...In every other situation where the Presidency went from one party to another, the main objective was to get the "bad taste" of the former Presidency out of the country's mouth...

As for #4(Events or issues brought about themselves)..., this one is self-explanatory and I don't think we need to go further...

#2 is the biggie...UN-natural Events or issues that would've happened nomatter who was President...and how the President reacts to them...

We can dissect a whole bunch of stuff from Elian Gonzales to Waco to The Oklahoma Bombing...But Bush #3 is ALL about Clinton's #2...

Al Qaeda...

Started during Clinton, attacks during Clinton, the leader's attempted handover to Clinton...

The total lack of initiative by Clinton is a direct correlation to what Bush has to do now...Yes, hindsight is 20/20...Out of everything the Cons hated Clinton for, hardly anything had to do with the escalation of terrorism until the full results were seen...911...There were hints(First WTC bombing; USS Cole, African embassies)...But the reaction of the President didn't do anything to hinder the abilities and capabilities of Al Qaeda...It actually strengthened their resolve with Clinton's lack of retaliation...

So by those four major issues, we see that #1 & #3 are irrelevant, #2 was a high degree of difficulty but had been ignored and we didn't learn the true effects until after he was gone, and #4 was big, but only due to his own actions which got himself impeached by the House of Reps...

To me, that's the exact definition of a "Caretaker President"...

Now to Bush...

#1?...Katrina...Nomatter how the reaction...and the general consensus was that it sucked...This is something Bush43 had to deal with and Clinton never did...Clinton dodged a bullet...

#2?...Obviously 911...Once again...Nomatter how the reaction...and the general consensus was that it was good(Country unity - although shortlived - 90+% approval rating - Invasion of Afghanistan)...This is something Bush43 had to deal with and Clinton never did...Clinton SHOULD'VE dealt with it...but he gets a clean bill of health because everything having to do with 911 was during his administration EXCEPT for the result...Clinton dodges the bullet again...

#4?...Also irrelevant...There haven't been any instances where Bush has brought criticism to himself based on things that ONLY he is the cause of...unless of course, you count bad public speaking and choking on a pretzel...hardly comparable to lying to a Federal Grand Jury...

All of the criticism towards Bush and his policies are due to...drumroll please...

#3...Events or issues that the New President has to deal with due to the actions or reactions from the preceding President...

EVERYTHING...wiretapping for Al Qaeda communications...Invasion of Iraq...North Korea's nuclear weapons...Invasion of Afghanistan...We can even go as far as the Valerie Plame leak...

ALL could have been prevented had Clinton not wilted in the face of tough decision making...

Look at the comparisons...Name something Clinton had to do because of the ineffectiveness of Bush41...First Gulf War?...That was Bush41 listening to the UN and NOT invading Iraq...Personally, I think that was the wrong move, but did Clinton do anything to undo that decision?...Nope...

Anything else?...Is there something major out there that Clinton had to do to change course because of something bad or lacking in Bush41's Presidency?...

Not a thing...

Now for the other half of the comparison...Is there something major out there that Bush43 had to do to change course because of something bad or lacking in Clinton's Presidency?...

Everything...

To be honest, if 911 never happened, there's a chance that Bush43 would've
gone the same route as Clinton and hid his eyes from the impending attack...
But history doesn't record "What ifs"...It happened, and unlike the smaller things that set the wheels in motion and could've been prevented during the 90s, Bush was forced to deal with it in a way Clinton never had to...Clinton, once again, dodges the bullet...

So in closing...nomatter how much you like/dislike Bush, there should be a total agreement that he has to deal with a helluva lot more than Clinton ever had to...

The "degrees of difficulty" aren't even close...

WHEW!...How's THAT for a rant?...:2wave: