Author Topic: Clinton testifies, Audio tape says different (Read 661 times)

Nash · « **Reply #15 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:18:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Nash how do you feel about it? Sometimes it's hard to gauge what your point is because you often offer only sarcastic one-liners in response......which I admire b.t.w.

Sorry.

Hhmm..

To be honest I have no idea about any of this. I don't feel like I have enough information to form an opinion on it.

But... I agree with you absolutely that if he's sitting there lying to the 9/11 panel then it's outrageous and sad.

NUKE · « **Reply #16 on:** April 09, 2004, 08:41:45 PM »

Nash you are ok by me sir, so don't be offended when I'm being a dipchit....which I openly admit to being at times.

Munkii · « **Reply #17 on:** April 09, 2004, 09:54:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
You guys dont get it. The 911 commision is looking into failures TO ACT AGAINST THREATS and they are ignoring Clinton's 8 years of inaction, and focusing on Bush's few months in office.

Not trying to defend Clinton here, because I don't have all the facts. If we go off what he stated in the tape, that OBL had not commited a crime against the United States at that time that we had linked him too. (Although I'm sure we knew he was behind WTC 1 by that point). Then we really did have no business extracting him, although he should have been put under heavy watch when he left Sudan. The 9/11 investigation is looking for failure to act on reliable information coming from a confirmed threat (Al Queda) that had already commited crimes against the U.S. and was wanted in connection with those crimes.

I have to say, that if Clinton was offered OBL after the Cole, the Embassies, and with evidence of his link to WTC 1 then he was a fault. If Bush was offered OBL in 1996 under same circumstances as Clinton in 1996, I would hope he would have refused him as well.

Eagler · « **Reply #18 on:** April 09, 2004, 10:14:04 PM »

slick has experience at lying under oath...

but he was a great man and a terrific leader

Gnslngr · « **Reply #19 on:** April 10, 2004, 11:19:42 AM »

I wonder why there is a double standard. The libs were up in arms that Connie Rice wouldnt testify in public and under pressure the administration agreed to it.

But Slick Willy Bubba Clinton and ALGORE got to do it in private behind closed doors and NO ONE is saying ANYTHING about THAT?

I dont see why this post is even relative. Bill Clinton did not fight terrorism at all. I did very little about it. 8 Months after he left office under GWB's watch we were attacked. I shudder to think of the way things would be if Mr Rogers...errr..i mean ALGORE had won the election.

Sixpence · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2004, 11:27:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gnslngr
I shudder to think of the way things would be if Mr Rogers...errr..i mean ALGORE had won the election.

Yeah, almost as smooth as things are going now.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2004, 11:59:58 AM »

heh Im still waiting to find out what the definition of "is" is. LOL

As much as I think Clinton was a clown who did nothing more then by pure chance alone happen to be in office during a period of economic boom (sorry kiddies but the president does NOT control the economy)

The blame isnt with Clinton alone. Nor with Bush.
Hindsight is always 20-20 Its easy to look back ad say "yea well if I had done this or that things might have been different".
And Who is to say that even if Clinton had gotten Bin Laden that 9-11 wouldnt have happened anyway? In fact in all likelyhood it would have.
Bin Laden is only one head on a sepent filled with heads

The "blame" if there is any is on our government departments as a whole and the lack of willingness to work as a team for the betterment of the country as a whole.
these various security Depts such as the FBI,CIA and such suffer from the same disease that the Democratic and Republican parties do. That is they are more concerned with their own powerbase then they are about whats best for the country.
thus you get alot of backbiting and alack of willingness to
co-operate and communicate and work with one another

Sixpence · « **Reply #22 on:** April 10, 2004, 12:53:20 PM »

It's a shame it comes to pointing blame for political gain. We talk about the hypothetical situation of Al Gore winning the election. But let me present another one.

Let's say 9/11 didn't happen. At the end of Bush's first term the economy is bad and he loses the election to Ralph Nader(remember, we are talking hypothetical). After a few months after taking office, 9/11 happens.

Now who is to blame? Well, Ralph Nader would blame the past administration because they "did nothing". The republicans would blame Nader because he "did nothing"

And the democrats would make out like bandits because they could blame both of them:lol

Gixer · « **Reply #23 on:** April 10, 2004, 12:56:46 PM »

Clinton's mind was probably too busy thinking about his interns to worry about terroists. Not suprising he can't remember anything else.

~~...-Gixer~~

mosgood · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2004, 01:58:14 PM »

Come on guys.....

you really think that Clinton passed on OBL because he didn't give a shi...? Or that Gdubya saw a memo that spelled out 9/11 and just didn't feel like saving american lives?

It's not the individual person in the white house that is the problem. It's the whole squealing structure of government and how we are given choices on who is to lead. We elect professional salesmen and doubletalkers into office instead of highpowered people that know how to really get stuff done. And even if, by a miracle, someone that was truly effective got into the position. he would be a lame duck because the political structure couldn't afford to allow him to succeed. Everything he tried to do would be torpedoed by the carreer doubletalkers from both parties. Imagine the horror to both parties (you know which ones I'm talking about because we're only given 2 to choose from) if Mr. Perfect showed up tomorrow and knew how to clean this shi.. up. Every one of them would be shakin in their boots because they KNOW that they are part of the problem.

IMO... it really gets me how people buy into being a republican or democrate and then the only good thing they can say about thier party is through saying all the crap the other party does.

If you're "pro abortion" ... you get labeled as a democrate. if your "pro business" you're a republican... but if you're "pro better choices of government" you don't even fall into a serious catagory.....

grrr... I'm just ranting

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2004, 02:52:32 PM »

Why would anyone give any credence to the testimony of a person who was impeached for perjury?

Charon · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:23:38 PM »

WTG mosgood.

I've had that same rant many times in the past, and unfortunately likely will for decades to come. We do seem to get the quality of leadership that we deserve.

Charon

Rude · « **Reply #27 on:** April 12, 2004, 03:34:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Why would anyone give any credence to the testimony of a person who was impeached for perjury?

because he's the greatest president the USA has ever known...man where you been?