See other Activism Articles
Title: We Could Use a Guy Like Him Again
Source:
Daily Kos
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 25, 2006
Author: bluedogtxn
Post Date: 2006-09-25 15:58:49 by bluedogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 697
Comments: 44
We Could Use a Guy Like Him Again I missed the interview, darn it; but I caught it on You Tube, so I guess that's almost as good as having seen it the first time. bluedogtxn's diary :: :: No matter how the nutjobs spin it; and of course they will, they can't help themselves, I saw fighting President Clinton again, in his interview with Fox's Chris Wallace. The interview was obviously a set-up; a whack-job ambush intended to embarrass President Clinton, but it very seriously backfired on Wallace. The narrative that has become the Rosetta Stone of the GOP'rs, that Clinton let Bin Laden go or didn't go after him or ignored him; that he did nothing about him... That whole sacred narrative was sliced to pieces in a moment, when President Clinton described the efforts undertaken to get Bin Laden, when he described what he'd have done had he had time to continue after Bin Laden... And then, not to be satisfied with merely shredding the jaded image that Idiot Bush's sheep have of Clinton, or their faded memories, Clinton went on to unapologetically call FOX for their own bullshit. I had my problems with President Clinton, but I think it is important to remember what it was like to have an intellectual heavyweight for a president. I think it is important to remember what it was like to have a real honest-to-goodness man in the White House, instead of a fratboy idiot. So props to President Clinton for the reminder. I wish the biggest item on the national radar was what was going on under your desk. I sure remember those days, and I'm sorry I took for granted how dang good they were. Balanced budget, a nation at peace with the world, a booming economy (even in its bust), the simple working people respected by government... Mister, we could use a guy like Bill Clinton again.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: bluedogtxn (#0)
Let's see... Selling Nuclear Secrets to the Chinese for campaign finances. Lying Under Oath (Perjury) Anyone else would have gone to jail. Making the sale of the fucking lifetime, by selling the Forest Hills Oil Reserve to Occidental Petroleum, where he and Al Gore were major share holders. Allowing our troops to be shredded in Mogadishu. Setting up the USS Cole for it to be blown up. Waco. OKC. TWA 800. Yeah... Like we need another intellectual "Heavyweight" in the fucking white house. FUCK OFF
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#2. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#1)
Let's see: bullshit, bullshit, more bullshit... Mogadishu bullshit where the GOP would have had MORE guys shredded under their bullshit plan... USS Cole bullshit, since it was a GOP backed outfit that actually knocked a hole in the Cole.. I'll give you Waco. Oh. And one of yours. Oklahoma City. A bomb set off by a "patriot" just like you, only with more guts... And TWA 800; which, if he's responsible for that, then Bush caused Katrina.... How long did it take you to pull this stuff of Free Republic with google? Ten minutes? Spare me the obscenities, lightweight.
FUCK OFF
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#3. To: bluedogtxn (#0)
More lies. And Hillary was always the real brains of the outfit.
Balanced budget,
I hate it when they ain't been shaved.
#4. To: Tauzero (#3)
It came a hell of a lot closer to being balanced than it did under any Republican since Nixon. Or do you still believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause and the "miracle of the Laffer Curve"?
Balanced budget, More lies.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#5. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#1)
Say what you will about Slick ( and your list is damning for sure), Clinton did not get us into an endless bottomless black hole called the WOT, costly both in blood and treasure. Anything Bill did pales in comparison to the Big Hole this current administration has thrust America into. Consider that the infamous "Clean Break" study, the neocon document that outlines ME "transformations" to benefit Israel's security, was published in June 1996. The folks who contributed to that document did not suddenly appear in DC on GWB's doorstep when he won the election in 2000. These same neocon scoundrels were haunting DC Congressional hallways and the Clinton WH plying their dangerous ideas to Bill way before GWB came on the scene. But to Clinton's credit, he did not take the bait. Sure, he went ahead a bombed an aspirin factory (?) in Iraq when push came to shove, but that was the extent of messing around in that region. I read Scheurer's book "Imperial Hubris" ( Scheurer was the CIA head of the OBL terrorism unit)and while he admits that Clinton missed the opportunity to take OBL out in Sudan, Scheurer goes on to detail in 150 pages (?) that unless America is willing to change its foreign policies ( and he was not optimistic for that happening), killing OBL or pursuing a vigorous WOT is all for naught - it's like tilting at windmills - more OBL's will be born and more Muslim terrorists will be recruited - because America is unwilling to eliminate or change its own SIGNIFICANT contributions to why Muslim extremism is being directed at this nation. Clinton should not be blamed for not nipping terrorism in the bud. How could he personally change our foreign policy without the support of Congress, and that would never have happened? At least Clinton did not drag us into 2 wars ( make that 3 wars, if the neocons have their way) that have no end and no sound purpose.
Yeah... Like we need another intellectual "Heavyweight" in the fucking white house.
#6. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
And 9/11 was the work of 19 evil swarthy men and Osama. No one else. Anyone who says otherwise is a kook...anyone who pushes the matter will have the engine on their small plane die when they are flying deep in Alaska's interior. Mogadishu bullshit where the GOP would have had MORE guys shredded under their bullshit plan... Just like the DNC is getting ready to shred more US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cause lord knows they are such war experts with two world wars and two police actions under their belts. Hell, Hillary is ripping Bush a new one because he hasn't nuked Iran yet. USS Cole bullshit, since it was a GOP backed outfit that actually knocked a hole in the Cole... And Klintoon bombed Belgrade to assist the mastermind of 9/11. Oh, and Carter started the funding of Osama's mottly crew in Afghanistan, not Reagan. But you know what? I hope Hillary gets elected and the "D"s sweep the house and senate clean. So, 4 years from now when US troops are still dieing in Iraq; maybe, just maybe, people will wake up to the 2 party fraud.
Oklahoma City. A bomb set off by a "patriot" just like you, only with more guts...
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
#7. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#6)
Never happen. Neither one. Because fraud though it may be, it's a one party system, now.
But you know what? I hope Hillary gets elected and the "D"s sweep the house and senate clean. So, 4 years from now when US troops are still dieing in Iraq; maybe, just maybe, people will wake up to the 2 party fraud.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#8. To: bluedogtxn (#4)
Compared to what? Not compared to projected obligations for various goobermint programs, notably Social Security and Medicare. But then Santa Claus always did get a lot of votes.
It came a hell of a lot closer to being balanced
I hate it when they ain't been shaved.
#9. To: scrapper2 (#5)
Point of agreement.
unless America is willing to change its foreign policies ( and he was not optimistic for that happening), killing OBL or pursuing a vigorous WOT is all for naught
I hate it when they ain't been shaved.
#10. To: bluedogtxn (#0)
I don't like Clinton, but I have to applaud him for knocking down that little straw boy, Chrissy Wallace. At least he was able to stand up for himself and defend himself, which is more than the girly-man Bush has ever been able to do. Even Condi Hemmings didn't provide much of a defense for Jorge against Big Bad Hugo Chavez and the midget from Iran. I guess the only thing left is for Dead Eye Dick Cheney to form a large hunting party.
"I woke up in the CRAZY HOUSE."
#11. To: Tauzero (#8)
Compared to the federal budgets of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. That would be 17 years of Republican fiscal recklessness, although admittedly our present Idiot has taken the cake in the past five years.
Compared to what?
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#12. To: mehitable (#10)
Ironically, I didn't really like him much myself until I got to see his successor in action. Compared to the jackass at 1600 now, he was George Washington.
I don't like Clinton, but I have to applaud him for knocking down that little straw boy, Chrissy Wallace.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#13. To: bluedogtxn (#11)
In what sense? The budgets of those men were not very much worse at all. Future obligations for welfare state spending simply cannot be met, and it is not the fault of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II -- or Clinton. TANSTAAFL.
Compared to the federal budgets of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
I hate it when they ain't been shaved.
#14. To: Tauzero (#13)
TANSTAAFL. While I fully support the application of Heinlein's famous Tanstaafl dictum, you need to look at the budgets in question. Reagan's first and second terms both saw an increase in expenditures (not just entitlement programs, either) relative to income. Bush I's term saw an increase also, although not as pronounced. Clinton's eight years saw the reverse; expenditures held much closer to flat; income from taxes increasing. Bush II's budgets are just flat out obscene if you have any sense of fiscal discipline or responsibility. They've ballooned the deficit incredibly, and most of it is NOT growth in entitlements. It can be argued one way or the other whether Clinton actually balanced incomes to outlays; and a persuasive case can be developed either way. What can't be rationally argued is that there was a shred of fiscal responsibility in the spending policies of Reagan or Bush II. Bush I is a more difficult call, because had he another term, it is possible he could have brought spending under control. The bottom line is that whether you like him, hate him or are indifferent to him, Clinton was much more fiscally responsible than the last 3 GOP'rs have been.
Future obligations for welfare state spending simply cannot be met, and it is not the fault of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II -- or Clinton.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#15. To: bluedogtxn (#14)
Reagan's first and second terms both saw an increase in expenditures (not just entitlement programs, either) relative to income. Absolutely. Clinton's eight years saw the reverse; expenditures held much closer to flat; income from taxes increasing. Bull market and short-term debt. (And on the second, the fedgov has a track record of doing exactly the wrong thing -- short term debt when rates are low, long term debt when rates are high. Good deal for bond buyers though...) They've ballooned the deficit incredibly, Absolutely. Irrelevant though to the long term picture. On an actuarial basis / GAAP basis, there was never a Clinton surplus. For FY 2004, the government had a $616 billion operating loss, for FY 2005 $760 billion. and most of it is NOT growth in entitlements. Plenty of other goodies to go around. And under the accounting rules the government makes the rest of us obey, entitlements swamp everything else. Funny how that works.
I hate it when they ain't been shaved.
#16. To: bluedogtxn, tommythemadartist, Robin (#0)
If we had a free press, I would have asked these questions: 1) On April, 19th, 1995 we had many witnesses who saw two men in the Ryder truck begore the bomb went off in front of the Murrah Federal building. And one woman saw McVeigh get out of the turck and then saw another man leave the truck just before the bomb went off maening he was the most likely person to have set off the fuse. On that day 168 Americans including 19 children in the daycare center died. You and Janet Reno have been accused of covering up mass murder and treason. To clear your name would you be willing to have the FBI release the surveillance videos from businesses across the street? And would uou be willing to ask for an independent prosecutor to investigate both the bombing which looked like a controlled demolition and the involvement of Robert Millar and Andreas Strassmeir of Elohim City and Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center? We realize that this latter request would be extremely difficult for you as these men are all Jewish but you are not running for President so what can they do to you? 2) On 9-10-2001, Donald Rumsfeld admitted that 2.3 trillion dollars in Pentagon spending could not be accounted for. On 9-11-2001 a plane was headed directly towards Secretary Rumsfeld's office. It did a 270 degree turn, dropped 4,000 feet and directly hit on the first pass the office investigating the missing money. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology analyzed the DNA from the wreckage of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon and found no Arab DNA. My question is this: You are a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Society of which you wife Hillary is also a member. Since the Bush budget did not go into effect until 10-1-2001 the money that went missing while you were President, so would you and Hillary be willing to sign my petitions asking the Bildergers and the CFR for permission to allow the voters to hire independent auditors for federal government spending and for a special Manhattan county prosecutor to investigate 9-11. I think we can make some progress in uncovering what happened on 9-11, if we take a few hundred people from the FAA, NORAD, the FBI, the Pentagon, the Bush administration and New York City emergency offices and charge anyone who does not talk with 3,000 counts of accessory to murder. I could could ask a few more questions but I think Slick would break free from the ropes I had used to tie him to the chair by the time we got to question number two.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#17. To: Tauzero, bluedogtxn (#15)
Except in practical, everyday terms, all I had to complain about was some silly juvenile sexual antics, 1000 stolen FBI files, and a handful of secrets to Red China. Now, we all worry about the economy (maybe the Unusual suspects always did), we all know that hundreds of thousands of files on several laptops have gone missing (see Wayne Madsen Report for growing chart on this underreported debacle), and the CEOs of the multi-national corporations cannot give Red China their manufacturing and high-tech fast enough (the govt/PLA owning half of every business, up front, and that's before cheap copies of every patent is made).
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers
#18. To: Horse (#16)
Nothing new under the sun, Smirk just copied Slick. But, Slick was about shutting-down the paramilitias. Smirk belongs to a gang that is after bigger game, and cares not a whit about America.
To clear your name would you be willing to have the FBI release the surveillance videos from businesses across the street? And would uou be willing to ask for an independent prosecutor to investigate both the bombing which looked like a controlled demolition and the involvement of Robert Millar and Andreas Strassmeir of Elohim City and Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center?
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers
#19. To: Horse (#16)
My dog ate my homework.
It did a 270 degree turn, dropped 4,000 feet and directly hit on the first pass the office investigating the missing money.
I hate it when they ain't been shaved.
#20. To: All (#18)
Wallace-Clinton combat draws big ratings DAVID BAUDER Associated Press NEW YORK - Political combat pays: "Fox News Sunday" drew its best ratings in nearly three years for this weekend's electric confrontation between former President Clinton and newsman Chris Wallace.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers
#21. To: bluedogtxn (#0)
Clinton is a murderous treasonous criminal. Period. Bush is a murderous treasonous criminal. Period.
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#22. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
First Wtc bombing which was a fake FBI sting that went live. Ruby Ridge. Waco. OKC whch was a BATF sting that went live. Flight 800 was shot down by the Navy. UN/US sanctions that murdered 100,000's Iraqis men, women and children. Signed directive W199i. Allowed rogue elements of the CIA/DIA/FBI to sponser state terror. Bill Clinton was a horrible president.
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#23. To: scrapper2 (#5)
911 was going down no matter who was in office.
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#24. To: bluedogtxn (#0) (Edited)
What a rat hole that place is. I see no difference between that forum or FR.
Daily Kos?
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#25. To: mehitable (#10)
I saw the "interview" replayed. Bill knows that 911 was carried out by this administration. Bill backed off of OBL. Bush REALLY backed off of OBL. See directive W199i.
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#26. To: Kamala (#22)
Ruby Ridge occurred on bush1's watch. It was August '92. clinton was elected November of '92 and inaugurated Jan '93.
#27. To: mehitable (#10)
My take too, Me...
#28. To: bluedogtxn (#2)
Just so you know Blue, I didn't direct the F-off to you. I am directing it at the author of this piece, which I hope wasn't you. If you think Timothy McVeigh was alone in his OKC exploits, you are greatly mistaken. There's a score or more books devoted to the topic. As far as where I pull my info, I have a long memory, and I distinctly remember Columbine, and several other little events that ended up stripping the 2nd Amendment like nobody's business. I remember not being able to buy Assault Styled weapons. I remember gun collectors vilified. I remember a surplus of heinous nonsense that transpired under Clinton, and yet all the people saw was that stupid blue dress, and the cow who wore it. As far as my being a lightweight, give me the oppurtunity to impress the hell out of you with my mad debating skills.
| What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#29. To: bluedogtxn (#7)
yep, and it's so easy for people to forget that it's one smooth and seamless transition of corruption from one administration to the next. it's not d's vs r's. it's in reality the globalist elites against WE THE PEOPLE.
Because fraud though it may be, it's a one party system, now.
#30. To: TommyTheMadArtist, bluedogtxn (#28)
oops..it was. :P
I am directing it at the author of this piece, which I hope wasn't you.
#31. To: scrapper2 (#5)
Let's see... There was... BOSNIA. For what? WE STILL HAVE TROOPS THERE. We had Somalia, where our guys died, and all they needed was simple air support, and artillery support. They didn't get it. He also set things into motion where Israel became more of a pain in the ass than they needed to be. There's a hell of a lot wrong with the Clinton years, and that doesn't even count the 3 times he was offered Bin Laden ON A PLATTER NO LESS. We're at war, not because of Clinton's idiocy, or because of Bush's idiocy. We're at war because the powers that be want this war. They want us to create an economic bloc in the middle east. They want perpetual war, and perpetual profits. Which is why the oil companies REALLY have no problems making sure their bought and paid for candidates stay in office, or get elected. They can drop the price of gas arbitrarily to placate the proletariat. Then, there's the assclowns in the Defense industry. They're getting rid of all the surplus crap they got, and want to create new products and inventories that will carry them into the future. Rather than find ways to create peace, they're creating new ways, and cheaper ways to kill people. All in the name of commerce. So, if you think I'm just railing on Clinton, you'd be mistaken. Clinton, and Bush are nothing more than frontmen for the unholy cabal that really runs this planet.
| What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#32. To: christine (#30)
Yet another quandary. Do I apologize for the profanity, or should I be even more offended that one of our own posted this tripe?
| What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#33. To: Horse (#16)
Jesus Christ... Don't expect an answer to your questions from Bluedog. He's in love with Bill.
| What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#34. To: All, A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words (#30)
#35. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#32)
leave me outta this. :P
#36. To: christine (#26)
No shit. My mistake. Gives me a new reason to dislike Bush 1.
Mark
If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
#37. To: christine, bluedogtxn (#29)
Since the JFK assassination the NWO criminal gang have controlled Washington, the only certainty, if there is a presidential election in 08, is that Bush's successor will prove to be even more disasterous to what was America.
yep, and it's so easy for people to forget that it's one smooth and seamless transition of corruption from one administration to the next. it's not d's vs r's. it's in reality the globalist elites against WE THE PEOPLE
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
#38. To: Zoroaster (#37)
Exactly ... The U.S. is a C.I.A. / MOSSAD controlled criminal operation supported by U.S. Taxpayers and D.O.P.E.
"consensus facit legem"
"consensus makes the law"
#39. To: Tauzero (#15)
and most of it is NOT growth in entitlements. Plenty of other goodies to go around. And under the accounting rules the government makes the rest of us obey, entitlements swamp everything else. Funny how that works. First of all, your FY '05 numbers don't look like they include the cost of the WOT; and the Katrina losses probably are rolled into 2006; secondly, I acknowledged that the "Clinton surplus" was debatable. That isn't a debate we need to bother with, because the point remains that Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Bush I or Bush II; he actually targeted the deficit and reduced it. Whether he reduced it to zero or not is beside the point. The idea that the deficit is "irrelevant" to the "long term picture" depends on how "long term" you want to go. If you depend on the notion that our growth will always catch up to deficits, we've got a lot of catching up to do, thanks to W, and we wouldn't be in that position if his idiotic economic theories hadn't been wholesale adopted by the servile GOP congress. And if Clinton was the president we would not have invaded Iraq. Unending war is expensive and unsustainable for a country with a debt picture like ours. And now they want to kick off yet another war with Iran. 9-11 would probably still have happened, but the response wouldn't have been the implementation of a neocon empire plan that will bankrupt all of us (to the extent we aren't already bankrupt) while we live in an increasing police state. I reiterate. Clinton was a saint compared to the tweaked out little fuckpole in office now.
For FY 2004, the government had a $616 billion operating loss, for FY 2005 $760 billion.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
#40. To: Horse (#16)
I think you're wrong. You underestimate him. If he had anything to do with the two events you cite, he'd lie so convincingly that any objective observer would conclude that you were the nut hiding stuff, not him. If he didn't have anything to do with them, he'd tell the truth so convincingly that the same would hold true. See, for the past five years we've had a defective president who couldn't speak without a teleprompter. Clinton isn't called "slick" for nothing. I don't miss his policies, I don't miss his moral relativism. I miss his COMPETENCE and his intelligence. He could actually debate Ahmedinijad and win. You may think Clinton was venal, there are lots of opinions on that, and the right invested a lot of years hating Clinton. The bottom line, and the point of what I wrote was that he was so much better than our current pinhead that his considerable flaws look like pecaddillos in comparison.
I could could ask a few more questions but I think Slick would break free from the ropes I had used to tie him to the chair by the time we got to question number two.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
.
.
.
Comments (41 - 44) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest