A Bold Prediction

[CrpRavens30]

Don't get me wrong.. I think Bill was, hands down, the greatest president I've ever lived under....

WOW just WOW.. Clinton is a POS.. Bill had no business being president..

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Here is how it's going to play out.........

Hitlery is going to get the Democratic nomination and Giuliani is going to get the Nomination on the Republican side. Ron Paul is going to freak out and throw a temper tantrum and run on the Independant or Libertarian ticket. That will mess up the race for the Republican side and basically hand the keys to the White House over to Hitlery.

I think that's a possibility, but I'm not so sure. Paul will most likely be the Libertarian candidate and pull slightly better numbers than the average Libertarian nominee. There's also the Constitution party, but they are still pretty small. Not sure if that would be enough to come to that conclusion.

A combination of Paul as a Libertarian and Bloomberg as an Independent, plus the natural tendency to swing back the other way after a few years, might very well throw a pretty big wrench in things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bill wasn't found to have obstructed justice. Scooter Libby was. So I guess you think Scooter should still be in jail?

The grand jury, superior court, supreme court, and Arkansas bar disagree with your.

And no, I don't believe Scooter Libby should be in jail any more than Bill Clinton should be in jail for their respective offenses. It remains to be seen if Scooter did in fact intentionally lie. He has not admitted to that fact and may simply be guilty of nothing more than a faulty memory. That will be decided in his appeal. Bill Clinton, however, wagged his finger in the face of the nation declaring he did not have sex with 'that woman. . . .' and later, after he was caught, fessed up Pretty hard for him to say he didn't lie.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Oh good. I can see things haven't changed much. It's become another Bill Clinton/Lied under oath/Blowjob thread. Not enough of those in the archive.

 

[jillian]

The grand jury, superior court, supreme court, and Arkansas bar disagree with your.

And no, I don't believe Scooter Libby should be in jail any more than Bill Clinton should be in jail for their respective offenses. It remains to be seen if Scooter did in fact intentionally lie. He has not admitted to that fact and may simply be guilty of nothing more than a faulty memory. That will be decided in his appeal. Bill Clinton, however, wagged his finger in the face of the nation declaring he did not have sex with 'that woman. . . .' and later, after he was caught, fessed up Pretty hard for him to say he didn't lie.

No. It DOESN'T remain to be seen if Scooter did in fact intentionally lie. The jury hearing his case decided he did. Or do you think someone is only guilty of a crime if they confess? Somehow I can't imagine that. As to what will be decided on appeal, technically, the appellate Court does not overturn findings of fact. It looks to a) whether there were any errors of such severity in the trial that it would warrant a new trial; and b) could the jury have made a finding based on the evidence that was before them? The trial was clean. I'd be shocked if anything changed.

I could care less what Bill did when he wagged his finger. George Bush looked us in the face and said there were WMD's... Gee... which lie was relevant to our lives. I couldn't care less who Bill got BJ's from or what he said about them.

More than that, one of the stupidest things that has EVER been done to this country was dividing it by impeaching Bill Clinton. (you do know he was found NOT GUILTY by the Senate, right?). It created a rift which won't be repaired for decades.

But the right seems to like that type of divisiveness, no matter how, ultimately stupid, pointless and counterproductive.... kind of like continued discussions about Bill Clinton's personal peccadillios, which no one really cares about except the people who hated him to begin with. Go figure.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

George Bush looked us in the face and said there were WMD's.

So did Bill Clinton in between blowjobs, but a lot of people seem to want to forget that.

Anyway....

 

[jillian]

So did Bill Clinton in between blowjobs, but a lot of people seem to want to forget that.

Anyway....

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... and he did what? Occupied Iraq or had the inspectors do their job?

Anyway...

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... and he did what? Occupied Iraq or had the inspectors do their job?

Anyway...

He didn't remove a tyrant and a killer from power and help establish a new government in a country that was a safe haven for terrorists either. Apparently you also missed the bit where Saddam admitted he was waiting for the inspectors to leave before he started his developement of a nuclear weapon. I guess you also arn't aware of Bill Clinton's support to go into Iraq (of course, that was just his first opinion) or that we couldn't go into Iraq without the votes of the Democrats that voted for it.

I am aware that this is essentially the same conversation I've had umpteen times. Have a nice day.

 

[jillian]

He didn't remove a tyrant and a killer from power and help establish a new government in a country that was a safe haven for terrorists either. Apparently you also missed the bit where Saddam admitted he was waiting for the inspectors to leave before he started his developement of a nuclear weapon. I guess you also arn't aware of Bill Clinton's support to go into Iraq (of course, that was just his first opinion) or that we couldn't go into Iraq without the votes of the Democrats that voted for it.

I am aware that this is essentially the same conversation I've had umpteen times. Have a nice day.

Iraq WASN'T a mecca for terrorists unitl AFTER Bush deposed Saddam. Saddam hated the fundies.

But yeah, same convo, different day.

So have a good one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... and he did what? Occupied Iraq or had the inspectors do their job?

Anyway...

Remind me again that your law degree is not from some Banana republic. That you can make the most ignorant statements and tell us your a practicing lawyer just amazes me to no end.

He could not claim it was not the Court's Business. IT was exactly their business because he did it to other women against their will, using is office as a club to threaten them with. To protect his sorry ass he lied, not because of being afraid of Hillary but being afraid a Judge may decide since he couldn't keep it in his pants even in the White House he sure as hell did not keep it in his pants as a Governor.

Tell us what firm you work for so we can be sure NEVER to hire them for fear of getting you as our Lawyer. You don't know how the Constitution works and you do not appear to understand how the law works in general.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Iraq WASN'T a mecca for terrorists unitl AFTER Bush deposed Saddam. Saddam hated the fundies.

But yeah, same convo, different day.

So have a good one.

Yeah, I guess those training camps popped up by themselves, the medical treatment and financial support provided to terrorists were tax write offs, and the government controlled Iraqi TV naming Osama Bin Laden their Man of the Year for 2001 was an accident.

 

[Shogun]

hey, don't forget the mobile chem labs that we had glossy circle and arrow pics of... and those phantom wmds that *POOF* disappeared into thin air.

yellow cake and aluminium tubing from niger?

DOH!

 

[jillian]

Yeah, I guess those training camps popped up by themselves, the medical treatment and financial support provided to terrorists were tax write offs, and the government controlled Iraqi TV naming Osama Bin Laden their Man of the Year for 2001 was an accident.

The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission, declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda

Go look at the original source material if you don't believe this source.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Yeah, I guess those training camps popped up by themselves, the medical treatment and financial support provided to terrorists were tax write offs, and the government controlled Iraqi TV naming Osama Bin Laden their Man of the Year for 2001 was an accident.

Good Gawd, how often do these lies have to be knocked down?


*CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence, September 2006:

-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi

-Conclusion 1: "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."

-Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

-Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them.. "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."


http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

 

[Alpha1]

How many times mush it be pointed out that conclusions arrived at in 2006 are irrelevant to what the intell was reporting in 2002, 2003.....what was believed to be true, pre-war is what is relevant.....

 

[Shogun]

yea, convenient.


It still says mountains about your capacity to follow where you've been told to walk without having the slightest inclination of critical thought about who was holding your leash.


Don't blame us if the hindsight of your mistakes cut your credibility down to size.

 

[Doug]

MidCan: You said

Indians from what I can gather respected woman and treated them with great chivalry unlike Europeans. Rape is part of our culture it seems.

No, rape is not a cultural thing. It is a male thing. Our culture, which is now a universalist culture, tries to suppress it. Other cultures, which are tribalist, justify it, when done to women of other tribes. This is why the liberal democratic culture which we have developed in the West, sinc ethe Enlightenment, is superior to those cultures which are merely tribal.

As for the American Indians, here is a part of a Wikipedia article on the Comanches:

The Comanche's population had increased in large part by adopting captured women and children into the tribe, the former as child-bearing slaves and the later as tribal members. The Comanche made little distinction from tribal members born into the tribe, and those adopted in. Children under puberty were tested for intelligence, strength and courage, and if they seemed acceptable in all, they were adopted into the tribe and taught to be warriors. Grown men captured alive were generally killed, while women over puberty could expect gang rape and slavery.

We shouldn't demonize the Indians -- some aspects of their culture were admirable. But let's not kid ourselves about the savage nature of the human animal, outside of the institutions which have so slowly and painfully been evolved over the millenia to channel that savagery into other courses, institutions which cultural radicals are all too quick to denigrate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

MidCan: You said

No, rape is not a cultural thing. It is a male thing. Our culture, which is now a universalist culture, tries to suppress it. Other cultures, which are tribalist, justify it, when done to women of other tribes. This is why the liberal democratic culture which we have developed in the West, sinc ethe Enlightenment, is superior to those cultures which are merely tribal.

As for the American Indians, here is a part of a Wikipedia article on the Comanches:

We shouldn't demonize the Indians -- some aspects of their culture were admirable. But let's not kid ourselves about the savage nature of the human animal, outside of the institutions which have so slowly and painfully been evolved over the millenia to channel that savagery into other courses, institutions which cultural radicals are all too quick to denigrate.

He claimed Indians did not rape women? What fantasy history lesson did he get that from?

 

[AllieBaba]

Iraq WASN'T a mecca for terrorists unitl AFTER Bush deposed Saddam. Saddam hated the fundies.

But yeah, same convo, different day.

So have a good one.

Back to the loony bin, counselor.

 

[Foxfyre]

Re the 'non-existent' Saddam Hussein - Al Qaida link:

Some of this is no doubt hyped, perhaps some misplaced facts here and there, some exaggerations or intentional downplaying of circumstances. But when there is so much smoke, it should at least raise questions as to how much fire existed.

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

(e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting -- on November 13, 1995 -- terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found ““no credible evidence”” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.
In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden made overtures to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for assistance, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
The report said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, even though the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for ““anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.””
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml