Bush Is No Clinton, We Can All Agree On That

[dmp]

You don't remember a similar passion against Clinton? I guess impeachment isn't passionate enough for you. You never hear of Bush taking polls because he doesn't give a sh*t what we think. You saw the Miers nomination, which is the latest gaffe to have been commited by this president. Government is supposed to reflect the minds of the people. But you think polling the people to gauge public opinion is a bad idea? I guess blindly putting your trust into the whims of a C student frat boy is more of a rational mindset.

Let me get this straight - Clinton LIED UNDER OATH. CLINTON committing perjury = passion against Clinton? wha?

You are being an idiot, Hagbard. I hope it's an act.

 

[Bonnie]

Yeah, Bush didn't sell military technology to anyone--he just sold out a US intelligence officer so that his justifications for war would go unchallenged.

Thought you could use to read this again, check your facts next time

Mr. Prosecutor Fitzgerald, Where's the Beef?
by Jim Kouri
1 November 2005

The Scooter Libby indictment provides more questions than answers in that not one person has been indicted for the crime of divulging the identity of a covert CIA operative.

Plame is the wife of former US Ambassador Joe Wilson, who publicly cast doubt on Bush's case for invading Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons. Mr. Wilson intimated at first that it was Vice President Cheney who dispatched him to Africa, something that turned out to be false. As facts slowly came to light, it became obvious that Mr. Wilson has a casual relationship with the truth. For instance, it was discovered that indeed it was his wife who pushed for Wilson to be sent to Niger to investigate intelligence regarding Iraq and uranium. Wilson repeatedly denied it until a memorandum written by Plame was discovered showing she highly recommended her husband for the fact-finding mission.
Ironically, it was British intelligence which made the claim that Iraq sought the capability to develop nuclear weapons and during Bush's speech in 2003 he mentioned it was a British allegation. To this day the British continue to stand by their intelligence and analysis. And the so-called "16 misleading words" are really a fabrication of the mainstream news media.
The Libby indictment -- the only one after two years of investigation -- provides more questions than answers in that not one person has been indicted for the crime of divulging the identity of a covert CIA operative. In fact, during prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference and subsequent question and answer session with gleeful news reporters, he continuously used the word "classified." But leaking classified information is not a crime, or else people such as Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy would be serving several prison sentences and keeping house for his new jailhouse boyfriend.

Prosecutor Fitzgerald claims that Libby knowingly misled the grand jury about his role in the exposing of Valerie Plame, a CIA secret agent whose cover was blown when administration aides leaked her name to reporters. Of course, no one asked about the fact that Joe Wilson mentioned his CIA wife in his bio posted on a seminar website well before the Robert Novak article "outed" Plame.


Once the celebrating denizens of America's newsrooms calm down, perhaps they will begin to take this case as seriously as they wish Americans to take it. As stated earlier, there are more questions than answers in this case. For instance, did Valerie Plame testify before the grand jury? Did Joe Wilson? Was Valerie Plame indeed a covert CIA agent? Who in the CIA sent Wilson, a man with no intelligence experience, to Africa to investigate the British claims that Saddam attempted to procure yellow-cake uranium? Didn't the US congress question the validity of Wilson's reportage?

And didn't congressmen report that Wilson lacked credibility? Where is Joe Wilson's CIA report? If Mr. Wilson's trip to Africa was classified, why was he blabbing about it in an op-ed piece in the New York Times? When Joe Wilson worked for the John Kerry campaign and was prominently listed on Kerry's website, why was his bio and information removed so quickly when it came out that Wilson was a liar? Yes, there are many, many questions that need to be answered.
Scooter Libby's indictment provided a day of celebration for the Democrat Party and the liberal news media. Soon, Libby will retain attorneys who will conduct their own investigation into this case. This is not a slam-dunk for the prosecution, the liberal-left media and the Democrat Party. They may want to re-think their plans of riding Joe Wilson to victory in the 2006 elections.

Libby's attorneys and their investigators will pursue answers to many questions that the news media feel they should ignore. They will also have the power of discovery, full disclosure, and will be able to dissect what went on in the grand jury room. They will be able to delve into Valerie Plame's and Joe Wilson's attempts to undermine the Bush war effort. Defense counsel will look into the purpose of the CIA sending a left-wing activist with no intelligence or investigative skills on such a sensitive mission. The defense lawyers will reveal what many already know: that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame had a hidden agenda. These topnotch lawyers will conduct an inquiry into the relationship Joe Wilson has with Senator Chuckie Schumer or other Democrat Party honchos.In the days ahead the Democrat Party blowhards will repeatedly talk about the Bush Administration's "culture of corruption." The fact is there has been merely one White House staffer who's ever been indicted in five years. I suggest the Democrats look at the number of indictments and convictions during the eight years of the Clinton Administration before they start their vitriolic rhetoric. And if they want to discuss issues of national security, they should go talk to Sandy "Pants" Berger.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4702.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Come on Bonnie, if you went to a liberal and asked him why they liked Clinton they most certainly would not respond with "I liked him because he stood for nothing!"

What do they say then? Do they just stare blankly back at you?

Why don't you tell us what liberals liked/say about Clinton?

 

[dmp]

Why don't you tell us what liberals liked/say about Clinton?

Some Liberals tend to be like whiney or bratty children...they want to do whatever they please, without fear of consequence. To that end, they support leadership which does likewise. Lying, Cheating, Having people murdered, investment scams...those things. Oh! But he spoke with Charisma! That makes up for stuff, right?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Why don't you tell us what liberals liked/say about Clinton?

My point was, a liberal who likes Clinton likes him for other reasons. What those are, beats me, I don't think there's been a good president in awhile.

Already answered.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Already answered.

My point was, a liberal who likes Clinton likes him for other reasons. What those are, beats me, I don't think there's been a good president in awhile.

Since you have no idea, here's one: Liberals liked Clinton was because they like the idea of a compassionate and placating Big Brother taking care of them. Of course these are things that most liberals will not readily admit to your face.

"I feel your pain."

"Can't we all just get along?"

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Since you have no idea, here's one: Liberals liked Clinton was because they like the idea of a compassionate and placating Big Brother taking care of them. Of course these are things that most liberals will not readily admit to your face.

"I feel your pain."

"Can't we all just get along?"

ok?

 

[Avatar4321]

What do they say then? Do they just stare blankly back at you?

Honestly? yes.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Honestly? yes.

Interesting.

 

[Plasticweld]

In my opinion the reason people liked Bill Clinton, and I don’t just mean liberals is that he was capable of telling everyone while they were drinking the Kool Aid that everything is ok. It may seem like a small feat but Bush has been very straight forward with his estimates as to what it would take to fight terrorism, Do I honestly agree with every thing he as done, no! I do feel like he did what he thought was right for better or worse. His choice in Supreme Court Justice is proof of that. Harriet Mires may very well have been the best candidate for the position based on his first hand knowledge of her personality. I personally thought it was wrong to pick anyone with so little court experience and based my feelings on that more than anything else. His last pick should have been his first pick.

Do I think he would ever tell the American public something they just wanted to hear, No!

The most popular catch phrase ever used in an election speech is “Lets bring Truth to government.” The trouble is that if you really do that you are going to piss a lot of people off. The bottom line is that most people want to be re assured not informed.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Good men are both well hated and well liked. The passion against Bush is a tribute to some of the stands he has taken, I don't remember a similar passion from the right against Clinton; he did have by partisian support on many of his programs. The level of hate on the far left has made and support for even a good program imposible.
I do agree that history will find Clinton to have been remembered for little and Bush for being bold. While I do not agree with everything Bush has done, I never once have heard the public or the press accuse him of taking a poll and then formulating an opinion or policy, something that was quite common in Clinton's two terms

Very good post.

And welcome to the board.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Liberals like Clinton because he was the first black U.S. President, no?

It absolutely floors me to see people treating Billy-boy like some sort of respected elder statesman. You would think the stinky cigar, the DNA-laden dress, the repeated cheating, the allegations of rape and assorted other crimes, and most of all, those abominable PARDONS, would be enough to make him a pariah forever. Or at least a laughing stock.

 

[Annie]

Good men are both well hated and well liked. The passion against Bush is a tribute to some of the stands he has taken, I don't remember a similar passion from the right against Clinton; he did have by partisian support on many of his programs. The level of hate on the far left has made and support for even a good program imposible.
I do agree that history will find Clinton to have been remembered for little and Bush for being bold. While I do not agree with everything Bush has done, I never once have heard the public or the press accuse him of taking a poll and then formulating an opinion or policy, something that was quite common in Clinton's two terms

Hey, Welcome to the Board! Actually, he has accomplished quite a lot. Here's an article from 2/04, Howard University, hardly a bastion of conservativism:

http://www.thehilltoponline.com/med....Him.Formidable.Challenge-613783.shtml?page=2

The Hilltop - Politick
Issue: 2/20/04

Bush's Accomplishments Make Him Formidable Challenge
By Shari Logan



With general elections coming soon, many Americans are looking back at President George W. Bush's term in office to see what he has accomplished.

Bush's claims that America is now a safer place have some validity, based on the fact that two-thirds of known al-Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed.

However, freshman Patricia Roberts points out that "America isn't safe because Osama Bin-Laden himself still hasn't been captured."

Fortunately, Saddam Hussein is presently in U.S. custody and is no longer a threat.

In his State of the Union Address on Jan. 20, Bush said, "America is committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous regimes." Due to his diplomacy, nuclear weapon programs have been disabled in Libya and talks are continuing with officials in North Korea.

Furthermore, Bush has instituted the USA PATRIOT Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, track terrorists, disrupt terrorist cells, and to seize assets. The new Department of Homeland Security supplements such legislation by enabling coasts and borders to be patrolled with a closer eye.

However, President of the Political Science Society, Kamonta Thompson, believes the USA PATRIOT ACT is taking away citizens' rights and is creating more terrorists instead.

During Bush's tenure in office America has come through a recession and many believe the economy is on the path to growing stronger.

Junior Adam Hunter,an economics and political science major, agrees . He said, "The tax cuts are going to end up helping America over the long run, not instantly."

In addition, tax reliefs have been given to small businesses and to every American who pays income taxes.

Also, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1,000, the marriage penalty decreased, taxes on capital gains and stock dividends reduced, and death tax is being phased out. Bush reported in the State of the Union that Americans are using their extra money constructively and are thus driving the economy forward

He said, "The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years; new home construction, the highest in almost 20 years; home ownership rates, the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high, and jobs are on the rise."

In fact, in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Bush said that unemployment is down to 5.6 percent. He encouraged Americans to become entrepreneurs in order to open up more jobs.

He also noted in his Address that much of our job growth would be found in high-skilled fields like health care and biotechnology.

Therefore, he established the No Child Left Behind Act so that children will be prepared to meet the requirements of such jobs. A thirty-six percent increase in funding has been given to schools.

During his State of the Union Bush introduced a program called Jobs for the 21st Century. This plan is intended to give older students and adults the skills they need to find jobs now.

Moreover, Bush signed a measure that allows senior citizens to choose a Medicare plan that best fits them. By January of 2006, prescription drug costs will be covered in a Medicare plan that will cost about $35.

This year senior citizens had the option of receiving a drug-discount card that gave them up to twenty-five percent off prescription drugs. Also millions of low-income seniors will be able to recieve an additional $600 to buy medicine.

"However, if these policies actually brought a change for the better is still questionable," said, Political Science Professor Ben K. Fred Mensah, Ph.D. Professor Mensah continued to say that it is important to find out if the feelings of the government are in sync with the people who are being affected by there decisions.

Bush's myriad of accomplishments in office make him a formidable rival to those running for the democratic nomination. Despite having many detractors, Bush knows what being President requires.

 

[Annie]

Yeah, Bush didn't sell military technology to anyone--he just sold out a US intelligence officer so that his justifications for war would go unchallenged.

Do you not read newspapers? This isn't the first:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot2nov02,1,5360204.column?coll=la-news-columns

MAX BOOT
Plamegate's real liar
Max Boot

November 2, 2005

'SCOOTER" LIBBY'S indictment was not exactly good news for the White House, but it could have been a lot worse. Feverish speculation had been building that Karl Rove would soon be "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs," as Valerie Plame's bombastic hubby, Joe Wilson, had hoped. Or even that Dick Cheney would have to resign.

But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn't seem to fit the act's definition of a "covert agent" — someone who "has within the last five years served outside the United States." By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president's chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn't a crime.

Making the best of a weak hand, Democrats argued that the case was not about petty-ante perjury but, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, "about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president." The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn't work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.

The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight — not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.

Much more egregious were the ways in which Wilson misrepresented his findings. In his famous New York Times Op-Ed article (July 6, 2003), Wilson gave the impression that his eight-day jaunt proved that Iraq was not trying to acquire uranium in Africa. Therefore, when administration officials nevertheless cited concerns about Hussein's nuclear ambitions, Wilson claimed that they had "twisted" evidence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The Senate Intelligence Committee was not kind to this claim either.

The panel's report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information. According to the panel, intelligence analysts "did not think" that his findings "clarified the story on the reported Iraq-Niger uranium deal." In other words, Wilson had hardly exposed as fraudulent the "16 words" included in the 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was "well founded."

This is not an isolated example. Pretty much all of the claims that the administration doctored evidence about Iraq have been euthanized, not only by the Senate committee but also by the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission. The latest proof that intelligence was not "politicized" comes from an unlikely source — Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who has been denouncing the hawkish "cabal" supposedly leading us toward "disaster." Yet, in between bouts of trashing the administration, Wilkerson said on Oct. 19 that "the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming" that Hussein was building illicit weapons. This view was endorsed by "the French, the Germans, the Brits." The French, of all people, even offered "proof positive" that Hussein was buying aluminum tubes "for centrifuges." Wilkerson also recalled seeing satellite photos "that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was … giving us disinformation."

So much for the lies that led to war. What we're left with is the lies that led to the antiwar movement. Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn't a crime.

This doesn't even touch of the Vanity Fair outing:

http://www.slate.com/id/2091907/

 

[Bonnie]

Hey, Welcome to the Board! Actually, he has accomplished quite a lot. Here's an article from 2/04, Howard University, hardly a bastion of conservativism:

http://www.thehilltoponline.com/med....Him.Formidable.Challenge-613783.shtml?page=2

great article..two more Iou's :clap1:

 

[Annie]

great article..two more Iou's :clap1:

Thanks!

 

[Bonnie]

The Uranium Joe Wilson Didn't Mention


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.

That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.

Story Continues Below


The media's decision to put the Wilson-Plame affair back on the front burner, however, may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for President Bush - giving his administration a chance to resurrect an important debate they conceded far too easily about the weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
First, the facts - from a reliable critic of the White House, the New York Times, which covered the story long after the paper announced it was tightening its standards on WMD news out of Iraq.

"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

Well, almost none.

The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.

"A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.

Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.

Or did it?

The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.

In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."

"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.

And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.

Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.

"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.

"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."

Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.

If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.

One more detail that Mr. Wilson and his media backers don't like to discuss: There's a reason Niger was such a likely candidate for Saddam's uranium shopping spree.

Responding to the firestorm that erupted after Wilson's July 2003 column, Prime Minister Tony Blair told reporters:

"In case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased round about 270 tons of uranium from Niger."

 

[GotZoom]

Liberals like Clinton because he was the first black U.S. President, no?

It absolutely floors me to see people treating Billy-boy like some sort of respected elder statesman. You would think the stinky cigar, the DNA-laden dress, the repeated cheating, the allegations of rape and assorted other crimes, and most of all, those abominable PARDONS, would be enough to make him a pariah forever. Or at least a laughing stock.

This is how all the rappers and sports-stars act and look at the hero-worship they receive!

 

[Bullypulpit]

You nailed it

Too bad 'e mashed his/her thumb in the process.