There Bill Clinton goes again

[hboats]

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, I stand corrected, you really are this stupid. And you don't just get your information from Media Matters, there's also wikipedia. Do you realize how much information on wiki is incorrect? I wouldn't try winning too many arguments using wiki as a source if I were you. Oh yeah, I forgot who I was talking to, you use wiki any chance you get.

That wiki link couldn't even get it's own story straight. First they say there was no U.N. resolution, then they say there was. Well, which is it?

Rick

 

[teapartysamurai]

And your desire to find anyone on the left guilty of anything and everything without evidince is non stop

Oh boo freaking hoo! Lefties are responsible for their actions. How unfair! Oh boo hoo hoo!

 

[drsmith1072]

Full Transcript of NBC Dateline report on Juanita Broaddrick (plus fax to Hillary asking for help)

Full Transcript of NBC Dateline report on Juanita Broaddrick


She became known as Jane Doe Number 5. Her story was well known to independent counsel Ken Starr, to House impeachment managers, to Washington insiders and Capitol Hill reporters. A month ago, she gave an interview to NBC News correspondent Lisa Myers. Since then NBC News has been carefully investigating this story — combing through state records, court documents and newspapers, cross-checking dates and events, talking to more than 80 people, and repeatedly requesting information from the White House.


LAST WEEK, as NBC News continued its investigation, Jane Doe Number 5 went public with her extraordinary allegation — that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton 21 years ago. To some this is an old and unprovable accusation that should never have been circulated to begin with. To others it’s a story that must be told. Is she to be believed? Or is Jane Doe Number 5 the latest weapon in a relentless political war against Bill Clinton?


Juanita Broaddrick: “It’s important to me to tell what happened. I don’t know how people are going to take this. I don’t know what they’re going to think after all these years and months why I’ve come forward.”

you have broken the copyright rules!

KEEP ARTICLES POSTED TO A FEW PARAGRAPHS THEN PROVIDE A LINK.

Care

Didn't starr investigate all of ths and find NOTHING??

So in the end, and once again, YOU'VE got NOTHING.

The sad thing is that after all of that taxpayer money spent and wasted digging for dirt and going on fishing expeditions in an attempt to find something on clinton and in the end all you got was making false statements under oath and a failed partisan based attempt to remove a popular democrat president.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Bush based his assumptions about WMDs based on reports to him. Not only did our country agree with the reports, but others did as well. You really do have a problem with FACTS don't you?

Rick

the intel was cherry picked, rick. there's really no reason to debate the issue because it's really done and dusted as far as i'm concerned. but if you take the time to look at Hans Blix's final reports to the U.N., it's pretty clear that the entry into Iraq was for no reason at all.

-- j

I was instructed by mods not to include more than three paragraphs per post of quoted material. Thus this is going to take more than one post from me, because it's LARGE:

CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world, Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

　

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his WEAPONS PROGRAMS. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

Can you liberals explain to me how Bush "cherry picked" data that Clinton and the Democrat were making speechs about THREE YEARS BEFORE Bush became president?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Bush based his assumptions about WMDs based on reports to him. Not only did our country agree with the reports, but others did as well. You really do have a problem with FACTS don't you?

Rick

the intel was cherry picked, rick. there's really no reason to debate the issue because it's really done and dusted as far as i'm concerned. but if you take the time to look at Hans Blix's final reports to the U.N., it's pretty clear that the entry into Iraq was for no reason at all.

-- j

Pt 2!

Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAMS. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

Funny how Bush could cherry pick that data so Madelaine Albright knew about it three years before he became president.

And those Democrats on the Intelligence Committee??? How did Bush cherry pick that data and keep it from them?

 

[drsmith1072]

Here is another Bill Clinton victim of him being a sexual predator.

Sex Assault Accuser Lobs Fresh Charges At Clinton Duo - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

"One of the other reasons that I wrote the book is that ... I would hope that women especially would read this story because statistics show that one in three women today have to deal with sexual harassment and that's way too many women in this world today in the year 2007," Willey told FOX News on Thursday.

"I'm speaking for women out there who were afraid to come and talk and speak up," Willey said.

In a broad array of charges, Willey's latest claim is that someone tried over Labor Day to steal from her house the manuscript for her new book, "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton."

In the book, she rehashes several charges first made at the end of the Clinton administration — including that her cat Bullseye went missing and on the day she was supposed to testify for another Clinton accuser, Paula Jones, a would-be jogger approached her and cryptically suggested that Bullseye was dead. Jones, who sued the president for sexual harassment, received an out of court settlement from Clinton for $875,000 in 1998. In the settlement, he never admitted to any improprieties.


edited: FOR BREAKING COPYRIGHT POLICY

Care

Wiley, another conservative propped up hack whose complaints amounted to NOTHING. She was allegedly harrassed after goin g to clinton as a volunteer to ask him for a job, he said no. She came back to the same man that allegedly harrassed her previously and asked him AGAIN and AGAIN he said NO and later she tried to jump on the band wagon of the other cons propped up hacks and tried to claim that she was harrassed once and then went back for more. LOL

Didn't cons try to give her a talk radio program that was cancelled shortly after it began?? What kind of quid pro quo was that??

 

[teapartysamurai]

Bush based his assumptions about WMDs based on reports to him. Not only did our country agree with the reports, but others did as well. You really do have a problem with FACTS don't you?

Rick

the intel was cherry picked, rick. there's really no reason to debate the issue because it's really done and dusted as far as i'm concerned. but if you take the time to look at Hans Blix's final reports to the U.N., it's pretty clear that the entry into Iraq was for no reason at all.

-- j

Part 3!

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, AND WILL KEEP TRYING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Wow, do I even need to post the rest? It would probably take me three or four more posts do post all the quotes from liberals who were supposedly led astray by Bush, even before Bush was president!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Here is another Bill Clinton victim of him being a sexual predator.

Sex Assault Accuser Lobs Fresh Charges At Clinton Duo - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

"One of the other reasons that I wrote the book is that ... I would hope that women especially would read this story because statistics show that one in three women today have to deal with sexual harassment and that's way too many women in this world today in the year 2007," Willey told FOX News on Thursday.

"I'm speaking for women out there who were afraid to come and talk and speak up," Willey said.

In a broad array of charges, Willey's latest claim is that someone tried over Labor Day to steal from her house the manuscript for her new book, "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton."

In the book, she rehashes several charges first made at the end of the Clinton administration — including that her cat Bullseye went missing and on the day she was supposed to testify for another Clinton accuser, Paula Jones, a would-be jogger approached her and cryptically suggested that Bullseye was dead. Jones, who sued the president for sexual harassment, received an out of court settlement from Clinton for $875,000 in 1998. In the settlement, he never admitted to any improprieties.


edited: FOR BREAKING COPYRIGHT POLICY

Care

Wiley, another conservative propped up hack whose complaints amounted to NOTHING. She was allegedly harrassed after goin g to clinton as a volunteer to ask him for a job, he said no. She came back to the same man that allegedly harrassed her previously and asked him AGAIN and AGAIN he said NO and later she tried to jump on the band wagon of the other cons propped up hacks and tried to claim that she was harrassed once and then went back for more. LOL

Didn't cons try to give her a talk radio program that was cancelled shortly after it began?? What kind of quid pro quo was that??

Women are only victims if they go against conservatives or just white men like the Duke Lacrosse players.

Go against a horndog like Bill Clinton and you have to be lying!

This is how it works in the liberal world.

 

[drsmith1072]

Why did she attend a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after he supposedly raped her??????



Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oh and the other thing is the premise that this thread was began on.

The side with the truth doesn't need smears

and yet here they are trying to smear clinton in an attempt to discredit him with accusation that even a full and complete investigation by starr couldn't prove.

 

[drsmith1072]

For a guy who is lucky to not be in prison for rape and sexual assault he is a pretty big mouth.

I can't believe people still listen to him. There are actual people - women included - who still admire this guy. I guess there will always be nutbars who will listen to snake oil salesmen until the end of time.

I have similar feelings concerning how righties still believe cheney, rove, mccain, hannety, beck, o'reily, or for that matter any republican who has been out spreading lies about the bills being proposed by congress.

Oh well, I guess there will always be nutbars who will listen to snake oil salesmen until the end of time.

 

[drsmith1072]

There is no reason to believe the woman was raped if she refused to go to the police when she had the REAL evidence that could proove the crime.

Hell she could of at least gone to a Dr and saved the evidence of the crime.

Lets remember that to be convicted of a crime there needs to be evidence beyond he said she said.

See that is the problem where righties are concerned. If they BELIEVE someone is guilty then they know based on their belief that they are guilty. No real proof is necessary.

For an example look at the recent threads and comments where righties are trying to blame liberals for that couple in NO getting attacked. There is No proof that it was politically based and yet they know that it must be so because they believe it was liberals.

However, point out how tea partiers spit and used racial slurs against members of congress and they demand video and audio proof that it actually happened.

then when you show them video proof of the spit they defend it claiming it wasn't really spitting because it was not intentional because that is how they see it.

You are talking about applying a standard of honesty to righties that they only apply to others.

 

[drsmith1072]

FOXNews.com - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Acknowledges Having Affair During Clinton Impeachment - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Do you know why Clinton was impeached? It wasn't because he was having an affair, if that's all it took we'd have a very long line of impeached presidents. He was impeached because he went on national television and flat out LIED to the whole country. It was proved to be a lie and he has a history of affairs with women that leads me to tend to believe the story of this woman.

Rick

Nice avoidance of the FACT that he provided the proof that YOU asked for and you have still yet to provide proof of any of your statements.

Furthermore, clintonw as NOT impeached for telling a lie on national television, that is not an impeachable offense if it was you righties should have been beating down the door to impeach W. LOL

Clinton was impeached primarialy because rebublicans wanted to tear down a popular demcorat president.
They spent millions of tax payer dollars to fish for anything that they could use against him and all of the accusations of murder and rape and other nonsense were shot down by the investigator republcians picked.
In the end what they tried to remove him from office for was the fact that he made "false statements under oath" during the paula jones civil case and republicans tried to remove him from office for that and obstruction of justice which they tried to call a high crime. Then they LIED and tried to claim he committed perjury and demanded that he should be removed from office and in jail.

fast forward a bit and find that libby was found guitly of perjury and a few counts obstruction of justice as well as makign false statements under oath and republcains rush to his defense and argue that his punishment was too harsh.

It's all just another example of republcians hypocrisy.

 

[drsmith1072]

Please provide any evidence this tape has been debunked?

It's all over the place, I'm not doing your homework for you. Look it up yourself.

Rick

So you can't prove your own claim and wish him to go and prove you wrong?

He showed the video which is evidence that you asked for and then you claim it's been refuted and then fail to prove your own argument. how typical of the dishonest and cowardly right.

 

[drsmith1072]

FOXNews.com - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Acknowledges Having Affair During Clinton Impeachment - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Do you know why Clinton was impeached? It wasn't because he was having an affair, if that's all it took we'd have a very long line of impeached presidents. He was impeached because he went on national television and flat out LIED to the whole country. It was proved to be a lie and he has a history of affairs with women that leads me to tend to believe the story of this woman.

Rick

Clinton lied under oath. He was accused of sexually harrassing Paula Jones.

Paula Jones had a legal right to truthful testimony. Clinton lied under oath, which is a felony.

actually clinton only made false statements under oath, his claim concerning lewinsky had no bearing on whether he harrassed jones or not. making false statements is a misdemeanor

perjury requires that your lie is pertinent to the case. if it is not then the lie is not considered perjury and is not a felony.

In law, act or crime of knowingly making a false statement while under oath. The statement must be material to the issue of inquiry. Perjuries that have the effect of obstructing the adjudication of a case may be given increased punishment for that reason. A person who makes a false statement and later corrects it is usually not considered to have committed perjury.

 

[drsmith1072]

So ANY claim of rape is a crime?

are you really that stupid

Your hero has a pattern of being a sexual predator.

Hes not my hero.

So you think every time a man is accused of rape he is automatically guilty?

Oh come on, you know they only believe that if the man accused is a democrat. LOL

 

[CMike]

Do you know why Clinton was impeached? It wasn't because he was having an affair, if that's all it took we'd have a very long line of impeached presidents. He was impeached because he went on national television and flat out LIED to the whole country. It was proved to be a lie and he has a history of affairs with women that leads me to tend to believe the story of this woman.

Rick

Clinton lied under oath. He was accused of sexually harrassing Paula Jones.

Paula Jones had a legal right to truthful testimony. Clinton lied under oath, which is a felony.

actually clinton only made false statements under oath, his claim concerning lewinsky had no bearing on whether he harrassed jones or not. making false statements is a misdemeanor

perjury requires that your lie is pertinent to the case. if it is not then the lie is not considered perjury and is not a felony.

In law, act or crime of knowingly making a false statement while under oath. The statement must be material to the issue of inquiry. Perjuries that have the effect of obstructing the adjudication of a case may be given increased punishment for that reason. A person who makes a false statement and later corrects it is usually not considered to have committed perjury.

It did have bearing, since Paula Jones accused him of sexual harassment, and him shtupping a young intern in the WH, could play a part in determining the grand jury members decision. Felony.

 

[drsmith1072]

nothing but right wing lies just like Obama is a muslim, socialist Kenyan.

No. It's not a conspiracy. Actual women have come forward with quite compelling information. If it were all lies, Clinton would not have settled out of court with Paula Jones for a quite significant amount of money.

You just blindly believe whatever the Dem spin machine produces - hardly a surprise.

So you are actually trying to claim that because he settled out of court with jones that every other accusation against him must be true?? Is that really what you are trying to claim??

You present righty spin that you choose to blindly believe such as guilty until proven innocent and then accuse others of blindly following spin? now that is hilarious. LOL

 

[xsited1]

For a guy who is lucky to not be in prison for rape and sexual assault he is a pretty big mouth.

I can't believe people still listen to him. There are actual people - women included - who still admire this guy. I guess there will always be nutbars who will listen to snake oil salesmen until the end of time.

I have similar feelings concerning how righties still believe cheney, rove, mccain, hannety, beck, o'reily, or for that matter any republican who has been out spreading lies about the bills being proposed by congress.

Oh well, I guess there will always be nutbars who will listen to snake oil salesmen until the end of time.

Yep.

On the right: Hannity, Cheney, Rove, McCain, Bush, etc.
On the left: Clinton, Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, etc.

The problem, of course, is that the Democratic 'Nutbar' crowd has control of the country.

 

[drsmith1072]

I'm not making any assessment on the intel jillian, what I am commenting on are TM's lies. She claims that others lie every time they say something that she doesn't agree with, yet she posts this same lie over and over and over again. The lie is that Bush lied to get us into a war. Bush didn't lie, he based his decision on intel received, and not only did he think it was enough to go to war over, but our representatives did as well as the other countries that joined in on that war.

TM is a flat out liar and it was just proved not only by myself but by you admitting that Bush used intel to get us into the war in Iraq. Thanks.

Rick

your disagreement with TM is between the two of you. but no, i think bush used cherry-picked, not actual intel to get us into Iraq. I also think he should have listened to his state department about what would happen if he deposed saddam. i do not think he 'relied on intel' at all... i think they shaped the 'intel' to what they wanted to do. does it rise to the level of a lie? i don't know...

So did the UN, our Allies and Democrats also Cherry pick? why do you care that Bush did but not them?

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't W and britain have to form the coalition of the willing to invade iraq becuase the UN didn't support the INVASION??

Democrats in congress relied on info they were given.

We sent powell to spoon feed trumped up and cherry picked info to the UN and they chose not to support the invasion.

So care to rephrase your spin or will you just admit that you were WRONG?

 

[drsmith1072]

the intel was cherry picked, rick. there's really no reason to debate the issue because it's really done and dusted as far as i'm concerned. but if you take the time to look at Hans Blix's final reports to the U.N., it's pretty clear that the entry into Iraq was for no reason at all.

-- j

I'm not making any assessment on the intel jillian, what I am commenting on are TM's lies. She claims that others lie every time they say something that she doesn't agree with, yet she posts this same lie over and over and over again. The lie is that Bush lied to get us into a war. Bush didn't lie, he based his decision on intel received, and not only did he think it was enough to go to war over, but our representatives did as well as the other countries that joined in on that war.

TM is a flat out liar and it was just proved not only by myself but by you admitting that Bush used intel to get us into the war in Iraq. Thanks.

Rick

Document your claim

They can't and they won't

Based on my experience with most righties on this board they are quite adept at trying to insert their own opinions into the mouths of others so they can try to attack others based on things they never actually said.