Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They Demoted Richard Clarke
Chris Wallace Never Asked A Bush Administration Official Why They Demoted Richard Clarke
During his interview on Fox News, Bill Clinton asked Chris Wallace how many times Wallace asked a Bush administration official, “Why did you fire Dick Clarke?” By all accounts, Clarke was one of the people most concerned about al-Qaeda in any administration. Shortly after taking office, the Bush administration demoted Clarke, eliminated his staff and removed him from the Principals meeting.
Since 2001, Wallace has interview the top national security officials from the Bush administration — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley — 42 times. According to a Lexis-Nexis database search, he never asked any of them why Clarke was demoted.
The one time he brought up Clarke’s name with a Bush administration official — during a March 28, 2004 interview with Rumsfeld — he repeatedly attempted to smear Clarke as political motivated and untrustworthy. Some excerpts:
WALLACE: I think a lot of people in Washington are trying to figure out, to understand Richard Clarke, to make sense of what he has said and of apparent contradictions in his story — is he telling the truth, or is he pushing an agenda.
WALLACE: Let’s switch, if we can, to a different aspect of this. There is a move now by congressional Republican leaders to declassify Clarke’s testimony before one of their panels in 2002 to see whether or not it contradicts what he is telling the commission and what he writes in his book now. As I understand it, the Pentagon has to approve any such declassification. Do you think it’s a good idea?
WALLACE: Do you worry at all that, whether it’s the debate over Dick Clarke’s credibility, his charges, whether it’s the fact that we’re in the political season, that the important work you say the commission could do is going to get caught up in partisanship?
After Clinton brought up the issue, Wallace claimed “we asked” and shot back “Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday, Sir?“
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just check out how drudge handels it!
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:21 pmThis is so funny, TP. What is it? Pile on little Chrissie weekend? I almost feel sorry for the guy.
Wait…..no….that’s not it….I’m just hungry. Late lunch!
Keep piling on…. :)
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:23 pmI’m beginning to think Chris Wallace isn’t a real reporter with all those leading questions and blatant omissions.
This amount of BS never kept Democrats off FOX, however.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:28 pmSo, short answer…Wallace is just another tool of the right-wing, and he’s no more a journalist than my dog.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:30 pmFor once Clinton got asked a question that was not a “softball” thrown by some liberal news station and both he an other liberal nutjobs go ballistic. For 8 years plus the 6 yoears this slezy scumbag has got off easy. Now when somebody from a real news network asks his a question he get all pissy. Typical liberal hypocrite. I thought that nutjob Olbermann was acyually going to blow him on national TV.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:33 pmataxonamerica …..:) ridiculous post
it’s getting harder isn’t it…to defend the neocon wackos..
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:39 pmWow…This is the sixth thread ThinkProgress has started on this Clinton meltdown…John Podesta and the gang are in full-mode damage control! Unfortunately, Clinton’s breakdown occurs on the highest-rated cable news channel, so many, many Americans are going to see it…
I am suprised ThinkProgress isn’t demanding that Fox pull the interview like TP tried to do with “The Path to 9/11.”
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:39 pmI just love it when the Horn Dawg gets all red in the face and wags that finger at the camera and just flat out lies! “I did not have sex with that women bla bla bla. Of course it all depends on what your definition of women is.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:44 pmFunny how Wallace asked Clinton this question, but no similar question to Bush. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch and was an outright failure by Bush and his administration to take any action prior to the attack.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:46 pm#7 why would ThinkProgress want this interview pulled? Clinton again has spanked the neocons who pretend 9/11 was someone else’s fault. But, they cannot get around the fact that they were running the country when the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history occurred. UTTER FAILURE. UTTER INCOMPETENCE.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:48 pmFor 8 years plus the 6 yoears this slezy scumbag has got off easy. Now when somebody from a real news network asks his a question he get all pissy. Typical liberal hypocrite. I thought that nutjob Olbermann was acyually going to blow him on national TV.
Comment by ataxonamerica
*Big-yawn*
All I’d like to know is the truth, so perhaps it’s time to “waterboard” (it’s not torture, remember?) all of these folks and get to the truth.
But, it’s quite typical for some right-wing (troll?) to call Clinton a liberal (he’s not), call him a “scumbag”, and then top it all off with a slam at Olbermann – without offering one shred of evidence.
Of course, not to sink to their level, but “this slezy scumbag has got off easy” doesn’t inspire me with their superior intellectual skills.
’nuff said.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:51 pmall I can say is………”Heckuva job, Chris.”
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:53 pmWow…This is the sixth thread ThinkProgress has started on this Clinton meltdown…John Podesta and the gang are in full-mode damage control! Unfortunately, Clinton’s breakdown occurs on the highest-rated cable news channel, so many, many Americans are going to see it… -Exley
That right-wing (nuts) are out in full-force speaks volumes to this interview – Clinton spoke his mind when asked (blindsided) in this interview. Of course, it tears open – yet again – the 9/11 wound, but – how many times did Clinton babble about 9/11, terror, etc?
He didn’t – he doesn’t babble – not like our current president.
September 23rd, 2006 at 5:59 pm#10,
1) Because, based on the clip and transcript, Clinton comes off as a paranoid nacissist with a persecution complex that Nixon would envy.
2) Because as Beefeater so correctly points out, his red-faced, finger-wagging will only serve to remind Americans of the last time Bill acted like that….and lied to the American people…which is not something Democrats wants with the mid-term elections just a few weeks away.
3) Because the publicity this interview/breakdown will receive will again remind people of the Clinton administration’s anti-terrorism failures….again which is not something Democrats wants with the mid-term elections just a few weeks away.
But, hey, I am looking forward to seeing it in its entirety. Should be quite amusing.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:02 pmTerrorist Attacks Bill Clinton Stopped
For any idiot troll(s) out there.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:04 pmThese guys who are still so hung up on an 12 year old blowjob are SO funny!
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:05 pmboy! you guys are busy diggers today!
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:08 pmrainy day in d.c.? …
I know this is off topic, but it’s heart-breaking.
Palestinians suffer during Ramadan
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:14 pmSo I am guessing that these trolls are saying now that they would have fully supported a Clinton led invasion of Afghanistan in 1999? Is that what you guys are saying? If not, then exactly what the hell are you blaming Clinton for not having done? Please tie yourselves in knots trying to explain.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:25 pmThe best part of hearing Clinton (or Gore) speak is a break from the last 6 years of this:
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”
–George W. Bush, interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006
“I said I was looking for a book to read, Laura said you ought to cry Camus. I also read three Shakespeares. … I’ve got a eck-a-lec-tic reading list.”
–George W. Bush, interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, New Orleans, La., Aug. 29, 2006
“And I suspect that what you’ll see, Toby, is there will be a momentum, momentum will be gathered. Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses.” –George W. Bush, talking to reporters along the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, Gulfport, Miss., Aug. 28, 2006
“I’ve reminded the prime minister-the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship.”
–George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 29, 2006
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:26 pmBig Johnny,
That is exactly what I am saying. I frequently supported Clinton’s foreign policy. I supported his cruise missile attacks against Iraq in 1993 after Saddam’s attempted assassination of President George H.W. Bush. I supported his bombing of Bosnia and Kosovo. I supported his launching of Operation Desert Fox to bomb Iraq and destroy its WMD capability. I supported his cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998. I always support my nation’s president, regardless of party, when the security of the country is involved.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:31 pmExley and his right wing friends,
If you hadn’t noticed, people on the left (which is almost everyone, btw) are mostly pleased with what Clinton said. We come to our left-wing sites and say “well done Bill”. Now, why are you here?
Earlier I was trying to imagine being in Bill Clinton’s position. I can’t, but what I do know, is what it’s like to really care about something, to work hard on something, and then to have it all f**ked up by someone who comes along after you. And then to be blamed by those people? I would be more than a little “mad” too. Try to have some empathy, please? Imagine the political sides reversed, it doesn’t matter.
Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the best. You sound crazy. Stop talking about his penis again, for heaven’s sake. I remind you that Bill Clinton was a much more popular president than Bush. This publicity will not do the democrats or the country any harm at all – and the political outcome does not change the truth, anyway! Am i getting through your silly head at all? Do you accept that there is such a thing as objective truth?
Keep going ThinkProgress, you are really hitting the spot ;)
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:34 pmI just love it when trueblue gets all red in the face and wags that finger and whines “IDIOT TROLLS!!…IDIOT TROLLS!! Mommy make them go away! Great, well reasoned, argument with just a touch of humor.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:36 pmHey beefeater and Papa+………..bite it. :)!
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:41 pmNotice how the trolls are unable to defend the lack of hard questioning of Bush&Co but dwell instead on their dislike of Clinton.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:43 pmbeefeater,
personal attacks, that’s a great strategy!
Problem is, I haven’t been around much!
We have never crossed paths.
Again, …idiots…
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:46 pmExley: “I always support my nation’s president, regardless of party, when the security of the country is involved.”
OK, thanks. I wish you’d said that in the beginning. Now we know there’s no point debating you.
There probably isn’t even any point explaining why there’s no point arguing with someone who really believes that (as stated)?
Or was that post a parody (of a foolish right-winger)? It really is hard to tell these days.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:47 pmYep, it’s the ingorant hick, false prophet stereotype I can’t get past.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:48 pmbeefeater,
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:52 pmYou never responded to the information I linked, thus the “idiot” label.
Had you read it and responded, I could have an actual discussion with you.
But, you couldn’t do that. The “idiot” phrase wasn’t even meant for you!
Defensive, aren’t we?
I want to see Bill Clinton smack down little Chris Wallace but I don’t want to watch Fox. I hope ThinkProgress will be putting the video online.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:54 pmlol Zoo
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:55 pmI knew rwingnuts were dumb, but that some think Ahmadinejad is a liberal is almost funny.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:55 pmYou really expect Fox to ask anything remotely hard of the Bushies??? How rich. Fox is an arm of the gop. They will never put them on the spot.
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:55 pmFor once Clinton got asked a question that was not a “softball†thrown by some liberal news station and both he an other liberal nutjobs go ballistic. For 8 years plus the 6 yoears this slezy scumbag has got off easy. Now when somebody from a real news network asks his a question he get all pissy. Typical liberal hypocrite. I thought that nutjob Olbermann was acyually going to blow him on national TV.
Comment by ataxonamerica
Amazing that Calahan spells as badly as Ataxonamerica huh?
September 23rd, 2006 at 6:56 pmCan anyone name a Fox ” reporter ” that isn’t a GOP A**H***? Colmes doesn’t count, he isn’t a reporter, just a wimpy ” house ‘ liberal.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:00 pm#29, Smiff
So, are you saying one should not support our nation’s president — regardless of party — when the nation’s security is involved? Are you actually arguing that a person should put party above national security?
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:00 pmExley: “I always support my nation’s president, regardless of party, when the security of the country is involved”
LMAO..you outta be a politician Exley
Comment by Exley — September 5, 2006 @ 12:40 pm. Cheeks. Like I said. You guys need to make up shit to make Clinton look bad, we just have to use the truth …
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:00 pmFNC = Fascist News Channel.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:07 pmHey Lefites who do you like better Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ademinijad?
Comment by Papa+Smurf
George Bush: “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier – just so long I’m the dictator.”
I think George would be better dictator than either one actually
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:08 pm#40, Ion,
“You guys need to make up shit to make Clinton look bad, we just have to use the truth …”
So, you are saying you guys just need to use the truth to make Clinton look bad????
Ooooooookay. I am not sure why you would say that, but all right…
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:10 pm42 – I’m pretty sure I answered that previously with “I knew rwingnuts were dumb”.
I’d call you a troll, but I don’t really believe you are, I think you’re probably just a typical republican.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:10 pmUh, Papa Smurf?
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:12 pm“Islamo-Fascist” has been officially dropped by BushCo. Do you think we’re at war with Islam? Do you think you can win a war with Islam? Here on your computer? In a lefty blog? Picking fights with Peacenicks ala Archie Bunker?
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Papa smurf—
These people are starving, and you have the gonads to say that to feel for them, as fellow human beings, is somehow bad?
What kind of horrible animal are you?
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:12 pmI don’t think in terms of religion. I think in terms of humanity, and these people are not being treated humanely!
Boy Clinton thought that sticking a cigar up Lewinsky’s ass was a “diplomatic” way to fight terrorism. I think that amateur named Albright told him that.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:16 pmPapa Smurf only watch’s TV..and it shows. Have you ever been to Venezuela Smurf? I have.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:16 pmTrue Blue is a supporter of Islamo-Fascism!
Comment by Papa Smurf
Oh, BTW: you obviously haven’t read the new talking points.
Condi had a little “pillow talk” with Dubya, and convinced him to stop using that extremely offensive phrase.
Perhaps you should get up to date next time…
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:16 pmAhmadinejad/Chavez GOP 2008!
That’s a great GOP ticket! How about Sheik Hassan Nasrallah for Press Spokesman and Zarwahiri as Defence Secretary!
Comment by Bushovik-Jihadi Allianc
Yeh that would be a great GOP ticket seeing as George loves to finance people like Chalabi and hold hands with Arab OIL Sheiks!
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:18 pmWouldn’t you have to catch Zawahiri before you could make him a part of your cabinet?
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:19 pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Veneuzuela is a Democracy Smurf, but YOU knew that RIGHT?
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:22 pmAre you actually arguing that a person should put party above national security?
Comment by Exley
Sweetie darling, are you saying you support GWB, simply because he’s the president, and we have security issues? Even though GWB, as president, has done the most to put this country at risk? That defies logic! It has nothing to do with party at this point!
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:22 pmSeptember 23rd, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Exley,
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:25 pmWhen the nation’s security is involved, that is the most important time to put loyalty to country above loyalty to party or president.
By saying you always support the president – and assuming the president’s decisions on national security are anything less than perfect – you are saying you put loyalty to him above national security (or loyalty to your country).
Please think about it or read that a couple of times if necessary. Sorry if I was wrong before and you can debate reasonably. I think we actually have similar objectives but disagree hugely in how to achieve them.
Boy Bush thought that sticking a cigar up Gannon’s ass was a “diplomatic†way to fight terrorism. I think that amateur named Turdblossom told him that. -Tom
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:25 pmBoy Clinton thought that sticking a cigar up Lewinsky’s ass was a “diplomatic†way to fight terrorism. I think that amateur named Albright told him that.
Comment by Tom
With comments like this, there’s little point in trying to discuss anything anymore.
If you don’t like Clinton, that’s fine – but present some facts or rational as to why you dislike the man.
Otherwise, this whole thread (like the others) has denegrated to a “sandbox” battle.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:26 pmAre you actually arguing that a person should put party above national security?
Comment by Exley
Thats what BAKER just said this week, they were not going to put out any reports until after the november elections. WHY? Because domestic politics take precedence over the the war on terror.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:27 pmAre you actually arguing that a person should put party above national security?
Comment by Exley — September 23, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
you can’t see that is exactly what bushco is all about?
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:30 pmwell, party AND personal enrichment…
enuff for you…
James A. Baker III, the Bush family’s favorite fixer, held forth at a Washington, D.C., news conference on Tuesday, ostensibly to present a mid-course report on the work of his little-known Iraq Study Group. In fact, he did no such thing..
But according to sources on the ISG, who spoke only on deep background, the ISG is, in fact, inching closer to calling for getting the heck out of Iraq, and soon.
So the report must wait until after the domestic politcs [november elections] Typical GOP playbook, hide reports for political gain, until after elections..
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:36 pmGOP puts domestic politics and elections before our troops for political gain.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:37 pmThe GOP ticket will be King Abdullah/Rupert Murdoch.
Actually that’s pretty funny..=)
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:38 pmBrian Williams thinks Ca-moo is more important than Osama. So do I.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:40 pmI’m glad the Palestininas are suffering!
Comment by Papa Smurf
I feel bad for you.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:42 pmI hope neither you nor your family ever have to go through that.
Alert the media! (Again)
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:42 pmGreat job and thank you, TP!
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:43 pmION, I have Venezuelan friends. They left because Chaves doesn’t allow people to be self sufficient and create wealth. Your just a typical White Lefty who knows nothing about Latin culture.
Comment by Papa Smurf
I worked there, there is no real Industry to create wealth with except oil..if it wasn’t for oil they wouldn’t even have what they do
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:43 pmI have noted that whenever a politician gets called on to comment about statements comparing Bush to Hitler they always backpeddle away, concerned over Republican Swift-boating should they agree with the comparison. One writer put together an excellent essay, which I now share. Please forgive the length, but it is well worth the time to read it:
The Warnings of History
Published on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed – 2005
The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
This weekend – February 27th – is the 72nd anniversary, but the corporate media most likely won’t cover it. The generation that experienced this history firsthand is now largely dead, and only a few of us dare hear their ghosts.
It started when the government, in the midst of an economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist. Some, like Sefton Delmer – a London Daily Express reporter on the scene – say they certainly did not, while others, like William Shirer, suggest they did.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation’s leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.
He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn’t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.
His coarse use of language – reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state – and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he’d joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn’t know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation’s most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion – “a sign from God,” he called it – to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader’s flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation – in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it – that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn’t had time to read the bill before voting on it.
Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public – and there were many – quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police’s batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader’s public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)
Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a “racial pride” among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as “The Homeland,” a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl’s famous propaganda movie “Triumph Of The Will.” As hoped, people’s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was “the” homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the “true people,” he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation’s concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it’s of little concern to us.
Playing on this new implicitly racial nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn’t act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a “New Christianity.” Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared “Gott Mit Uns” – God Is With Us – and most of them fervently believed it was true.
Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation’s leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome “intellectuals” and “liberals.” He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.
He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, “Radio and press are at out disposal.” Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation’s leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public’s recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people “denounced” were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and news reporters who dared speak out – a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.
To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn’t enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation’s largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.
He also reached out to the churches, declaring that the nation had clear Christian roots, that any nation that didn’t openly support religion was morally bankrupt, and that his administration would openly and proudly provide both moral and financial support to initiatives based on faith to provide social services.
In this, he was reaching back to his own embrace of Christianity, which he noted in an April 12, 1922 speech:
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers … was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
“In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders…
“As a Christian … I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…”
When he later survived an assassination attempt, he said, “Now I am completely content. The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence’s intention to let me reach my goal.”
Many government functions started with prayer. Every school day started with prayer and every child heard the wonders of Christianity and – especially – the Ten Commandments in school. The leader even ended many of his speeches with a prayer, as he did in a February 20, 1938 speech before Parliament:
“In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgment and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.”
But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, his corruption of religious leaders, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.
With his number two man – a master at manipulating the media – he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation’s most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity.
He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe – at first – denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar’s Rome or Alexander’s Greece.
It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader’s new first-strike doctrine would bring “peace for our time.” Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, “Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.”
To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn’t think they’d succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will.
Rather than the government being run by multiple parties in a pluralistic, democratic fashion, one single party sought total control. Emulating a technique also used by Stalin, but as ancient as Rome, the Party used the power of its influence on the government to take over all government functions, hand out government favors, and reward Party contributors with government positions and contracts.
In times of war, they said, there could be only “one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief” (”Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. You were either with us, or you were with the terrorists.
It was a simplistic perspective, but that was what would work, he was told by his Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels: “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
Those questioning him were labeled “anti-German” or “not good Germans,” and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation’s valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the “intellectuals and liberals” who were critical of his policies.
Another technique was to “manufacture news,” through the use of paid shills posing as reporters, seducing real reporters with promises of access to the leader in exchange for favorable coverage, and thinly veiled threats to those who exposed his lies. As his Propaganda Minister said, “It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”
Nonetheless, once the “small war” annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn’t enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class’s way of life.
A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.
In the months after that, he claimed that Poland had weapons of mass destruction (poison gas) and was supporting terrorists against Germany. Those who doubted that Poland represented a threat were shouted down or branded as ignorant. Elections were rigged, run by party hacks. Only loyal Party members were given passes for admission to public events with the leader, so there would never be a single newsreel of a heckler, and no doubt in the minds of the people that the leader enjoyed vast support.
And his support did grow, as Propaganda Minister Goebbels’ dictum bore fruit:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Within a few months Poland, too, was invaded in a “defensive, pre-emptive” action. The nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security; it was the end of Germany’s first experiment with democracy.
As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.
February 27, 2005, is the 72nd anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe’s successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine’s “Man Of The Year.”
Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency’s initials: the SS.
We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named “lightning war” or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable “shock and awe” among the nation’s leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book “Shock And Awe” published by the National Defense University Press.
Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler’s close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using religion and war as tools to keep power: “fas-cism (fâsh’iz’em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”
Today, as we face financial and political crises, it’s useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.
Germany’s response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society’s richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, bust up unions, and create an illusion of prosperity through government debt and continual and ever-expanding war spending.
America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.
Thom Hartmann (www.thomhartmann.com) lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, is the Project Censored Award-winning, best-selling author of over a dozen books, and is the host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk radio program. This article, in slightly altered form, was first published in 2003 by CommonDreams.org and is now also a chapter in Thom’s book What Would Jefferson Do?, published in 2004 by Random House/Harmony.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:43 pm(All articles may be freely reprinted in print, web, email, and blog media so long as credits are attached and Thom Hartmann’s copyright is acknowledged.)
Keith Olbermann is an Iranian spy! He’s also a child molestor!
Comment by Al
Naw thats these guys;
* Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
* Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.
* Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano was arrested for sexually molesting a 14-year-old girl.
* Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
* Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
* Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.
* Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:45 pmwow..listen to the trolls whine…waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…we must be doing good. They call us ‘lefties’…ha ha….70% of the nation is unhappy with the bush gang…we’re not lefties…we’re the MAJORITY…..live with it.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:46 pmYour just a typical White Lefty who knows nothing about Latin culture.
Comment by Papa Smurf
su madre
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:48 pmRepublicans will never stop blaming Bill Clinton for their failed leadership because blaming him for everything has always worked so well. But after six long years voters are tired of it.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:51 pm#59, Zooey, darling
I supported George W. Bush before 9/11. I voted for him in 2000. But that is not why I support his efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror (BTW, I do not agree 100% of the time with Dubya). I support those efforts because I believe it is the best thing for the national security of our country.
I did not support Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996. But I DID support him when he bombed Iraq (twice), defended him when I heard people falsely claiming he was responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths because of UN sanctions, I supported him when he fired cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan. I supported his bombing campaign in Bosnia and Kosovo. Why???? Not because he was my party’s guy or because I had always supported him…I did so because 1) he was the President of the United States, and 2) because I believed these actions were necessary to protect the national security of the country and because they were the morally correct thing to do.
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:51 pmThey call us ‘lefties’…ha ha….70% of the nation is unhappy with the bush gang…we’re not lefties…we’re the MAJORITY…..live with it.
Sucks to be them..
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:52 pm#61 Smiff,
I am not sure you understood what I meant (or perhaps I was unclear) when I said:
“I always support my nation’s president, regardless of party, when the security of the country is involvedâ€
Maybe I should have said, “I always support my nation’s president, regardless of party, when the legitimate security needs of the country are actually involvedâ€
Thus, I supported many of Clinton’s (a man I never voted for and didn’t agree with 90% of the time) foreign policy and military initiatives because I thought the actions were correct and motivated by national security concerns.
I too would imagine our goals are the same when it comes to U.S. national security….I would also imagine you are probably right when you say disagree as to the means by which we should pursue those goals.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:01 pmIn this, he was reaching back to his own embrace of Christianity, which he noted in an April 12, 1922 speech:
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers … was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Great Post, and a great reminder to the Nationalists.Kudos =)
The Hegelian Hermaneutic interpretation of Jesus turned him into a tool for the insanity of Hitler to mislead the Christians on an insane war to take over the world.
* I am a Christian, I am not a leftist, I stand on my own two feet as the sovereign Lord did. I am not not here to bash Christians. Wake up. And stop repeating history.
Hitler, madman, tricked the Christians into a very deadly war that cost millions of lives in a crusade to take over the World.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:01 pm#88…You remind me of a gum-smacking Britney Spears in “Fahrenheit 9/11″: “I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that.”
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:06 pmI did not support Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996. But I DID support him when he bombed Iraq (twice), defended him when I heard people falsely claiming he was responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths because of UN sanctions, I supported him when he fired cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan. I supported his bombing campaign in Bosnia and Kosovo. Why???? Not because he was my party’s guy or because I had always supported him…I did so because 1) he was the President of the United States, and 2) because I believed these actions were necessary to protect the national security of the country and because they were the morally correct thing to do.
Comment by Exley
(I hated to quote the above, but)
So, what’s your excuse for supporting Bush and the current administration? I was on the border with Bush in 2000 (I lived in Texas while he was governer) – but, if you look over the past almost 6 years, how can you support this administration? It’s a simple question.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:06 pmION,Making the population dependent on the government is a form of fueadlism. What’s going to happen when the oil is gone? The fact is your a typical White Leftist that like to see us Hispanics not self sufficient!
I live in texas and have no problem with hispanics and the more self sufficient they become the better. The better for mexico and the better for the World. It’s your boy Bush who wants to attack Venezuela, not me. Its your GOP that doesn’t want immigrants, and it was the GOP that refused to raise min wage. legalized poverty. I was for a wage increase. Most of the hispanics I know are very self sufficient and hard workers.
You are confused I liked Venezuelians Bush and Rummy want to go to war with them how is that good for your latino culture?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:07 pm#ION,
Vaya al infierno, ¡usted bárbaro Anglo estúpido!
You are acting like the barbarian here.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:08 pmION,Making the population dependent on the government is a form of fueadlism. What’s going to happen when the oil is gone?
what population isn’t dependent on some form of government?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:11 pmWhat Venezuela does with it’s OIL is it’s business
I did so because 1) he was the President of the United States, and 2) because I believed these actions were necessary to protect the national security of the country and because they were the morally correct thing to do.
Comment by Exley
Well Ex, I hope you continue to feel nice and safe on your moral high ground. See ya…
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:11 pmComment by Papa+Smurf
if you look at the posts Papa Smurf you will see I have been much more supportive of the Latin Culture than YOU.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:15 pmObviously your stupid, I don’t support Bush or the Repugs! They’re Internationalists Corporate Whores! I don’t the Dhimmicrats since they’re Globalist Marxist Islamic ass kissers!
Where have you ever seen me post that I’m a Democrat or a leftist? Obviously your guessing.
Marxist is Islamic? Marx’s name wasn’t even MARX!
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:17 pmzooey – make that “SUPPOSED moral high ground”…
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:19 pmi can detect a poser – he doesn’t have it.
…
Well Ex, I hope you continue to feel nice and safe on your moral high ground. See ya…
Comment by Zooey
Hi, Zoo. Thats a buddhist post. I congratulate you. :)
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 pmYou’re an Islamic loving Lefty. Did you know that in the 7th century the Muslims conquered Christian lands? Probably not you probably think that it’s all about the Crusades. Your a Commie, go move to Venezuela since you support Chavez!
Venezuela is Islamic?
Did you know that in the 7th century the Muslims conquered Christian lands?
Yawn…70 ad was Armageddon. Not 2006 Gary North wannabee
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 pm#103,
Indeed, I do, Zooey…Indeed, I do….
See ya.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:22 pmYou’re an Islamic loving Lefty. Did you know that in the 7th century the Muslims conquered Christian lands? Probably not you probably think that it’s all about the Crusades. Your a Commie, go move to Venezuela since you support Chavez!
dude your guessing again. Your this, your that, make up my mind would you..Papa Smurf likes latinos why don’t you?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:23 pmIf there were Death Squads I would sign up!
Comment by Red Wolf — September 23, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
You’re in luck! The Army has lowered its standards. Join the debacle in Iraq. You’ll get your wish.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:24 pmYou’re an Islamic loving Lefty. Did you know that in the 7th century the Muslims conquered Christian lands? Probably not you probably think that it’s all about the Crusades. Your a Commie, go move to Venezuela since you support Chavez!
Deal with facts Red Wolfe, your spewing opinions.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:27 pmI just want to thank the Free Republicans here of their support. We are wining soon the People of the World will lose. We will liberate America through reactionary Bush. We can count on Bush Bremer and Chney to help us!
Comment by Osama Bin Laden
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How old are you kids anyway?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:29 pm#81 – Briseadh na Faire,
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:31 pmIs history repeating itself? The only disparity that I can find in your presentation is that Hitler actually served his country in battle.
ION, I’m Spaniard and Dominican. Don’t you ever claim that your more supportive of Latin Culture than me! I was at the Immigration protests were you Anglo?
Good for you. Where did your protest take place? America?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:31 pm116…*yawn*…we can tell a post by George Bush when we see one. You might want to try a few more misspelled words and choppy sentences next time.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:32 pmAnd Was it not America that allowed you to protest and speak your mind?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:32 pmI highly doubt that most Americans if they knew about the Left’s Pro-Islamic agenda would support you clowns.
Comment by Red Wolf — September 23, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
You are confusing us with your pro-Israel agenda. The one you swallow hook, line and sinker from the scratchings of some desert dwellers who wanted to control others and get first dibs at the scarce watering holes…
You can’t be a Christian and stand on your own two feet. The two are in compatable, since one requires blind faith (acceptance of a thing without any supporting proof or evidence), and the other pretty much eliminates following a prescribed philosophy without question. Those who stand on their own ideology, like many of us here, are neither as gullable as you, nor as immature. It’s because reality has a liberal, and athetistic bias.
Being a Christian makes you a follower – as in “follower of Christ”. Get it? Of course not… logic isn’t your forte’.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:32 pmIf there were Death Squads I would sign up!
Comment by Red Wolf
You can do that today, it’s called Blackwater USA, you can be a contractor [Merc] In Iraq. So I guess you will be logging off now and go sign up, right?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:34 pmNotice how when really painful facts come out, the trolls emerge from their grubby hiding places to start yelling and screaming about things that are totally irrelevant and nonsensical? You can tell when the tide is turning – just put your trollometer on. Like the NIE today, saying how the Iraq blunder is making us less safe and emboldening the terrorists.
You trolls are just pathetic. Truly, and utterly, pathetic. What is it that compels you to deny reality the way you do? What is with the blind loyalty? What is it that is lacking in all of you that you find self worth in this simplistic and moronic manner? Do you enjoy living in a world of absolote denial? I cant picture any of you engaging in any meaningful social discourse. I cant picture you at a party engaging in a back in forth about anything, without sane people laughing you out of the room, or just whispering to each other that you must be completely drunk and out of it. I mean, who the fricking heck are you guys??? You hide behind this screen here, just like an ordinary coward. You show no capacity to reason, you just blather these idiotic talking points. Seriously, is your life that utterly devoid of meaning that you think this is of any use to anyone? What’s it like mumbling yourself to sleep with nonsense every night? Huh?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:34 pmDid you know that in the 7th century the Muslims conquered Christian lands?
Comment by Red+Wolf — September 23, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
Yep. But from your patronizing tone, I’m guessing you don’t know about all the non-Christians conquered by Christians… Specifically, in when the Spanish killed the native Americans (North and South) who wouldn’t convert…
Ever hear of teh saying that “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones”? This would mean you
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:36 pmYes PAPA smurf that’s right, the Anglos allowed you to protest, The Americans. me, allowed you to do that.
Don’t portend to tell me what I do and do not support.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pmI’m glad the Palestininas are suffering!
Comment by Papa Smurf
See the difference between me and you papa smurf, you want the palestinians to suffer. I want no one to suffer, not even you or your latino culture. Maybe you should take off those shoes and put them on the other foot.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:40 pmWe wer here in the Americas before you Anglos! However you were praiing Chavez, go move to Venezueal!
Comment by Papa Smurf
Spain is not in the Americas SPANIARD
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:42 pmI want to join Death Squads here in America to hunt down Leftists and Muslims!
Comment by Red Wolf — September 23, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
Just like Jesus? Some “Christian” you are. Good thing for your ’saviour’ that he’s dead and can’t see what horrific things you’re doing in his turn-the-other-cheek-and-love-your-neighbor name…
But, for the record, there are more Muslims in the Middle East. And the Army will give you a paycheck to go to Iraq.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:43 pmYep. But from your patronizing tone, I’m guessing you don’t know about all the non-Christians conquered by Christians… Specifically, in when the Spanish killed the native Americans (North and South) who wouldn’t convert
Dayum Red Wolfe now your gonna have to kill your Buddy Pape smurf for being a Spainard
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:44 pmAnyway, getting back to the subject, the rightwing media never ask Republicans any questions of any substance…it’s always, “What kinds of books do you like to read?” President Bush – “Well, Chris, I like children’s books and Shakespeares.”
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:44 pmNotice how when really painful facts come out, the trolls emerge from their grubby hiding places to start yelling and screaming about things that are totally irrelevant and nonsensical?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:47 pm~~~~~~~
LOL, they always resort to 3rd grade name calling, it’s the coulter republican in them.
I rather support Israel than the Islamic leeches.
Papa smurf you do realize that only about 10% of the Israelis are European Jews? The others are Semite, just like Arabs are Semites? You did know that right?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:49 pmNo, actually I organizing like minded people to start beating up Leftist protesters. We did this on 9/11 when we pelted with eggs the so called 9/11 truthers. They ran like cowards! Our organization is up to 3,000 of which 650 are in the Military. Enjoy the Leftie asendancy for soon it will come crashing down. I go to target practice freqyuently so when we go after the left, I’ll make sure every bullet counts!
Comment by REd Wolf
Surely even you see the problem with your logic?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:54 pmYour sound just like an ‘Islamofascist’ those people you hate for doing the same thing you believe in..
I need a drink these egg throwing juvenile kids are a joke, all 3,000 of them
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:55 pmI rather support Israel than the Islamic leeches.
See, you’re the ones with the agenda. not us.
Since obviously yoir Muslim, why not go blow yourself up!
Obviously, I’m an Atheist and a pacifist, and further proof that religion has no monopoly on morality.
Hey I burned a Koran will you issue a Fatwa!
Burn a Bible and Torah while you’re at it. Why discriminate?
I will not apologize for anything us Christians have done. I’m sick of us aplogizing to the Left and Muslims!
What’s aplogizing? Is that how you got herpes?
You should apologize for the killing you so-called Christians have done. According to Jeebus, it’s the only way to avoid Hell. Glad I don’t believe in any of that nonsense. It would probably make me act all irrational and murdeous like you.
Go screw your camels!
Comment by Papa Smurf — September 23, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
Can I borrow your penis first? (If it works). I wasn’t born with one…
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:57 pmIt really looks like Wallace bit off more than he could chew when he decided to go after Clinton. Um, memo to Chris: Bill ain’t your regular Democrat; he got him some teeth and he ain’t afraid to use ‘em.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:59 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
Hi, Zoo. Thats a buddhist post. I congratulate you. :)
Comment by Juan+C
Hi Juan, lovely evening, isn’t it?
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:59 pmOk, everyone should know by now I’m not an american, I’m a queer nicaraguan.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:01 pm“American Nationalist-Libertarian Front”
LOL
Why don’t you clowns go study up on what America is about.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:02 pmThe Jesus I worship is the one that appeared before Constantine the Great and said “With this sign Conquerâ€!
Comment by Red Wolf — September 23, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
Actually, Constantine said he saw your god in a dream. A dream. I see singing fish and other strange things in my dreams sometimes… I certainly wouldn’t expect any normal or rational person to take my dream as a fact. LOL!
Historians believe Constantine was faking his assertion, because he saw Christianity as a great way to control the masses… Just as you are being controlled now by the neocons thorugh blind faith in invisible idols that do not exist except in the dreams of dictators and tyrants. How convenient, I’d say…
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:02 pmWe will have a website soon and will be posting videos on You Tube of us betaing up Muslim and Leftist protesters!
Comment by Red Wolf — September 23, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
Followed by your You Tube arrest, conviction, and being beaten up yourselves by leftist and Muslim inmates… Oh wait, most people in American prisons are Christian. You’re in luck! You’ll be the girlfriend to a Christian man at least…
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:05 pmunbelievable,
I do believe you have pissed off the whackjobs. Keep up the good work!
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:10 pmBTW, unbelievable,
Is it true you’re a commie pinko? Blubbering at the fall of the Berlin Wall? I never knew that about you. :)
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:11 pmI need a drink these egg throwing juvenile kids are a joke…
Comment by ION — September 23, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
i need one too… at least a break from this…
someone needs to figure out how to have that one locked up, and soon…
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:14 pm…
katy…ION, have a drink together….on me. I haven’t failed yet!
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:18 pmYour an Atheist my ass.
No, just an Atheist. I don’t want any association with your ass. It probably doesn’t get washed very often.
If you were you wouldn’t be sticking up for Muslims.
I haven’t been doing that at all. I’ve only been pointing out the hypocrisy in your posts, and the danger in ALL organized religions. I equally find all monotheistic religions hypocritical and disingenuous.
The fact is you belive in nothing.
Techinically, not true. I just don’t believe in things for which there is no proof or substantiation.
I believe in teh good of people, when they aren’t influences by absurd religious nonsense. Pretty much why there are fewer non-religious folks in prison than religious ones.
Peoplelike you will be lambs for the slaughter.
Hardly. My brain gets regular use, you couldn’t outwit me on your best day.
I have no problems with Atheists. I have a problem with Radical Atheists who attack Christianity but defend Islam.
I attack all ridiculous beliefs equally. I don’t attack Christians or Muslims who aren’t violent hypocrites. Just those of you who are.
You just a Commie hypocrite. When the Berlin wall fell you cried!
Comment by Papa Smurf — September 23, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
Actually, when the Wall fell I was still a Christian conservative. Since then, I’ve wised up.
However, to prove you wrong even further, I am against forced Atheism. Russian was never truly Communistic, and I stopped being a hypocrite when I quit the church and teh GOP. You really should try it. This side is so much better. No panic attacks or need to hurt other people. I’m even a vegan because it feels so good not to hurt all conscious life for personal gain.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:19 pmI honestly don’t care about your pathtic theories.
Your actions say otherwise. Guess you haven’t heard the adage about actions speaking LOUDER than words either? Figures… Hard to learn much from home schooling.
You just keep proving my point. You bash Christians but defend Islam. Your a Muslim pertending to be Atheists.
For your sake, I hope you’re just a parody. It would be sad if you are serious.
Let’s find out… Show where I’ve defended Islam…
The fact is I’m not anti-Atheist.
I’m so relieved… LOL
A personas Religious view is of no concern to me. The only Religion I have a problem with is Islam.
Uh, well, you just contradicted yourself…
So yoy can bash Christianity all you want it doesn’t pase me. If it’s a means of controlling people so be it. So is Radical Leftism, that also a means of controlling people. Everything is a means of controlling people!
Wake up Dreamer!
Comment by Pap Smurf — September 23, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
I’m not a radical leftist either. Ask around.
I’m more awake than you’ll ever be. And you know it.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:25 pm#97, Mr.TimPA,
‘If you look over the past almost 6 years, how can you support this administration?”
I assume you mean for reasons other than protecting the homeland and taking the fight to the radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists…
Other reasons I support President Bush include his program of tax cuts, which has provided relief to millions of American workers and families, and invigorated our economy.
More importantly, I support the president’s policy of nominating strict constructionists to the federal judiciary, all of whom undertsand the proper role of judges under the Constitution.
I don’t agree with everything President Bush does (His failure to restrain wasteful government entitlement spending and his failure to crack down sufficiently on illegal immigration have been two major disappointments). But on balance, this President has done a fantastic job of guiding this country through these difficult times and is deserving of our support.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:25 pmI do believe you have pissed off the whackjobs. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Zooey — September 23, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
I haven’t played a game of whack a troll in a while. :)
How’s your job? Still loving it?
Is it true you’re a commie pinko? Blubbering at the fall of the Berlin Wall? I never knew that about you. :)
Comment by Zooey — September 23, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
:D
Have you ever been to Berlin to see it? Very emotional. I did cry, actually, but because of what that Wall oncerepresented. I had a roommate in college whose father was forced, at 17, to guard the wall. On day, he made a break for it and escaped Nazi Germany. He moved to the US to make sure it wouldn’t happen to him again. Too bad Congress is trying to fund a Wall here… He’d be safer in germany…
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:30 pmYou know, this is kind of fun.
It’s like that scene in “Where the Buffalo Roam” where Bill Murray as Hunter S. Thompson, writing away in his cabin, cigarette holder in hand, says “Nixon!” and his Doberman leaps up and bites a tackle dummy with a Nixon mask in the crotch area.
We can just go “Clinton!” and watch them start barking.
And we don’t even need to supply them with bourbon.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:42 pmChris Wallace is a freak’in dumbass drone who is part of the Republican machine destroying America. If only we could judge Republicans by their standards for Democrats as opposed to double standards.
In fact, hey right-wingers, you do realize that Clinton caught the criminals who bombed the World Trade Center right after he took office (which happened just under 2 months after he took office and he never blamed on Bush I)? Right?
And you realize that he caught the Oklahoma City bombers, right?
I am sure that if Clinton had not rolled up either of these groups of people you would be, let’s understate this just a tiny bit, and say, well, just a bit critical, right?
Now it’s been over 5 years (longer than it took us to win World War II which amazingly some right-wingers on this board say was easy compared to catching this one guy and his ragtag band), 2600 American soldiers dead, and hundreds of billions squandered in two wars against two-bit countries which amazingly we still aren’t winning and Bush has still not caught OBL. Now let’s think about what you would say about Democrats if this were their performance. Let’s understate this just a bit again, and say you would be, well, hmmmm, naaaah, I’ll just stop with the obvious double standards here . . .
Let’s all just stop and think what all the Bush Republicans would be saying if the Democrats had their record right now. I’ll tell you what they’d be saying. Had enough America? Can we afford to risk voting for these guys again? Isn’t it time for a change?
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:49 pmin other news… those reports of OBL as dead are being “doubted” and “questioned” all over the place, except for the original sourse…
well, imagine that… it’s way to early for the october/noember surprise…
time to walk the dog… later… maybe…
oh, pbg – that was hilarious!
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:52 pm…
Thick with trolls. Marching orders must have been given, being it’s so close to the election.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:57 pmExley, your complaing about some of Smirkey’s shortcomings are like Himmler getting pissed at Adolph for not frying the Methodists too. You are in way over your head and you give your side nothing of substance. Even the worst of the trolls are rolling their eyes. Are you missing some reality show? THERE”S NO CURE FOR STUPID…Can’t wait for the clever retort..
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:57 pmComment by Exley — September 23, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
Pray tell, what is the difference between a “strict constructionist” and an “activist” judge?
For that matter, what is the philosophy behind a “strict constructionist?” What does a “strict constructionist” base his/her opinion upon?
And what is the proper role of a judge under the Constitution?
How would a “strict constructionist” rule on the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to violate the 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 6th amendment, separation of powers, laws of Congress and international treaties, especially in light of the fact that Congress has not made a formal declaration of war?
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 pmI suck
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:02 pmComment by WaltTheMan — September 23, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
I think it is more like a spiral. There are certain parallels, but this Administration has added Orwell’s book “1984″ as a blueprint for creating and maintaining its version of Utopia.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:04 pm[Comment deleted by admin]
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:04 pmComment by unbelievable — September 23, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
I saw a small section of the wall at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Sombering.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:10 pm#170,
Wow…A Nazi analogy….Oh gosh that’s funny! That’s really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. “Like Himmler getting pissed at Adolph for not frying the Methodists.” You know, I’ve, I’ve never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You’re the first. I’ve never heard anyone make that reference before. God what a clever, smart person you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. That’s so fresh too. Any, any Titanic jokes you want to throw at me too as long as you’re being so original! God you’re so funny!
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:10 pmOK, is it just me, or is “Papa Smurf” really off base for that guy’s name?
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:12 pmPapa Smurf : “I have no problems with Atheists. I have a problem with Radical Atheists…”
Replace “Atheists” with “Christians” (or Muslims!) in this sentence and you have my position.
FWIW, I’m pretty sick of both the radical right and the muslim extremists. I just believe that now the political right wing within America is a bigger threat to America than anything outside of the country. Secondly, I also believe that the people ruling the US are preventing the tackling of the muslim problem (it’s not just a “muslim problem”, but i’m simplifying for this argument). Logically therefore, the radical right gets our greater attention at the moment and should be dealt with first.
Honestly, Exley and others here I think are mostly repeating talking points that I suspect you guys haven’t really thought about. Hint: just because someone SAYS they are doing something does not mean they actually are. Be more sceptical, please.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:14 pmthe only democrat that stands up to anyone is our ex president
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:18 pmhow……… the words fail me.
Have you ever been to Berlin to see [the Berlin Wall]? Very emotional.
Comment by unbelievable — September 23, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
That day is a very important day for me.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:18 pmNot just the Germans’ lives changed that day… wink, wink!
Bet you can all guess!
#177,
There is also a section of the Berlin Wall at the U.S. Military Academy at West point, N.Y. and the Newseum in Arlington, Virginia.
Inspiring to see it cut up into harmless sections. It is a testament to the fact that good can triumph over evil.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:24 pmWow, I must have missed something horrendous.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:40 pmCan I clear a room, or what?
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:51 pmuh, i think they heard you, trueblue…
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 pmsome 30 comments are gone from this thread… more on others…
hell, i was mostly concerned that the 2 nationalist wackos were arrested and jailed… from the miami area too… part of that loser gang the feds came down on a while back? wannabe’s? jeesh!
whatever, talk like that has got to be against the law…
sounded like a threat to me…
…
# 122 Unbelievable’
NAZI Germany had been gone for 15 years by the time the actual wall went up.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 pmI think you meant to “escape” Communism.
#140, Zooey…Someone wrote something that was crude and inappropriate. It was uncalled for. I am glad TP removed it.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 pmNow, let’s get back to the topic at hand, now that those idiots are gone….
Thank You, TP!!!!!!!
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 pmUmmm, what were we talking about? ;)
Good night all. So Berlin Wall is the topic? mmmm…I just had a terrific moment with my dad…yeah, Exley, the evil communist. :)
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 pmTruly emotional.
Exley,
I guess it was more crude than usual? Yikes.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:00 pmDear TP:
Sorry for spouting off on-line.
I blame my Irish temper.
It was still wrong, however. Sorry.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:03 pmOh, ick. Thanks, trueblue, for emailing me that nastiness. Thanks also for emailing TP to get rid of it. You’re a sweet one! I hope not too many people read that ugliness.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:04 pmSee what I mean? It was not meant to amuse. Oh, I get it, You’re taking a shot at being “funny”?
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:06 pmTrueblue doesn’t just mean my political affiliation, ‘ya know!
Gotcha back, Zooey!
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 pm#150, Circusfifthfloor wrote, “It was not meant to amuse.”
It succeeded.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:11 pmoh wow, zoo… do i want to know?
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:11 pmi thought i’d been keeping up with the comments…
must’ve missed something special…
Oh, Christ.
They found the kids
They are all gone. Sick. Sick. Sick.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:11 pmWell, I’d be pretty god-dam**d pissed too if for the last month or so the rightwingers had been trying to put the full blame of 9/11 on my administration.
Especially after one person after another, conservatives and historians included, came out in defense of the Clinton administration in the wake of the lies and fiction of “The Path to 9/11,” to which the writer, director, and everyone involved with the project including the leaders of ABC and Disney essentially responded with a “fk you” attitude.
I’m sure Exley and his ilk weren’t around when folks had posted links to sources showing that Clinton did not have any support from the Republican controlled Congress when he wanted to pump up the efforts at tracking terrorists.
Example: I specifically recall reference to information indicating that Clinton discussed an option to expand wiretapping with members of Congress, but the Republicans turned him down.
Any asshole who thinks that Bush sat in the classroom for 7 god-dam**d minutes so as to not scare the little kiddies is nothing but a pure fool. Correction…a damned fool. At the very least, it was nothing but pure incompetence. It was Dan Quayle, circa 1988, all over again; remember that he had no fking clue what he would have done when asked, during the VP debate, what he would do as VP in a case of presidential assasination. As he searched for an answer, he slowly and casually blurted out something like “Well, the first thing I’d do would say a prayer for the country and the President.”
I’m sure Exley watched the Path to 9/11 and drooled during the whole “movie.” I’m sure he has a perfectly good explanation as to why no left-wing individuals were provided advance copies of the movie. We sure as hell didn’t get one from the many folks involved in the production of that piece of sh*t. I watched about the last hour and a half of it. The only reference to the PDB was a brief shot of Condi reading it as she sat at her desk. No shots of Bush reading it at his “ranch.” No shots of Bush sitting in the classroom in Florida. How freaking convenient.
Exley and the other rightwingers have at their fingertips the vast database of Google and the archives at FoxNews.com. Come on, guys. Find us an interview where anyone in the Bush administration was asked specifically why Clarke was fired, and was asked what actions by the Bush administration were being taken in the wake of the Cole bombing.
If Bush, months ago sitting at the Mexican border in an interview by David Gregory, can literally laugh in the faces of the American people when advised that a majority of Americans polled do not support the war in Iraq, then Clinton deserves a pass for shaking his finger on TV.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:15 pm#153, Horrible, horrible story. Truly mind-boggling.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:16 pmThey are all gone. Sick. Sick. Sick.
Comment by trueblue
I hadn’t known anything about this. So terrible. That poor woman and her kids died because of another’s madness. Sad…
No, katy, you don’t want to know, believe me. :) Moving on…
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:20 pmBoy, I was really hoping they’d find them, like that little baby, Abby.
I am so sad right now.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:22 pmOh, you hadn’t heard about this on your news?
Sorry. Now I feel like a big-time party pooper.
And Katy, take Zooey’s advice.
Sorry, all. I should change my name to “Wet Blanket”.
(although, now that I look at that, it’s not really a bad screen name…)
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:28 pmoh, well, if you say so… if it was penned by the wolf character, i think that may have been copied to the last email i sent TP … the first went out at 10am…
…time for SNL… g’nite all…
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:30 pmI support those efforts because I believe it is the best thing for the national security of our country.
Comment by Exley — September 23, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
Well, keep it up, bud.
From dailykos.com (in reference to a NYT article):
Just one more report that no one in the administration will bother to read. It’s so, you know, negative. And we just can’t have that.
More at DK.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:33 pm(although, now that I look at that, it’s not really a bad screen name…)
Comment by trueblue
It really isn’t a bad name! You could use it on days when you’re feeling like a real downer.
True, since my boys left home, I’ve watched Keith Olbermann, Daily Show, and sometimes the Colbert Report. That’s it. I can’t say I miss television much.
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:38 pmClinton’s gonna have to explain his whereabouts for this one now…I know, I know, I’m going to ugly hell for that one. It certainly takes a sick mind to take these lives, but what do we call a planet that allows 30,000 children to die every day from poverty related reasons? And tomorrow, and the next day and the day after???? Do I amuse you? Do you think I’m a clown? Do I make you laugh? Best yuk it up while you can, because very soon “A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall”. Thank you, Joe Pesci and Bob Dylan. Sorry, I am shameless. Night-Night sweet trolls
September 24th, 2006 at 12:02 amTrue, since my boys left home, I’ve watched Keith Olbermann, Daily Show, and sometimes the Colbert Report. That’s it. I can’t say I miss television much.
Comment by Zooey
I don’t miss it at all, at first it took a while, but now I miss it not.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:02 amION,
Unfortunately, I don’t get Keith, Jon & Stephen if I don’t have slightly expanded cable, so I pay $50 a month to watch 2, maybe 3 shows a day.
Oh well, I’m not feeding two huge boys anymore, might as well feed the cable co.
September 24th, 2006 at 12:24 ammust see… see how wallace twists the facts…
“hey, i tried to get back to the clinton initiative, but he wanted to keep talking about this…” … these guys are simply unbelievable…
FOX News Saying “Clinton Gets Crazedâ€
September 24th, 2006 at 12:53 amBy: Jamie Holly on Saturday, September 23rd, 2006 at 11:43 AM – PDT
Fox news is already coining the interview as “Clinton gets Crazed”, and today on FOX, Chris Wallace talked about the interview.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/23/fox-news-saying-clinton-gets-crazed/
…
Unfortunately, I don’t get Keith, Jon & Stephen if I don’t have slightly expanded cable, so I pay $50 a month to watch 2, maybe 3 shows a day.
Oh well, I’m not feeding two huge boys anymore, might as well feed the cable co.
might as well feed your boys =)
September 24th, 2006 at 1:14 amI think President Clinton was ready for the smear job that he knew was coming when he agreed to appear on Fox News. That may have been why Chris Wallace seemed so taken aback by President Clinton’s aggressive defense.
Am I wrong in wondering how Chris Wallace could be the son of Mike Wallace? I always respected Mike Wallace, and am amazed that Chris Wallace has prostituted his reputation and the truth in exchange for employment on Fox. Maybe I don’t know Mike Wallace as well as I should.
Apparently President Clinton only agreed to the Chris Wallace interview because he was going to get talk about how successful his recent conference had been, raising over 7 billion dollars in 3 days for very important issues.
I think Mr. Clinton has grown tired of hearing news reporters on Fox and elsewhere echo the false premises of “The Path to 9/11″. The reporters act like the miniseries was factual when Cyrus Nowrasteh himself admits now that he conflated facts.
We should not forget the damage that “The Path to 9/11″ has caused. Only 1.5 million people actually bought the 9/11 Report, while 13 million saw a totally misleading version of the report in one night on ABC. We ought to make our voice heard and make sure that this does not happen again.
If the Republican-leaning media keeps parroting the lies of “The Path to 9/11″ without being challenged, then the voters that do not follow politics closely will begin to believe the lies as they did with the SwiftBoat ads.
It seems that Bush controls the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, most of Judicial Branch, and now we are seeing that the media, the “Fourth Estate”, America’s watchdog, is joining in with Bush by promoting untruthful “docudramas” as if they were history. These are indeed desperate times.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:24 ammight as well feed your boys =)
Comment by ION
Dinner gets really cold & icky in the mail….
:)
September 24th, 2006 at 1:40 amSo the report must wait until after the domestic politcs [november elections] Typical GOP playbook, hide reports for political gain, until after elections..
it’s typical alright…
report held till after election = contains bad news for republicans
report released before election = contains good news for republicans
Now what you’ll find is, that seldom are reports released beforehand. Selective facts may be leaked which look good on the surface, but in the context of the released reports, these leaks are in fact out-of-context anomalies or outright distortions.
And for the benefit of republican readers, I’m not going to cite any sources because you aren’t going to believe anything you haven’t been told by the alpha males of your species.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:12 amYou know this TP server is annoying. I never know which of my posts will show up and which will not.
ANYWAY, what I tried to post earlier was…….
Both the left and the right suffer from automatic response.
There are 25-30% of righties that when they see Clinton, they only see a red-faced bubba stereotype that they hated for eight long years. At that point they cannot listen to any his concepts or ideas with an open mind…not because they are without merit, but because HE said it (or looked a certain way when he said it).
We progressives react much that way toward Bush…once we see his idiotic hick mannerisms, lack of ability to pronounce or form a sentence, head thrusts, and incessant pouting and posturing, it is impossible for us to actively listen to anything he has to say.
Regarding invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq pre-9-11: If Clinton had done this at the time, the GOP congress would have impeached him again….and convicted him. They used to pretend to care something about the Constitution and many had problems with his intervention in Bosnia. Same if he had called suspects enemy combatants, claimed sole right to charge, try, convict, and execute them or Violated FISA.
He would have been impeached on all of these not because of unconstitutionality or “high crimes” but because of partisanship and hatred.
You can be sure of it.
I hope this one posts, but you never know.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:35 amSomeone earlier posted that Clinton was not a liberal, and in many ways this is true.
He was not a liberal when it came to promoting business and supporting world trade agreements. He certainly was not a liberal when it came to deregulation – the stock market crash of 2000-2001 is often laid at his feet as “the CLinton Bubble”, but could just as easily been called the “Forbes Bubble” or substitute anyone who believed that deregulation in the stock market and company accounting was good. (Of course it really led to misrepresentation and swindle – because human beings were involved). I certainly wouldn’t call Clinton an enemy of globalization.
The people he hired were not all liberal either. Richard Clarke is not a liberal. James Woolsey – hell he’s a warmonger. etc. etc.
If you want to know the truth about someone, listen to people of integrity – who are not necessarily of the same political stant- say about him.
Example: Clarke on Clinton
Example: Wilkerson, Armitage, Powell on Bush
September 24th, 2006 at 2:49 amI never liked Mike Wallace either. Always seemed like a pompous ass to me.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:54 am[...] – For the record: Fox News never questioned El Presidente or El Presidente’s regime why they demoted Richard Clarke or did zilcho about the USS Cole. They do however accuse Bill Clinton of getting “crazed” during the interview we covered here yesterday. Bastardos! Eaters of poop! [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 9:43 am#121
Exley
Your comment:
“But on balance, this President has done a fantastic job of guiding this country through these difficult times and is deserving of our support” is stunning.
In your own words - the conclusions reached in the U.S. Army War Report prior to the Iraq invasion were “quite prescient.” I provided you with a link where a voice from the other side of the world – the voice of an Shiite Iraqi in exile said the same thing.
Add to this the voices of:
Retired General Schwarzkopf ( the article “Desert Caution” ).
Retired Genreral Brent Scrowcroft.
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman John Shalikashvili.
Retired General Merrill “Tony” MCPeak – Top Air Force General during the 1990 Gulf War.
Here is the thing, Exley.
As much as many republicans/conservatives/right wingers try to frame the criticism of Bush for the Iraq misadventure as a knee-jerk “peacenik” or “tree-hugger” or “liberal” attack on the president – this is not the case. Not at all.
Schwarzkopf campaigned for Bush in 2000. He is a military general with combat experience ( hence, not a so-called “tree-hugging peacenik” ) and a republican. At least he was in 2000.
Shalikashvili and McPeak were also republicans – and they left the republican party as a result of Bush’s decision to go into Iraq. I may be wrong, but I think the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the former top general of the U.S. Air force both leaving a political party because of an ill-advised war is unprecedented.
Scrowcroft was a member of the first Bush’s administration. I think it is safe to say that he probably is not a liberal.
So he had the U.S. Army’s think tank telling him not to do this and several highly regarded generals (republican generals) with combat experience telling him not to do this – and he does it anyway.
Exley, to ignore top-notch, well qualified, politically friendly advice like this is far from doing a “fantastic job.” It is flat out stupid. He is largely responsible for the “difficult times” you are talking about.
Let’s say you have a very charismatic friend who wants to start a new technology business. Because he is popular – he has no problem raising money to launch this business. In addition – he is fortunate to have close friends of the family who are high ranking senior executives from IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle. SAP, Intel and a few tech venture capital firms. However, you find out that all of these senior technology executives think his idea is a really bad idea. Do you invest? I doubt that you would.
When you find out that this guy was aware of this criticism, ignored this good and highly accessible advice and plodded ahead anyway before losing a ton of money – do you call this a person an idiot or do you say he did a “fantastic job?”
I think that you would call this guy an idiot.
And I don’t think you can sincerely rank the immigration issue, nor “entitlement spending” as issues of equal magnitude. Neither illegal immigration nor entititlement spending (however you wish to define that) have killed 2500 U.S. soldiers, maimed thousands more and de-stabilized the Middle East, Exley.
September 24th, 2006 at 10:46 amJust checking to see if life exist beyond my keyboard?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:16 pmJust checking to see if life exist beyond my keyboard?
September 24th, 2006 at 12:16 pmHere’s a thought. Perhaps Richard Clarke was demoted (Clarke does not make that claim in his book) because he failed to stop the bombings of our embassies in Africa in 1998, failed to stop the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, and was oblivious to the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were in the country in 2000. Clarke was incompetent and is dishonest.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:31 pmhttp://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/clarke.html
This is why Clinton was able to win two elections (without stealing them) even while Republican attack dogs were making up scandal after scandal trying to keep him out of office. It is because he doesn’t let right wing interviewers get away with this sort of crap, holds them to their supposed journalistic integrity and refutes lies when they need to be refuted. I don’t think Clinton needs to do any damage control. If you look at how Chris phrased the question, it was obviously meant to bait Clinton into a response. Good for news ratings and will probably put more foam in the mouth of rabid Fox News viewers but if you analyse the question and comments I don’t think this was out of line on Clinton’s part at all. He also made Chris Wallace look like a punching bag instead of a journalist.
September 24th, 2006 at 2:52 pmThe only thing more fun than watching Clinton chew up Chris Wallace and expose his lack of presence and deconstruct the Fox network’s faux news angle, was reading all the clowns commenting afterward who somehow managed to see this as Clinton overreacting, Chris Wallace being a “hardhitting” reporter, no softballs this time etc. (yeah, Clinton sure has had a lot of softballs..all that woosy Whitewater stuff and Monicagate..I forget, did they ever manage to convict him of anything?) A) Republicans can’t seem to make a substantive response, they always comment on intention (Republicans are psychic, did you know?) and demeanor (how’s that working in Iraq so far? ) and B) what is it with Republicans and facts in general? Fossils are not evidence of evolution, they are put there by the Devil to fool us (whereas you can touch a fossil, ever touched the Devil? LOL) I could go on, but it’s just too easy. Let’s dump the Diebold machines and restore our Democracy to the sane people.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:04 pmJohn
you know…I believe we are just reaching the tipping point…where Bush has killed more Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq (soon Iran) than Al Quaeda has so far in the first towers attack, the African embassy, the Cole and 9/11. If I could swap Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, for dumping Bush and reclaiming Clinton…man, I’d do it in a heartbeat!
Remember the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave thing? What exactly is everyone so afraid of? We have lots more buildings to blow up…who cares if we lose a couple every 10 years or so? LOL
John
September 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#174, Killer Whale,
You are correct, I did say the opinions expressed in the U.S. War College pre-liberation study were prescient and that in retrospect it may have been better had the administration and military followed its recommendations. But that study was but one of the many studies and reports that preceded liberation. There were others that warned that too many troops, too large a U.S. military presence might be the catalyst and fuel for an insurgency. The President has said the the military commanders told him consistently that the force level with which we went into Iraq were sufficient to get the job done. The way things have unfolded since the victory over Saddam, it appears that that was not correct. But, looking at the current Iraqi-on-Iraqi carnage going on, I am not convinced that 250,000 troops or 500,000 troops would have made a difference. Perhaps we should have just left Iraq just as soon as we deposed Saddam. But, the fact is the president received a great deal of opinion and recommendations before Iraq was liberated. The War College study was but one of many. While can certainly be argued that the administration took the wrong advice and made the wrong decisions(And clearly they did), but that does amount to malevolence nor does it mean that the decision to remove Saddam was incorrect.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:17 pmDecember 26, 1979: Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan
September 24th, 2006 at 3:18 pmThe Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. They will withdraw in 1989 after a brutal 10-year war. It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked. However, in a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, will reveal that the CIA began destabilizing the pro-Soviet Afghan government six months earlier in a deliberate attempt to get the Soviets to invade and have their own Vietnam-type costly war (see July 1979). Brzezinski rhetorically asks, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?†[Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/1998; Mirror, 1/29/2002]
The US and Saudi Arabia give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujahedeen guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians. Most of the money is managed by the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence agency. [Nation, 2/15/1999]
Is making fun of the victims of 9/11 now acceptable on ThinkProgress postings? If so, that is reprehensible. If not (and I hope it is not), posting # 180 has no place here.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pm1986-1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War
September 24th, 2006 at 3:20 pmAccording to Australian journalist John Pilger, in this year, “CIA Director William Casey [gives] his backing to a plan put forward by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. More than 100,000 Islamic militants [are] trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by the CIA and [the British intelligence agency] MI6, with the [British special forces unit] SAS training future al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders [are] trained at a CIA camp in Virginia.†This operation is named Operation Cyclone. While the operation is originally designed to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, it continues for several years after the Soviets leave Afghanistan in 1989. [Guardian, 9/20/2003]
Eventually, around 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries will fight with the Afghan mujahedeen. Tens of thousands more will study in the hundreds of new madrassas (Islamic schools) funded by the ISI and CIA in Pakistan. Their main logistical base is in the Pakistani city of Peshawar. [Washington Post, 7/19/1992; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/2001]
Ironically, although many are trained, it seems only a small percentage actually take part fight in serious fighting in Afghanistan, so their impact on the war is small. [New Yorker, 9/9/2002]
Richard Murphy, assistant secretary of state for Near East and South Asian relations during the Reagan administration, will later say, “We did spawn a monster in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets were gone [the people trained and/or funded by the US] were looking around for other targets, and Osama bin Laden has settled on the United States as the source of all evil. Irony? Irony is all over the place.†[Associated Press, 8/23/1998]
In the late 1980s, Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, feeling the mujahedeen network has grown too strong, tells President George H. W. Bush, “You are creating a Frankenstein.†However, the warning goes unheeded. [Newsweek, 10/1/2001]
By 1993, President Bhutto tells Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Peshawar is under de facto control of the mujahedeen, and unsuccessfully asks for military help in reasserting Pakistani control over the city. Thousands of mujahedeen fighters return to their home countries after the war is over and engage in multiple acts of violence. One Western diplomat notes these thousands would never have been trained or united without US help, and says, “The consequences for all of us are astronomical.†[Atlantic Monthly, 5/1996]
1986: Bin Laden Works with CIA, at Least Indirectly
The CIA, ISI, and bin Laden build the Khost tunnel complex in Afghanistan. This will be a major target of bombing and fighting when the US attacks the Taliban in 2001. [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/23/2001; Hindu, 9/27/2001]
It will be reported in June 2001 that “bin Laden worked closely with Saudi, Pakistani, and US intelligence services to recruit mujahedeen from many Muslim countries,†but this information has not been reported much since 9/11. [United Press International, 4/10/2004]
A CIA spokesperson will later claim, “For the record, you should know that the CIA never employed, paid, or maintained any relationship whatsoever with bin Laden.†[Ananova, 10/31/2001]
September 1986: CIA Provides Afghan Rebels Stinger Missiles
September 24th, 2006 at 3:23 pmWorried that the Soviets are winning the war in Afghanistan, the US decides to train and arm the mujahedeen with Stinger missiles. The Soviets are forced to stop using the attack helicopters that were being used to devastating effect. Some claim the Stingers turn the tide of the war and lead directly to Soviet withdrawal. Now the mujahedeen are better trained and armed than ever before. [Coll, 2004, pp. 11, 149-51; Clarke, 2004, pp. 48-50]
On March 21, 1986, President Reagan proclaimed Afghanistan Day, citing the “continuing horror of the Soviet attempt to subjugate Afghanistan, and on March 30, 1986, the Washington Post reported “US sends new arms to rebels; Afghans, Angolans get Stinger missiles in change of policy.†(Lundberg, p. 63). Stinger reached the hands of Afghan rebels in September 1986 and, as expected, they were effective in shooting down Soviet helicopters. One year later, President Gorbachev announced that his government had decided to withdraw all its forces from Afghanistan. The last ground troops quit Afghanistan in February 1989.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:34 pmGW says “Heckuva job, Chris.” Yeah, it sure was Chris. Way to go, Bill.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:52 pmThe right-wing media have slobbered at the feet of the Bush regime.
During the first eight months of his administration, Bush spent more vacation days at his ranch than any other president. During those months, he demoted the terrorism expert, ignored the PDB which stated al Queda was going to strike in the US. His priorities were golf and clearing brush.
The man is the most incompetent president ever, and the world is suffering for it. Wake up, sheeple. Democracy and freedom are on the wane in the US, not to mention that Bush and Co. have made the US, and the world, a more dangerous place. fotosynthesis
Cutting 0ff Aid to the Afghan Resistance
When the Soviets finally withdrew completely in 1989, a new president, George HW Bush, was in office. The Soviets were continuing to pump an estimated $3 billion a year into Afghanistan to prop up the puppet communist government led by Najibullah while the CIA, with Saudi matching funds, continued the massive flow of weapons to the mujahideen, now renamed “feuding warlords.†Wilson made a trip to Russia to beg them to cut off this aid. Andre Kosyrov, the future Russian foreign minister, argued presciently that militant Islam was just as dangerous to America as it was to the Soviet Union.
In 1991, Wilson delivered another $250 million to the CIA (matched by the Saudis) to keep the Afghan program alive in spite of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which the mujahideen leaders supported. George HW Bush’s Gulf War ensued as the world watched the rise of radical Islam spread like a cancer. Freedom fighters had morphed into monsters who were committing unspeakable atrocities but couldn’t capture Kabul from the communists. Pakistan Ambassador Robert Oakley in (1988-1991) asked “What is a nice group of kids like us doing in a place like this? Without Russians around, did we really want to be giving long-range Stingers, satellite-guided mortars, burst transmitters, and hundreds of million of dollars of ordnance to these men?†(Crile, p. 517) Indeed, Oakley was prepared to say that American policy needed to change when the Soviet 40th Army withdrew. Meanwhile Wilson and the new CIA Director William Webster met about continuing to fund Afghanistan, but the Bush administration wanted out of the program. The CIA attempted to buy back leftover Stingers at twice their original cost, but from 200-400 remained unaccounted for. (Meyer, p. 136) Wilson fought back and, on September 1991, when funding for the flow of weapons was to cease, Wilson pressured his congressional colleagues to fund one more year. From there, things began to fall apart.
In December 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved. In January 1993, a young Pakistani, Mir Aimal Kasi, murdered two CIA officials at the gates of the CIA compound outside of Washington and then disappeared into Pakistan where he was hailed as a hero. In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, which strongly suggested that a collection of Islamists trained, armed, and hardened in Afghanistan, including Saudi Osama bin Laden, now identified America as their enemy. In September 1994, al Qaeda’s fantastic plan to blow up commercial airliners with bombs (the Bojinka Plot) initially failed, but succeeded on September 2001. (19)
Crile points out that when the US departed Pakistan at the onset of the Gulf War in 1991, the CIA presumed that the jihad would burn itself out. “If the Afghans insisted on killing one another, it would be a shame but not America’s problem,†notes Crile. “Perhaps that policy would have worked out had it been only weapons that we left behind. But the more dangerous legacy of the Afghan war is found in the minds and convictions of Muslims around the world.†(Crile, p. 521) As true believers, to “them the miracle victory over the Soviets was all the work of Allah—not the billions of dollars that America and Saudi Arabia poured into the battle, not the ten-year commitment of the CIA that turned an army of primitive tribesman into techno-holy warriors. The consequence for America of having waged a secret war and never acknowledging or advertising its role was that we set in motion†the false belief among jihadists that taking down superpowers was a piece of cake.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:54 pm[...] var flvclintoninterview320240 = new SWFObject(’http://www.jefferysaddoris.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/flv/2006/09/clintoninterview.320.240.flv&autoStart=false’, ‘em-flvclintoninterview320240′, ‘320′, ‘260′, ‘6′, ‘#ffffff’); flvclintoninterview320240.addParam(’quality’, ‘high’); flvclintoninterview320240.addParam(’wmode’, ‘transparent’); flvclintoninterview320240.write(’flvclintoninterview320240′); We fact-check Wallace’s claim that he asked Bush administration officials tough questions about their pre-9/11 efforts to combat terrorism here, here and here.Transcript here. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 6:46 pmFunny, how Clinton brought up that he testified in front of the 9/11 commission for four hours and wanted it made public, but W only agreed to testify with Cheney holding his hand under the conditions that neither one would be sworn under oath and that it not be recorded in any form.
You wing nuts are beyond belief, especially trying to frame this as a meltdown interview. Wallace gets his cheap shot in with a false reference to Bin Laden and Somalia and when Clinton tries to respond to it in detail, Wallace acts shocked. What a complete and utter moron and an extreme embarassment to his dad.
Look for all of the wing nuts like Limbaugh, Hannity and the other chicken hawks to try to hype this up starting tomorrow to see if it has any legs. Absoultely shameless. Start putting your country first before politics you wingers.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:59 pmSo many comments about Clinton’s lying ! Says a lot about these experts on lies and how much they really know about lies.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:07 pmBy the way, the BJ is not “sex” to millions of American young ladies. The people who make a living interviewing and studying teen behavior write about this.
Naturally, people with credentials who tell you what actual factual summaries of surveys conclude don’t mean a wit to a an awful lot of people.
What kind of people are these who deny what others spend years studying? Academics? Industrialists? Medical professionals? Writers?
Richard Clarke knew an awful lot. What he says is bullshit too to the same crowd. What facts and from whom does it take to show them what is true? If they believe “Crap” to be true, because someone they simply believe is telling them, what does it gain them? Freedom to put down experts with first hand knowledge, so they can feel important? Creepy.
Start putting your country first before politics you wingers.
gman, are you for real? Clinton, Gore, etc, etc, take you pick of hollywood stars, and the Dixie chicks go abroad and bash U.S. policy. (by the way don’t forget about you matriarch, Jane Fonda). yours was the most laughable comment of the day. thank you.
September 24th, 2006 at 7:12 pmBy the way, the BJ is not “sex†to millions of American young ladies. The people who make a living interviewing and studying teen behavior write about this.
Comment by Charles A. Boy, Jr.
It’s not whether the “young ladies” think it’s sex or not that’s important, it’s what the wives think….
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, Charles, I just wanted to clarify a point.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:20 pmhey! do you vote rethuglican? do the world a favor and bury your head 3 inches more up your ass and don’t bother voting this november……..if this makes you angry ……go ahead and jump off that fascist cliff ;and good riitings!!!!!!swine!!!!!!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:43 pmmy nation is being stolen by an ignorant fascist regime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!give america back to americans!!!!!!!!george bush is a traitorous bastard!!!!!!!!!!!!!
September 24th, 2006 at 10:47 pmProof that Clinton and Think Progress are lying:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015364.php
September 24th, 2006 at 10:56 pmOk here was a interview gone bad. Chris Wallace trying to defame Bill Clinton, and using ruse and trickery to land the interview. I think I’ll go back now to watching Soledad on CNN. I mean c’ mon, at least give yourself a little merit Chris, you had a team of republicans critiquing the interview, you are not playing fair. There should be stiff penalties for for doing what Chris Wallace did by leading the president on and trying to catch him unprepared, it was supposed to be an interview about the Global Initiative, not making Chris look better by landing a cheesy produced interview under false pretenses, in a right wing format. Shame on Chris Wallace and shame on Fox for hiring him, we know why he was cut from ABC anyhow.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:01 pmJason Stallings aka Rock Hard abs
September 24th, 2006 at 11:05 pmThere may be a good reason why Fox has never asked why the Bush administration demoted Richard Clarke, as Bill Clinton claimed (he also said Clarke was fired)–he was not demoted.
On page 234 of “Against All Enemies,” Clarke writes:
“I had completed the review of the organizational options for homeland defense and critical infrastructure protection that Rice had asked me to conduct. There was agreement to create a separate, senior White House position for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security, outside of the NSC Staff. Condi Rice and Steve Hadley assumed that I would continue on the NSC focusing on terrorism and asked whom I had in mind for the new job that would be created outside the NSC. I requested that I be given that assignment, to the apparent surprise of Condi Rice and Steve Hadley.”
If Clarke was demoted, he requested the demotion.
Clinton also seems to imply that Clarke was “demoted” prior to 9/11. However, on page 239 of “Against All Enemies,” Clarke writes the following:
“Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC Staff, came to me in early October, after the time that I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. The switch had been delayed by September 11.”
In other words, the Bush administration kept Clarke at NSC beyond the period Clarke had planned on being there.
In a footnote on page 240, Clarke makes it clear that he left the administration under his own volition:
“Cressey and I did spend over a year working on the cyber security problem, producing Bush’s National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, and then quit the Administration altogether.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:27 amataxonamerica –
Personal attack is not argument. It is dishonest and irresponsible.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:45 amexley –
As was the fact during the 2000 election, the majority of Americans are opposed to Bushit and his “policies”.
And to the illegal invasioon and occupation of Iraq.
Those are real-world facts, not “faith-based” fake-news FOX extremist right-wing propaganda.
Otherwise, tough guy: those who bombed the WTC in 1993 are in prison for life — and Clinton didn’t bomb and invade NJ in order to acomplish that.
Nor did Spain invade Italy — yet the Madrid bombers were tracked, arrested, extradicted, charged, tried, convicted, and imprisoned.
Where’s Osama? Why have you not enlisted, tough guy, and personally caught him?
September 25th, 2006 at 7:49 amExley –
It’s a fool who underestimats and denigrates his (perceived) enemy.
Saddam Hussein was a survivor. He was not crazy. The alleged effort to assassinate poppy Bushit is a crock of nonsense.
And the investigation of that claim found no evidence for that stupid allegation.
But you don’t operate by fact; you are motivated by ideology and politics, and facts be damned: whatever makes your guy look good will be said, and repeated _ad nauseum)_, without regard for whether it is true.
Attempting to appear objective while doing that doesn’t succeed because it is s fake “objectivity” motivated by your ideological penchant for reducing everything to politics.
The dead giveaway is your repetition of the lie that Saddam attempted to assassinate poppy Bushit. Anyone who know that history and facts of the region and principles knows that is a lie. And it doesn’t matter how you couch and contextualize that lie: it remains a lie.
And your doing so is not “clever,” or even intelligent: it is self-congratulatory BS based upon wind-egg.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:58 am[i]Are you actually arguing that a person should put party above national security?
Comment by Exley
Thats what BAKER just said this week, they were not going to put out any reports until after the november elections. WHY? Because domestic politics take precedence over the the war on terror.
Comment by ION — September 23, 2006 @ 7:27 pm[/i]
The so-called “war on terror” [b]IS[/b] domestic politics.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:10 amI despise the right wing media and their usual tactic of using leading questions, implying that the answer to their question is always going to be affirmative. I’m most curious as to why Clinton waited a full 5 years post 9/11 to debunk 5 years of outrageous and fictitious propaganda. Perhaps he was waiting for an opportune moment and it finally arose. The fact that no one in the Bush administration has been asked by Fox News to respond to the same line of questioning would be astonishing on the surface, but not really considering the source. Hopefully having Clinton hand Chris Wallace his interchangeable brain/ass on a plate will be one more chink in Fox’s house of collapsible lies.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:51 am[...] Clinton is right about the context of the interview as well. The recent ABC special that attacked his record on anti-terrorism contradicted the factual record. Chris Wallace was eager to attack Bush’s anti-terrorism record, but failed to confront Bush administration officials in the past (link link link). And all of these one-sided, counterfactual attacks come as the election season starts to heat up. In short, what Clinton said was correct. [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 10:20 am#202, JNagarya,
Then you are calling President Clinton liar…Because it was the attempted assassination of President George H.W. Bush that was the stated motive for President Clinton’s launching of the cruise missile strike against Iraq in June 1993…
So, JNagarya, are you saying that President Clinton lied in June 1993????
September 25th, 2006 at 10:26 amHey, JNagarya…Here is President Clinton’s address to the nation on June 26, 2003:
U.S. responds to attack by Iraqi government – President Bill Clinton speech, statement by Office of Press Secretary – TranscriptUS Department of State Dispatch, July 5, 1993
Address to the nation, Washington, DC, June 26, 1993.
“This Thursday, Attorney General Reno and Director of Central Intelligence Woolsey gave me their findings. Based on their investigation, there is compelling evidence that there was, in fact, a plot to assassinate former President Bush; and that this plot, which included the use of a powerful bomb made in Iraq, was directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
We should not be surprised by such deeds, coming as they do from a regime like Saddam Hussein’s, which is ruled by atrocity, [which has] slaughtered its own people, invaded two neighbors, attacked others, and engaged in chemical and environmental warfare. Saddam has repeatedly violated the will and conscience of the international community.
But this attempt at revenge by a tyrant against the leader of the world coalition that defeated him in war is particularly loathsome and cowardly. We thank God it was unsuccessful.
The authorities who foiled it have the appreciation of all Americans. It is clear that this was no impulsive or random act. It was an elaborate plan devised by the Iraqi Government and directed against a former President of the United States because of actions he took as President. As such, the Iraqi attack against President Bush was an attack against our country and against all Americans. We could not and have not let such action against our nation go unanswered.”
So, JNagarya, I’ll ask again…Are you saying President Clinton was lying when he gave this address to the nation back in June 1993?
We all anxiously await your answer….
September 25th, 2006 at 10:32 amJNagarya???? Helloooooooooooooo????? You have anyting? Anything at all????
Nah, I didn’t think you would. I accept your surrender.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:04 pmHurray For President Bill Clinton 9/24/06
It is about time that someone set that little beady-eyed prevaricator Brit Hume straight. He has the most biased news cast on TV. The only reason we watched today was because President Bill Clinton was going to be on. Otherwise we do not watch any of their right winged news shows. Brit Hume and the rest of Fox News twists and fudges the news beyond the point of being dishonest. Prevaricator’s!
September 25th, 2006 at 1:54 pmHow can ANYONE with an ounce of common sense…
…deny that Fox is a propaganda arm of the criminal Bushite junta in particular…
…and the right wing Repulsivescam Party in general?
September 25th, 2006 at 2:40 pmWhaaaaaa. He asked Bubba a few tough questions for once and you babies throw a tantrum! (Like Bill)
Clinton was all poll driven. He lobbed a few missles at some empty tents, blew up a milk factory, got bad press and that was that.
Your blind love for the “Clinton’s (plural) and hatred of Bush completly tarnishes your reason.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pmBig Papa,
So then you would agree that the NY & LA Times, the alphabet networks, MSNBC/CNN are all propoganda machines for the Lefties?
Open your mind & listen, objectivly, to all sides. That’s why I WAS a loyal Dem and now vote Repulican. Many of those around me have switched over the years from the party of “vitims & victimization” to the party of “use your God given talents and ablities” and make something of yourself!
God Bless America!!!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:33 pmHmm – 42 interviews with top administration security officials. Pretty good access for a Fox News interviewer. The only way to get better press access to high level security clearance would have been to fabricate his news company and open up his own gay porn website!
September 25th, 2006 at 11:31 pmChris Wallace should start looking for some seeds for his new mail order bidniz.
KO KO’d CW after BC raised some welts on his butt.
IMO, Roger Ailes donated some cash to BC’s cause just to set him up for a hit, & the whole clownshow blew up in the faux face, causing Faux to demand all th YouTube vids to be pulled so that Faux can spin & spin w/o any truth getting out in the ethers. Too late, Roger. Your ass has been handed to you. Take a good, long, deep look at it. But wear a gas mask, b/c it really stinks like shit.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:32 amWhat a delight to see Bill Clinton standing up for himself! It was great to see him, and I am so proud to be on the same team with him working to defeat Republicans this next election. I thought even Chris Wallace’s opening 3-paragraph “question” was designed to inflame, and I was glad that Bill fired back, clearly showing and admitting his irritation over how he has been defamed of late. Bravo, Bill, keep up the great work!
September 27th, 2006 at 3:50 pmSOME YEARS AGO I WOULD GET IN TROUBLE WITH LIBERALS BECAUSE I THOGHT ALOT OF THEIR ARGUMENTS WERE STUPID. AS TIME GOES BY I FIND THE STUPID SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT. THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE RIGHTWING BECOME MORE AND MORE AN INSULT TO MY INTELLIGENCE. THERE ARE SO MANY SOURCES FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT BUSH SOUGHT THE INVASION OF IRAQ FROM DAY 1 THAT IT IS EMBARRASSING THAT THE RIGHT WING INSISTS ON DENYING IT. PAUL ONEIL, THE DOWNING STREET MEMO , WOODWARDS BOOK, RICHARD CLARKE, JOSEPH WILSON JUST TO SKIM THE SURFACE. EACH OF THEM WILL BE DESCIBED AS LIARS, FAME SEEKERS OR WORSE. I MIGHT BELEIVE IT OF ONE OR TWO BUT ALL OF THESE SOURCES ARE WRONG! IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD BELEIVE. THESE ARE HIGH RANKING SOURCES, MANY OF WHOM WERE CLEARLY ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE SPECTRUM. THIS IS REALLY A DEPRESSING TIME BECAUSE ANYTHNG, THAT IF TRUE WOULD SHOW THAT BUSH IS WRONG, MUST BE WRONG JUST FOR THAT REASON. THIS IS MADNESS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU ALL? WHAT PAYOFF DOES BUSH OFFER THAT MAKES YOU SPOUT STUFF THAT IS CLEARLY NONSENSE. I HAVE ALMOST STOPPED BELEIVING THAT THERE IS EVEN AN OUNCE OF GOOD FAITH FROM THE RIGHT ANY MORE.
September 27th, 2006 at 7:28 pmExley #7
So you don’t know the differnece between a fair question and a “loaded” question designed to smear someone? Really?
By the way… were you able to beat that child molestation charge?
Accusing someone of being responsible for the deaths of 3000 people tends to cause anger. Clinton was very restrained in my opinion. Wallace was just being a punkass. But Clinton cracked his butt wide… when he asked Wallace if he had asked Bush’s criminal clowns similar questions the 42 freakin times they were interviewed….. guess what… NO! Busted wide… I thought I got a glimpse of Wallace’s colon.
Clinton is a genius… that’s why they hate him. Ignorant people hate the hell out of smart people. That’s how Bush got “elected” twice… all the stupid people came out to get the stupid president they deserve. To bad the rest of us have to suffer for their…. stupidity.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:50 amRichard Clarke worked as a counter-terrorism chief under 4 presidents… that’s right 4!
Guess which one fired him, and then ignored his warnings…. Dumbass Bush Jr.
Clark is a very, very, smart man, who only wanted to help this administration protect the country…. but NO…. he’s gotta go.
Bush and Osama are entirely responsible for 9/11 and anyone with at least 15 connected brain cells and a desire to be honest with themselves knows it.
I am beginning to think that this administration wanted a big terrorist attack on the U.S. so they could go stomping around in the middle-east with impunity. Too bad their plan backfired.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:57 amI can’t get over people like Beefeater #8. They love to point out Clinton is a liar because he didn’t come clean about Lewinsky. He probably should have taken the high road and come clean like so many of the rightous right have done after getting bagged. But how on one hand can a person ridicule him as a liar while giving the current President a free pass on his invasion of Iraq based on their stockpiling (non existent) Weapons of Mass destruction. And yes a lie is a lie. Clinton lied and gets a little play on the side and Bush lies and sends a country to war; causes the deaths of thousands, bankrupts the country, … Any person who wants to point out Clinton lied about Lewinsky aught to be out to tar and feather the Bush administration for the number of whoppers they’ve come up with. Ya, like tell us again there’s no such thing as global warming. Why should we listen to scientists. I’m sure Exon’s giving us the true story.
September 28th, 2006 at 12:02 pm