Goodling pushed out career officials.
The Los Angeles Times notes that Monica Goodling’s tenure at the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys “appears to have been crucial to facilitating the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. Former colleagues said that she prevailed upon the head of the office, Michael A. Battle, to replace two long-serving officials who probably would have viewed the firing of prosecutors without cause as highly suspicious, and helped install a fellow Regent law school graduate as a replacement.”
Watch her hearing HERE or HERE.
UPDATE: Some liveblogging by FireDogLake and BLT.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Here we go….
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 amAn incompetent ideologue with a little power…..what a f*ck up.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 amHeads will rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroll. (I hope anyway!)
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 amThis is like being infested with worms… a purge must take place for the wellness of the justice body.
Despite their own self delusions their belief in their god does not make them superior to Reasoned Minds … in anyway. Check out Al Gores new book… you will see what I mean.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 amThe Constitution says nothing about “cause”. I will keep looking though.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 amthis woman deserves no sympathy. how dare she place serving the president over the law.
she deserves every bad thing that happens to her in her life.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 amOh boy Goodling was a thug for the Bush Regime and did their dirty work for them in the Justice Department. Never trust anyone named Monica in Washington, DC > LOL.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 amThere is no law against firing U.S. Attorneys.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 amshe took the 5th on the very first question… is that procedural…?
And, yes, I DO take it personally
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 amAh, yes, the administration that was supposed to restore honor and dignity to the white house. Monica Lewinsky on her knees seems to pale in comparison to what these masters of deceit have concocted for 6 years.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 amShe’s got immunity, so this should rock.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 amshe says all she ever wanted to do was serve the president. what a ditz. did she ever think she might want to follow the law?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 amI wonder who’s desk she was under to gain her position?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 am#8
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 amso here is the point… and there is Patrick… 4 states over… as usual. Christ man get a clue!
It is so refreshing to see the merging of Church & State in America! Thankfully, we have a truly Christain man in the White House who knows that students hired from the ‘Jesus Law School & Wingnut Factory’ will be righteous and holy! I have little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is right now feel vindicated that his death on the cross was not in vain! Praise Him, Dubya! Praise Him, Praise Him, Praise Him!!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 am#5 ~ The Constitution also grants no inherent rights to political parties. It does however have quite a lot to say about conspiracy and treason.
Bite it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 amI got my law degree out of a Cracker Jack box.
Which means that I’m therefore abundantly qualified to work at the Bushie Justice Dept. Where can I submit my resume?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 amSixpack > it had to be Cheney’s desk she was under, because Alberto is a flamer, and Bush is into having a guy under the desk or being the guy himself under the desk > lol.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 amThere is no treason and no conspiracy. These guys didn’t do their jobs the way the White House wanted, i.e. chasing down Democrat voter fraud schemes and they got the axe.
Good.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 amI don’t think I can remember. I can’t remember. I don’t recall. Can I talk any faster and say even less? I think that I can’t remember that!
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 amI thought you couldn’t take the 5th if you were granted immunity…isn’t that the reason for the immunity, so you can testify truthfully without fear of prosecution?
Then again, she went to a 4th rate law school so she may not know how it works.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 amWhy does she look like Ann Coulter in that pic to the right?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 amNice Hillary Clinton impersonation Saywho.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 am#19 ~ They couldn’t find the schemes because all the purple elephants were in the way.
Seriously, would you like to debate with a handful of facts sometime?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 amRegent Law School: Helping to Corrupt America’s Political Landscape Since 2003.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 amGoodling:
It’s like, you know, that thingy we have to do with the applications, like, you know, like, look at them, and well like, you know, try to, umm, like decide if umm, like see if they can do the job thingy like, well, you know, the way what’s his name, you know, the president thinks they, umm like, should do. Understand what I’m trying to, like, say?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 amThe Bush administration is a display of brutal criminal activity at the highest level.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 amPure and simple.
Impeach him and his buddy dick, then prosecute.
I believe you can take the 5th anytime you want. You may want to ask William Jefferson Democrat Lousiana to be sure.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 amOff to hear Rep. Kucinich give a speech on C-Span about Bush screwing Iraqis out of their OIL. Supposed to start at 11:00 am.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 am#24 You have any facts? All I’ve seen in these daily Gonzalez threads is wishful thinking.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 amGee, Patrick1, I see your point! The Justice department isn’t about silly nonsense like “law”, it’s about following the edicts of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter!
The law is for pansies, right Patrick1!
Damn, I’m so glad that unethical Clinton guy is no longer disgracing our nation!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 amNo. 22 - Jeff:
It is Ann . She’s just put on a . . . . couple hundred pounds !
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 amStayed offline most of today, due to a cold, first thing I see when I get back?
Patrick1 stating that the law should not be enforced equally, and that it is good if one’s legal system is specifically geared towards keeping those in power, in power rather then going after criminals, whatever their political affiliation.
In essence, he would rather prosecutors went after charges based on a wild accusation with no basis in truth (Such as most of the right’s accusations of Democrat voter fraud) then actually catch GOPers who are corrupt (Such as, those involved in K-Street.)
Yeah, because, you guessed it, conservatives like Patrick1 like being lied to.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 ampweese pwotect me Ms. Monica make babyjesus pwoud
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 amIt is about law, which the fired attorneys failed to enforce and got fired. There is a law against voter fraud.
Clinton not only disgraced our nation he allowed Al Qaeda free reign to murder American civilians.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am#30 ~ Tons… not including the ones in emails that Gonzo & OOP refuse to release.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 amWe need to make it our mission to contact these three top Democrats and let them have it for cowering before Bush and compromising on the Iraq Funding.
Nancy Pelosi: 1-202-225-0100
Harry Reid: 1-202-224-3542
Rahm Emanuel: 1-202-225-4061
Post these three phone numbers on every website. Include them in all your e-mail. Put signs up wherever you can. We need to let them know that they’ve failed our troops, country and Constitution.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 amWe don’t know the extent of the Democrat voter fraud schemes because the attorneys failed to investigate and they were fired for it.
Good move.
Again, this so called scandal has all the weight of Al Gore talking about reason.
You moonbats after only four months can’t be this desperate already.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 amOh, Patrick1, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence….
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 amPlease stop giving attention to the troll - he’s getting fat and happy on it. Ewwww.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:14 amStill, you have to admit that for a skanky-assed Repunican,
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 amshe’s not too bad looking. I mean, being young, cute, and of limited experience, for her to rise to her level in the Bush Administration, until recently she was taking more than just the 5th Amendment.
Patrick1
1: Demonstrate to me that there was Democrat vote fraud that was ignored, and not just a bunch of whiny assed whingers claiming there was.
2: 9/11, was on Bush’s watch.
Until you get it into your thick, perverted skull that the rest of the world is sick to death of you lying and trying to dodge your party’s responsibility you aren’t going to make much headway here.
Oh, and as a bonus point: Clinton repeatedly warned America of the threat of terrorism, the response he got was an uncooperative congress on that issue, and the nightly news playing clips of “Wag the dog.” Bush, once he came into power, set about weakening America’s disaster response capabilities, and ignoring reports with titles like “Osama Bin Laden determined to attack the US.”
You can’t blame Clinton for a screw-up your boy in the whitehouse, made.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 amPatrick1, if she did nothing wrong then why did she invoke the 5th? Why would she need immunity to testify?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 amWow, besides cutting and pasting from right wing blogs, does Patrick1nut just randomly type Rush and Coulter talking points, irrelevent of the thread topic?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:17 amIt would appear so.
(once, just flippin’ once, I’d love to actual debate 1nut, but he runs and hides…..every….single….time! Why?)
I see that Patrick has fallen too far behind to catch up…ever.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 amPatrick1 says “There is no law against firing U.S. Attorneys.” However, the firing of prosecutors without cause is “highly suspicious.”
If he bothered to read the article, he would have seen that the Justice Department inspector general is investigating whether a political litmus test was used in considering job applicants — a violation of department rules and federal law.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 am#35
How’s that intensive hunt for Bin Laden going? I know it’s only been about 6 years since 9/11 and there’s been zero outcry from Republicans to get him (that was Clinton’s job, NOT Bush’s!) but if you’re going to pretend that getting Bin Laden has ever been a priority of the GOP you MIGHT want to have at least ONE REPUBLICAN say it publicly.
You might also want to at least pretend that you want to get Bin Laden .. ya know .. in order to pretend you care about America.. shit like that.
Bush’s hands-off policy towards Bin Laden is starting to become readily apparent to even the most dim-witted Bush supporter.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 am#39
You can’t have a conversation with a conservative. Logic and reason are lost on them.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 amAmerica was attacked four times under Clinton. OBL declared war on the United States in 1995. The planning for 9/11 began in 1998.
The Clinton response? He blew up a tent and an aspirin factory. That is before we ever talk about the offer from Sudan and Saudi Arabia to turn Bin Laden over to the United States. An offer Clinton turned down one can only guess because it would have taken away the time he spend masturbating in the Oval Office sinks.
You have to have an investigation to look into the voter fraud in Seattle and Milwaukee as two examples. These attorneys failed to do their jobs and they were fired. Next.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 am#47
Nothing is apparent to Bush’s dim-witted supporters. That’s why he still has an approval rating of 28%. They are too stubborn to admit he’s a moronic fool.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 amPatrick1
The charges of Democrat voter fraud were baseless, as was discovered by the few attorneys who actually followed up on them. Others who refused to go on a wild goose chase for political reasons saw from the start that the allegations were baseless and politically motivated. Its THEIR JOB to determine which cases have the most merit and most chance of prosecution so they don’t waste their time on political tripe like this.
So they did their job - upholding the law with a blind eye to political affiliation - but the Bush admin under A.G. didn’t want that. They wanted them to dig up dirt on Dems because it was election time. Thus they fired the attorneys that refused to take part.
In other words they didn’t fire these attorneys for being bad attorneys, they fired them because they wouldn’t participate in the politicizing of the Justice Department.
Get it now?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 am“America was attacked four times under Clinton. OBL declared war on the United States in 1995. The planning for 9/11 began in 1998.”
And Bush completely ignored the warnings from the CIA about bin Laden until after 9/11. Next.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 amBeen watching the S-SPAN broadcast.
Nothing will come from this hearing.
It’s just a whitewash… as usual.
Politics in the US has become nothing but theater. It’s all a bunch of BS.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 amFor the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 am“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Resource Center.”
This lying b!tch epitomizes the usefulness of this entire administration.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 amClinton not only disgraced our nation he allowed Al Qaeda free reign to murder American civilians. –Comment by Patrick1
It’s strange that you’d bring this us because your boy Bush allowed Al Qaeda to carry out the worst terrorist attack in history on American soil . . . while he continued to read a children’s book, AND after receiving multiple warnings of an impending attack.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 amAmid all the criticism, several DOJ officials offered a robust defense of the Administration in testimony before Congress. One official, repeating the assertion that most of the firings were motivated by poor performance, cited the case of U.S. attorney Carol Lam of California, who last year successfully prosecuted former G.O.P. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham for corruption. The DOJ official said Lam was pushed out, not because of the Cunningham case, but because her prosecution rates for violent crime and border violations were inadequate. Another DOJ official testified that Iglesias had been fired because he delegated too much to a subordinate and did not show enough “leadership”. –Time Magazine.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 amIglesias had been fired because he delegated too much to a subordinate and did not show enough “leadershipâ€.
Sounds like Bush’s life story. LOL !!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 amActually, it is illegal to fire Attorneys if the cause was to derail an investigation. It’s an extremely serious obstruction of justice.
And as for #50…. have you ever been to Milwaukee? It’s one of the worst racially segregated cities in America, and a long-time victim of racial profiling. If anything, I see a Republican complaint about poverty-entrenched voters finally being franchised.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 amThere is no law against firing U.S. Attorneys.
Comment by Patrick1
But there are laws against election fraud. Keep up.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 amPatrick1
1 succesful on American soil: All of those directly responsible were caught (WTC 1.)
2 which were thwarted due to Clinton’s anti-terror security measures (Day of Terror, and the Millenium bombings.)
1 which occured shortly before Clinton left office, which wasn’t persued in any manner by the Bush administration prior to 9/11.
Oh, and Clinton turned down the offer to take Osama, back before Osama was a known threat, and long before America had enough evidence to convict Osama of anything more then being an American ally against the Soviets during the Afghan war.
Go get informed about things from sources other then your rightwing idealogues who are incapable of telling the truth, before even trying this debate Patrick1. We’ve heard your lies before, they have debunked before, and frankly, we are sick to death of you assuming that you can wave the corpses of 9/11 and spread these lies and not get called on them.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 amBack to the topic, Monica testified about the EARS reviews of USA’s performance. In TP’s posting of the latest document dump, the last batch of documents contained the memo which showed the Ears evaluations gave most of the fired attorney’s glowing evaluations - so it seems political.
Monica just admitted that she thinks she violated civil-service laws, in hiring for non-political positions.
She’s getting hammered about politically-motivated prosecutions, as well.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 amwell, since Patrick1nut ran and hid…AGAIN, all I got to say (that offers nothing of substance to this thread….aka 1nut) is,
I think I’ll call Monica…Ann Coulter lite.
Same blond hair and attitude toward liberals, but without the ugliness and skininess, and not loaded with an appendage usually found in humans that have an abudance of testosterone
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 ampatrick1:
Your facts are wrong, as usual. If the USAs were fired for failing to diligently prosecute voter fraud, why didn’t Gonzales say so, and why aren’t such investigations being persued today? Also, what about the other attorneys?
Can you answer a question straight up?
Next!
P.S: I’d call you a vile, black-hearted little punk, but that would be doing the real vile, black-hearted little punks a disservice.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 amPatrick-stupidest-troll-ever sinks to a new low each and every day. Will this morally bankrupt RNC operative ever reach bottom? No, not so long as Karl’s shop is in operation.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 amPatrick1,
There was no evidence of voter fraud in Washington. The Secretary of State that oversaw the recount here, was and still is, a Republican. He did a “by the book” recount, and Dino Rossi lost because he didn’t have the votes. It think it’s awesome though how you righties seem to think we shouldn’t mention Florida 2000, or Ohio 2004 anymore, but you keep bringing up these examples of Dem voter fraud.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 amI see that Patrick has fallen too far behind to catch up…ever.
Comment by VerbalKint
Peanut1 would have to join the human race before he could catch up.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 amNo law against firing Patrickin1 either.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 ambabyjesus says bearing false witness is OK if it pwotects chwistians, bwess you Monica chiwld
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:43 am“Iglesias had been fired because he delegated too much to a subordinate and did not show enough “leadershipâ€.”
Actually, that sounds like Gonzo. He delegated everything to Monica, Sampson and McNulty, and he doesn’t remember anything he said or did about any of it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 amSince the investigation never took place at a federal level we will never know. But they were fired for not doing their jobs. And there is no law against that.
Amid all the criticism, several DOJ officials offered a robust defense of the Administration in testimony before Congress. One official, repeating the assertion that most of the firings were motivated by poor performance, cited the case of U.S. attorney Carol Lam of California, who last year successfully prosecuted former G.O.P. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham for corruption. The DOJ official said Lam was pushed out, not because of the Cunningham case, but because her prosecution rates for violent crime and border violations were inadequate. Another DOJ official testified that Iglesias had been fired because he delegated too much to a subordinate and did not show enough “leadership”. Time Magazine.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 amPatrickin1 going through an endless spanking machine.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:45 amstop wasting space attacking someone who is just trying to attack the truth.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:46 amGoodling just spoke the most amazing statement- she knew that she had gone over the line but she didn’t mean it criminally. Ya gotta luv Immunity!!!
This country has never been in such trouble in its history!
As for Clinton and the path to 9/11 the record is very clear indeed. Despite the theft of documents by Sandy Burglar.
The Clinton Administration and the American left had no interest in defending the United States against Islamo Fascism. The four attacks leading to 9/11 with no response are overwhelming evidence to that fact.
The left would like to treat the war declared on the United States by Islamo Fascism like a liquor store hold-up so they can get back to the important stuff, like reparations for Guam and the minimum wage.
What happened in the 1990s is that there was a world war going on but only one side was fighting it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 amLooks like Patrick1 has resorted to that popular third-grader style of debate: just keep repeating your same, baseless argument. No wonder Republicans lost so badly in November.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 amWhat a pathetic excuse for a DOJ “official”. Makes one wonder if all political appointees of this administration are just silly little sycophants. I need to go vomit…
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 amBaseless argument is what this thread is all about.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 amThis from Wikipedia on Carol Lam, just in case some people are unfamiliar with just what her job was and actually believe the cr*p being spewed by Patrick1.
Appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California by George W. Bush in 2002. From 1997 to 2000, Lam was the Chief of the Major Fraud Section at the Southern District of California. For the 11 years before that she was Assistant US Attorney at the same office. She began her legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Irving R. Kaufman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Yep, that is really the person who should being going after murderers and border jumpers.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 amI find it interesting that the right wingers talking points always seem to bad mouth and downgrade anything that Clinton did regarding terrorism during his term. They cite the various attacks (patty has 4, hmmm how many thousands have occurred during the Bush era? Oh well). They seem to be trying to make the point that Clinton did not care and that they do care etc…
Lets just play the game and assume they are correct. None of them not one can explain away how their people publicly decried everything Clinton did to combat terrorism back then, none of them not one had a better plan, or any plan at all back then. Hmm, what is their usual retort when they think the dems have no plan? . None of them, not one has a reasonable answer as to why knowing when he took office that terrorism was this big issue (they seem to think it was now looking back) yet when Bush took office nothing was done, nothing. Why? Oh wait he did do something…remember the suspension of predator flights over Afghanistan in early to mid 2001? I do. Why ground the whole fleet to re-fit them with weaponry? Why not phase them in and out, why close our eyes in the one country on earth we knew was harboring the main man of terrorism? When the PDB in August 2001 came our, why did they not put the airports on a higher state of alert? Not specific enough? Not specific enough was good enough to invade Iraq two year later. When all of the little clues started rolling in during 2001, why did they not add them up, or even try to add them up? Why did it take so long to respond to 911? I know the answer…it was that damned Bill Clinton once again.
I could go on and on with the failings of the Bush administration during the first 9 months, but it would get too depressing after a while.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 amPatrick1,
Perhaps we can blame Reagan for the fact that Iran has many of our weapons at their disposal.
It’s awesome eh Patrick? Clinton and Democrats are to blame for all of terrorism that we deal with? But you refuse to hold Bush responsible for the fact that he was warned several times about an impending attack, and did nothing. Can you not hold him responsible, at least, for his inaction in the face of the all the evidence that the intelligence community gave him?
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 am“The DOJ official said Lam was pushed out, not because of the Cunningham case, but because her prosecution rates for violent crime and border violations were inadequate.”
When you’re digging into the Cunnigham case of corruption, it doesn’t leave much time for going after incidental crime.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 amPatrick1
Yes, the record is very clear. Particularly on Sandy Berger, who if he was trying to keep it all secret, should have gone for documents that weren’t copies. The originals were still there.
Oh, and the left? Bill Clinton achieved more the GW Bush against terror, and he didn’t bankrupt America, didn’t overstretch America’s military, didn’t piss on the American constitution, and most startilingly of all, didn’t try to palm off responsibility for the first WTC which wasn’t even 2 months into his reign, on Bush Snr.
The record is very clear, and it shows that the Democrats are superior, clearly superior on national security. It shows that beneath all of the rhetoric of the right, all you will find is bullshit.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 amLam also was given written commendation by the head of the district Border Patrol office for her actions in border enforcement.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 amCrump’s Brother
Do you know what is really awesome about that trick? That was straight after Reagan’s election campaign publically lambasted Carter’s handling of the Iranian hostage crisis.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 pmBruce Gorton,
I love it. Reagan sells weapons to our ‘enemy’ Iran, but he’s a renowned hero with these National Security types. It’s quite convenient that this obvious traitorous act goes unnoticed when they call those on the left, traitors.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pmPatrick is so ignorant even the typical right-wing idiots don’t want to hang out with him. That’s why he spends all his time here. He’s so stupid he doesn’t even realize how ignorant he looks intertwined with the intelligent posts. And yes, if you see a cohesive sentence in one of Patrick’s posts, it was probably taken straight from some right wing blog site.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 pmClinton did nothing against terrorism as the former World Trade Center testifies to on a daily basis.
America was attacked by Al Qaeda, war declared by OBL, planning for the WTC attack underway in 1998. The response was to blow up a tent and an aspirin factory. That is a fact.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 pmI can’t believe this self-righteous criminal gets immunity for telling her tales before congress. Bottom line is this trollop who was hired to protect the law, broke it. I’ve heard that where she got her “Law Degree” they only use one book: the bible. No need for silly things like constitutional law. She deserves prison.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 pmBaseless argument is what this thread is all about.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 23, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Then why don’t you get the f*ck out of here? Same with the other Goodling thread where you say it is a non-story. If you really believe it is a non-story and there is nothing to debate, then you are here only to be an a*shole. But Patrick-liar-for-a-cause, you are here for so much more than that. Just admit it and quit beating around the bush like the coward that you are. You are here on behalf of a lawless, fascist regime. You support fascism. You despise the rule of law.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pmPatrick1 sez:
Every time you repeat this ludicrous canard, someone is going to point out who was President on September 11, 2001.
And yes, this time >I drew the short straw.
Patty, listen closely…
Someday that’s gotta sink in…
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pmClinton’s response to a World Trade Center attack: pursue, arrest, and prosecute those responsible. Thank you, President Clinton.
Bush’s response to a much worse World Trade Center attack: (1) allow Osama bin Laden to escape, (2) admit he doesn’t spend much time worrying about bin Laden, (3) attack a country that had, by Bush’s own admission, no connection with the attack. Worst. President.Ever.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm“Clinton did nothing against terrorism as the former World Trade Center testifies to on a daily basis.”
Sorry, but what did Bush do about terrorism before 9/11? Absolutely nothing and that is why 9/11 happened on his watch. You do remember the PDB of 8/6/01, titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” don’t you?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 pmPatrick1
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm
Is it a partisan site? Yes. However, that article is simply a bunch of other articles, debunking your claims.
Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t make it any truer Patrick1, it just makes you look like a liar.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:24 pmNot for being a conservative, but for being a contrarian jackass.
Comment by Blue Girl, Red State — May 23, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
But what about the mind-numbing stupidity? It’s Patrick’s defining feature.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pmJune 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. When news reached Washington, Presi dent Bill Clinton vowed to bring the killers to justice. “The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished,†he said angrily. “Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished.†The next day, leaving the White House to attend an economic summit in France, Clinton had more tough words for the attackers. “Let me be very clear: We will not resist†— the president corrected himself — “we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them.â€
As Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public’s reaction to the bombing. “Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll,†Morris recalls. “I was concerned about how Clinton looked in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him.†The bombing happened in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign, and even though Clinton enjoyed a substantial lead over Republican Bob Dole, Morris worried that public dissatisfaction with Clinton on the terrorism issue might benefit Dole.
Indeed, Morris’s first poll showed less support for Clinton than he had hoped. But by the time Morris presented his findings to the president and top staffers at a political-strategy meeting a few days later, public approval of Clinton’s response had climbed — something Morris noted in his written agenda for the session:
SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
It’s not Clinton’s fault 76-18
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm#95: Do you have anything substantive to add, or do you just cut & paste ??
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 pmThe numbers were a relief for the re-election team. But soon there was another crisis when, on July 17, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris. There was widespread suspicion that the crash was the result of terrorism (it was later ruled to be an accident), and Morris’s polling found the public growing uneasy not only about air safety but also about Clinton’s performance in the Khobar investigation. Morris found that the number of people who believed Clinton was “doing all he can to investigate the Saudi bombing and punish those responsible†was just 54 percent, while 32 percent believed he could do more. Morris feared that White House inaction would allow Dole to portray Clinton as soft on national security.
“We tested two alternative defenses to this attack: Peace maker or Toughness,†Morris wrote in a memo for the president. In the “Peacemaker†defense, Morris asked voters to respond to the statement, “Clinton is peacemaker. Brought together Arabs and Israelis. Ireland. Bosnia cease fire. Uses strength to bring about peace.†The other defense, “Tough ness,†asked voters to respond to “Clinton tough. Stands up for American interests. Against foreign companies doing business in Cuba. Sanctions against Iran. Anti-terrorist legislation held up by Republicans. Prosecuted World Trade Center bombers.†Morris found that the public greatly preferred “Toughness.â€
So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm** BIN LADEN REMAINS FREE. THANKS TO PRESIDENT BUSH **
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 pmComment by Patrick1 — May 23, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Once again, moron:
Dance all you like, but you can’t deny that simple fact.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pmThe First WTC Attack
Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president’s reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against “overreacting†and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who “did something really stupid.â€
From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government’s most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. “Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access,†says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. “It was all under grand-jury secrecy.â€
Another problem with Clinton’s decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in the new administration was in turmoil. When the bomb went off, Clinton did not have a confirmed attorney general; Janet Reno, who was nominated after the Zoë Baird fiasco, was awaiting Senate approval. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration. The bombing barely came up at Reno’s Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case. (Instead, Clinton praised Reno for “sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others to do better.â€) In addition, at the time the bombing investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing-out by Clinton. A new director, Louis Freeh, was not confirmed by the Senate until August 6.
Amid all the turmoil at the top, the investigation missed some tantalizing clues pointing toward a far-reaching conspiracy. In April 1995, for example, terrorism expert Steven Emerson told the House International Relations Committee that there was information that “strongly suggests . . . a Sudanese role in the World Trade Center bombing. There are also leads pointing to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, the ex-Afghan Saudi mujahideen supporter now taking refuge in Sudan.†Two years later, Emerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same thing. In recent years, according to an exhaustive New York Times report, “American intelligence officials have come to believe that [ringleader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman] and the World Trade Center bombers had ties to al-Qaeda.â€
But the Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship. Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold — “I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful,†Woolsey recalls — and some of the nation’s most critical intelligence capabilities went unused. In the end, the U.S. tried six suspects in the attack. All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government. Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they will probably never know who was behind the attack.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pmWhaddaya wanna bet that Musharraf is taking big money from Al Qaeda, too?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:40 pmKhobar Towers
“In June of 1996, it felt like an entire herd was converging on the White House,†wrote Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos in his memoir, All Too Human. A herd of scandals, that is: In late May, independent counsel Kenneth Starr had convicted Jim and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker in the first big Whitewater trial; in June, the Filegate story first broke into public view, and Sen. Alphonse D’Amato issued his committee’s Whitewater report recommending that several administration officials be investigated for perjury. It was also in June that the White House went into full battle mode against a variety of allegations contained in Unlimited Access, a book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.
All these developments were heavy on the minds of Clinton, Dick Morris, and the other members of the re-election strategy team when the bomb went off at Khobar Towers on June 25. As it had after the World Trade Center bombing, a distracted White House gave the case to law enforcement. But there is significant evidence to suggest that the White House was even less interested in finding answers than it had been in the World Trade Center case. In the Khobar investigation, the Clinton administration not only failed to follow potentially productive leads but in some instances actively made the investigators’ job more difficult.
From the beginning, the administration ran into significant Saudi resistance (the Saudis quickly identified a few low-level suspects and beheaded them, hoping to end the matter there). According to a long account of the case by Elsa Walsh published earlier this year in The New Yorker, FBI director Louis Freeh on several occasions urged the White House to pressure the Saudis for more cooperation. More than once, Walsh reports, Freeh was frustrated to learn that the president barely mentioned the case in meetings with Saudi leaders.
Freeh — whose own relations with the White House had deteriorated badly in the wake of the Filegate and campaign-finance scandals — became convinced that the White House didn’t really want to push the Saudis for more information, which Freeh believed would confirm strong suspicions of extensive Iranian involvement in the attack. Walsh reports that in September 1998, Freeh, angry and losing hope, took the extraordinary step of secretly asking former president George H. W. Bush to intercede with the Saudi royal family. Acting without Clinton’s knowledge, Bush made the request, and the Saudis began to provide new information, which indeed pointed to Iran.
In late 1998, Walsh reports, Freeh went to national security adviser Sandy Berger to tell him that it appeared the FBI had enough evidence to indict several suspects. “Who else knows this?†Berger asked Freeh, demanding to know if it had been leaked to the press. Freeh said it was a closely held secret. Then Berger challenged some of the evidence of Iranian involvement. “That’s just hearsay,†Berger said. “No, Sandy,†Freeh responded. “It’s testimony of a co-conspirator . . .†According to Walsh’s account, Freeh thought that “Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing.â€
Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that “by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration.†Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the “masterminds†of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment.
Both the Khobar investigation and the World Trade Center bombing presented Clinton with daunting challenges; there were sensitive political issues involved, and in each case it was not immediately clear who was behind the violence. But in neither instance did Clinton press hard for answers and demand action; Berger would not have taken the position he did if the president fully supported a vigorous investigation. In the coming years, Clinton would be faced with clear acts of terrorism carried out by an organization with undeniable state support. But again, busy with other things, he did little.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:41 pmPatrick1
I’ll take the second one.
it was later ruled to be an accident
From your own cut and paste. So where was Bill Clinton supposed to invade? Accidentia? Oopstopia? The land where your mother’s birth control came from?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 pmComment by Patrick1 — May 23, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Once again, moron:
9/11 happened on CHIMPY’S WATCH!
Dance all you like, but you can’t deny that simple fact.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pmThe Embassies
On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans. The morning of the attacks, Clinton said, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes. . . . We are determined to get answers and justice.â€
Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks. On August 20, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. But the strikes were at best ineffectual. There was little convincing evidence that the pharmaceutical factory, which admin istration officials believed was involved in the production of material for chemical weapons, actually was part of a weapons-making operation, and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies.
Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton’s motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton’s critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called “wag the dog†strategy. Some of Clinton’s allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton’s decision.
The accusations came as no surprise to the White House. “Everyone knew the ‘wag the dog’ charge was going to be made,†recalls Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert on the National Security Council. But Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified. “I remember being shocked and deeply depressed over the fact that no one would take seriously what I considered a grave national-security problem,†says Benjamin. “Not only were they not buying it, they were accusing the administration of essentially playing the most shallow and foolish kind of game to deflect attention from other issues. It was astonishing.â€
In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration’s evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production. The attack came to be viewed, by consensus, as a screw-up. In a new article in The New York Review of Books, Benjamin suggests that that skepticism, particularly on the part of reporters, scared Clinton away from any more tough action against bin Laden. “The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al-Qaeda threat,†Benjamin writes. “That in turn meant there was no support for decisive measures in Afghanistan — including, possibly, the use of U.S. ground forces — to hunt down the terrorists; and thus no national leader of either party publicly suggested such action.â€
After the cruise-missile raids, the administration restricted its work to covert actions breaking up terrorist cells. Benjamin and others say a significant number of terrorist plots were short-circuited, preventing several acts of violence. “I see no reason to doubt their word on that,†says James Woolsey. “They may have been doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes.†But breaking up individual cells while avoiding larger-scale action probably had the effect of postponing terrorist acts rather than stopping them. Woolsey believes that such an approach was part of what he calls Clinton’s “PR-driven†approach to terrorism, an approach that left the fundamental problem unsolved: “Do something to show you’re concerned. Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking the ball down the field.â€
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:44 pmThe Cole
The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.’s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk.
Clinton’s reaction to the Cole terrorism was more muted than his response to the previous attacks. While he called the bombing “a despicable and cowardly act†and said, “We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable,†he seemed more concerned that the attack might threaten the administration’s work in the Middle East (the bombing came at the same time as a new spate of violence between Israelis and Palestinians). “If [the terrorists’] intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly,†Clinton said on the morning of the attack. The next day, the Washington Post’s John Harris, who had good connections inside the administration, wrote, “While the apparent suicide bombing of the USS Cole may have been the more dramatic episode for the American public, the escalation between Israelis and Palestinians took the edge in preoccupying senior administration officials yesterday. This was regarded as the more fluid of the two problems, and it presented the broader threat to Clinton’s foreign policy aims.â€
As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden’s organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action. Yet he did nothing. Perhaps he didn’t want to endanger the cherished goal of Middle East peace. Perhaps he didn’t want to disrupt the 2000 presidential campaign, then in its last days. Perhaps he didn’t know quite what to do. But in the end, the ball was kicked a bit farther down the field.
In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris’s first tier.
Clinton asked Morris where he stood. “I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category,†Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president’s standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. “Yeah,†Clinton responded, “It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it.â€
Clinton then asked, “What do I need to do to be first tier?†“I said, ‘You can’t,’“ Morris remembers. “‘You have to win a war.’“ Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. “I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism,†Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)
But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris’s polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?
“He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,†Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.†But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,†Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.â€
And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton’s handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn’t his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He’s right about that, too.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:45 pmPatrick1
Funny thing is with Clinton’s approach on WTC1? It worked. The guys who did it got caught.
And you know what? Clinton didn’t go around waving corpses to try and ward off criticism - unlike, say, GW Bush, whose entire reign can be summed up in two words: Nine Eleven.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:47 pmNotice how Patrick-the-pathetic-loser is escalating with the cut and paste. Hey coward, why don’t you plug your ears, close your eyes, and scream like a crybaby? That way you won’t have to learn the truth.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pmAccidentia? Oopstopia? The land where your mother’s birth control came from?
Comment by Bruce Gorton
LMAO!!!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pmI will post this everytime some repeats the 9-11 lie:
The people responsible for 9-11 are the ones who planted the explosives that turned the WTC intact concrete and glass into a 50 micron sized fine powder in less than 15 seconds.
NOBODY has ever discovered a way to turn concrete, glass, wheat, peanut or any other material in to a 50 micron sized fine powder withour either EXPLODING it or MILLING it.
NO COMPRESSION FORCE, be it hammer or the dropping of the entire weight of a WTC tower, can turn an intact piece of material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut into an appreciable quantity of micron sized powders, because the FORCE has to be applied between two surfaces that are smoother than 50 microns across their faces, and most of the material will be ejected from the sides before the faces come within 50 microns of each other anyway!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A COMPRESSION FORCE that could trap the WTC tower’s concrete and glass material between two surfaces that were smooth to within a 50 micron tolerance, because the WTC tower’s has no such surfaces, yet alone many pairs of surfaces needed to create the appreciable amount of fine dust that rained down for blocks!
This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of use of explosives, because the environment of a collapsing WTC COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY PRODUCED A MILLING FORCE that could trap the WTC tower’s concrete and glass material between mortar and pestal like surfaces and ground them for many minutes, because the fine powder was created in less than 15 seconds!
If ANYBODY come up with a way to make an appreciable quantity of 50 micron sized powders of any material be it concrete, glass, wheat, or peanut, in less than 15 seconds, you will better hurry up and notify the patent office and the Nobel prize committe!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pmGWB on August 6, 2001, after eye-rolling through the PDB that carried the headline bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S.: “Okay, Youve covered your ass now.”
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 pmComment by Patrick1 — May 23, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
That one just shows that the Republican controlled congress didn’t take the threat seriously, while Clinton did, and thus consequently stymied Clinton’s efforts. Way to support our argument BTB.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 23, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
And what did Bush, who came into power not long after that attack, do about it? He went on holiday.
So far Peabrain, you aren’t exactly scoring a huge number of points here.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmPatrick is plagarizing again.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pmParick1,
Well at least we know you can quote The National Review. At least you can find a totally right leaning rag to see it exactly the way you do. THat must have been tough.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pmInteresting that Patrick1, master of cut and paste, can’t seem to post anything showing that GWB even took a passing interest in OBL and al Qaeda before 9/11.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pmTo say the Clinton approach to terrorism worked is delusional at best.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pmThanks for the post, criticalthinker. It’s criminal how poorly this is misunderstood by the general populace, precisely because of the deliberate misinformation campaign that is being waged.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 pmHEY! You have all fallen into Patrick1s trap. STOP DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH HIM! Get back on topic!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmPatrick1
Day of Terror.
Millenium Bombings.
Both plots thwarted.
Clinton’s plan worked.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 pmPatrick must be here to convince himself of something, because he sure isn’t going to convince anyone else of anything other than the fact that he is the stupidest troll to ever visit this site.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pmSKdeA
If we don’t reply his repeated lies will just gain more power. Lies have to be fought and contradicted, otherwise they become automatically accepted with enough repetition. It is why Patrick1 keeps on repeating himself and why we have too keep on contradicting him on it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pmThe EASIEST way to disarm trolls like Patrick1 are ignore their LIES,
and tell THEM the TRUTH:
Bush is a COXUCKER punk TRAITOR to the USA, who will BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY for his LIES and WAR CRIMES.
And that TRUTH pisses them off SO MUCH, that they’ll try to paste MORE LIES about Clinton.
Remember the TRUTH:
Bush is a TRAITOR coxucker PUNK and will BURN IN HELL with Jerry Falwell, his “great friend”, for ETERNITY!!
SIZZLE! TOAST! SINGE! BURN! FRY!
Patrick1 will be there, too…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 pmPatrick and his ilk (there really aren’t that many trolls, if you look around) obviously work at the White House for Cheney. That’s one of many reasons that Cheney won’t tell the American people who works there and what they do, despite the fact that we pay them and they work for us. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is stupid enough to behave like Patrick unless he’s being paid.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pmGood grief. I get soooooo very sick of delusional idiots like Patrick1 who unthinkingly and unblinkingly defend this corrupt and criminal adminstration!!!
If starting a war with lies and corrupting our justice system isn’t enough to impeach these bastards - then what IS?
Patrick1 - would it make you feel any better if Monica gave Bush a blow job? Huh. Maybe we could impeach him then.
C’mon, Monica - serve your president. PLEASE!
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:35 pmIt should be noted that GWB came into office 3 months after the bombing of the USS Cole. By that time, there was sufficient evidence to implicate Bin Laden and a plan of attack had been formulated which was provided to the incoming Bush administration. Bush, however, decided to NOT respond to the attack on the Cole but instead began to negotiate with the Taliban for a trans-Afghanistan oil pipeline. Damn that Clinton!
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pmPeople commenting on this thread miss the point when it comes to responding to Patdick1, sorry, Patrick1. Patrick1 is paid to spew his drivel! He doesn’t care that people think he’s full of bullshit! He keeps repeating the tired talking points of the criminal bush white house, because he get’s paid to do it. So, let him rave on about how liberals, and Clinton are to blame for the country’s ills. His stupid comments do not deserve a response. Ignore this paid off whore!
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm1 ) Actually Carol Lam had the third highest rate of convictions of illegals of all the attorneys in the whole country, so for Gonzo and company to say it was because she didn’t prosecute enough immigration cases is a flat out lie.
2) Iglesias was gone for 45 days, because he is a reservist and was serving his country in a time of war. This is what they used to say he was “Absent”. In truth, it’s because he refused to open an investigation against Democrats before the election when Rep. Heather Wilson was in an extremely tight race.
And Monica Goodling either a) knew she wasn’t supposed to do what she did when hiring/firing these people, or 2) is such an idiot that she didn’t know, which proves that loyalty is valued above competence.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pmHey Patrick1 - Bush is gonna die you know that you pusshead and when he does our God aint gonna let him thru the pearly gates of heaven but his god sure will be glad to see him back home and so will we! Devil spawn belongs and can go right back to hell where all his buddies wait for him. F you you motherfer.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pmOnce again this shows the wisdom of the founding fathers, separting church and state. And why these so called godly people are so dangerous.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pm“In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda’s command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network’s operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.”
Hey, cut-and-PAsTeRICKKK- at least have the dignity to place quotes around published material. Oh, right, dignity… that might be a foreign concept to you. Everything you write here, and your motives for doing so, show a distinct lack of it.
Sorry to all, I know better than to respond to this guy, but what the hell, had to get it off my chest.
As far as Goodling’s testimony, if she claims to have never talked to Rove or Miers about the firings, than she is obviously lying. How do these people sleep at night? I wonder what it’s like to have absolutely no conscience.
Does anyone know if there’s any power in a citizen petiton to force impeachments, or anything close to it? If our so-called Democratic leadership is going to keep caving in, playing nice, or otherwise continue perpetuating the status-quo, is there any other mechanism to force the issue? Ending the “war” in Iraq would be nice, too. What a freakin’ mess. Has BushCo done even one F#@ing thing right?
Has ABC or CBS reported on the Gonzo/Card hospital room incident yet? It’s not like that’s news or anything, the Chief of Staff and the future AG attempting to subvert the acting AG by accosting a seriously ill, extremely drugged-up Ashcroft sign off on a program which even the by-then Republican-influenced DOJ found illegal?
And why aren’t the Dems screaming about the obvious, easily provable Republican ELECTION FRAUD? Our Democracy has been hijacked; will someone in power please act like it, for Pete’s sake?!!!
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:17 pmLOL Patricks a moron!….LOL
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmMust be nice being one of the …what is it now 24 percent of the population that does not have a BRAIN
Jackass!
re: Rep Randy Forbes R, VA, 4th District
He is a PERFECT EXAMPLE OF GRANDSTANDING.
The thugs have nothing to ask at the hearing, and they want to stuff the hearing with grandstanding to use up the precious time.
I wish the Chairman could gavel them down for not asking a question.
by the way: Forbes was disgusting.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pmAm I the only person out here that is sick to death of this den of snakes running our nation?
What makes these snakes think we don’t recognize their dodge and weave?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pmPatrick, Acting tough and acting smart are two different things. Bush acts tough and ignorant, all that has gotten us is more and more terrorists. Clinton may not have acted tough enough for you, but you must remember, he had a hostile congress impeding his every move. A hostile conservative press pushing lurid irrelevance as relevant and sliding relevant stories to the back page as inconvenient trivia. Bush had one advantage Clinton did not have and that is a running start. Clinton had to start the whole intelligence gathering on ABL and AQ from scratch. Bush had the Clinton admins work to go off of. Heck when they finally invaded Afghanistan Bush used the Clinton admins plans which he so disdained previously. And you know what Bush and his administration still blew it because for them terrorism was not an important issue until September 11, 2001. And sadly it became more of a political tool for them than a problem to be solved.
#100 and yet they caught and imprisoned the guys who did it. Bush approach has killed a lot of people, but the guy in charge is where?
#105 the Clinton people had a plan to invade and overthrow the Taliban but did not exercise a major policy move during the time that administrations were switching. The Clinton admin gave everything they had to the Bushies who promptly ignored it and put it away till AFTER 911. Had Gore won the invasion of Afghanistan may have occurred in December 2000 rather than October 2001.
Oh Well keep cutting and pasting, keep those talking points flowing because they must help your psyche more than reality does. Reality is rather sobering and scary to the delusional mind.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmYellowbird- No, you’re not the only one, and what makes them think we don’t recognize their tomfoolery is their ownership of MSM, years of research into social engineering, and good-ol’ fashion hubris. And, quite possibly (definitely in some cases), a touch of sociopathy, which would explain the disassociation from reality.
Did anyone see the result of a scientific study which found that many conservatives suffered from a set of precise mental, spiritual, and moral problems/deficiencies? Or was it those qualities which caused them to be conservatives? I’ll go find the link, it was something I got from buzzflash, but I think it may have been unrelated to whatever the headline was. Might take a while… anyone know what I’m talking about?
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmcolinjames
Saw one once which said conservatives were the whiny kids. Not sure if that counts.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pmThe Trouble With The Entire World Is A Guy Named Ron
Robert Weitzel, May 18th, 2007
“Just so you’ll know that what follows is scientifically possible, I will acquaint you with a 2003 study funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation and published in the American Psychological Association’s “Psychological Bulletin.”
The study found that conservatism can be explained as a set of beliefs and behaviors that result from a psyche controlled by fear, aggression, closed-minded dogmatism, and intolerance of ambiguity, compounded by mental rigidity and decreased cognitive complexity [dumbness].”
Seriously, I’m not making this up.”
http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/ more.php?page=opinion&id=1546
Sounds right, just from observation. Shit, just read one of dimwit Patdick1’s posts. Any one will do. Care to respond, Kool-Aid drinker?
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pmYes, Bruce, that counts. Except they still ARE, not were, the whiny kids. Whine about everything, they do, usually about something the democratics did, are, or believe… all the while it’s just part of their communication strategy as they perpetrate crimes on humanity. Just wrap yourself in a flag, carry around a bible declaring yourself the be-all-end-all of moral righteousness, and you can say whatever the helll you want. We know at least 28% of the population will believe you.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pmbush and cheney have destroyed all integrity in government… that was the plan, and they have just about succeeded with their physcophants all around… anyone still supporting bush’s utterly failed policies is simply too partisan not to deceive himself…
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:28 pmComing from a background that includes a Lutheran Mother, a Jewish Father, Methodists, Catholics, Christian Scientists and also after going to a fundamental Christian University in the South for 4 years, as well as finishing my education at a Semi Ivy league Midwest University– I think I have a fairly balanced and diverse image of the world– and the things that are going on in the far right and the far left.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmIt is VERY common for those in power to hold on to their viewpoint, and not let go–A sociological concept called “cognitive dissonance” runs rampant in these political arenas- ( for those who don’t know what this term means– it relates basically to”making the truth fit” your own ideas, so that you don’t have to abandon them, or experience extreme discomfort in the process)– This is the current Administration’s dilemna–
There becomes a point where “standing your ground/or sticking to your principles” becomes ONLY pure stubbornness;
And it gets all who participate in the “dillusion” into serious trouble.
Let the fun begin.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 pm