Home > Uncategorized > Bill Clinton and Santa Maria Bill

Bill Clinton and Santa Maria Bill

Well, it looks like Jerry and Rich are having way too much fun in their recent postings, but thankfully we have guests like Santa Maria Bill to bring us back to the harsh reality of LUB: Life Under Bush. SM Bill did his usual fine job last night of defending President Clinton and reminding listeners of the stark contrast between the two Presidents.

Bill Clinton, as he argued in the now-infamous Fox ambush interview, at least TRIED to do something about Bin Laden. What exactly did the Bush administration (not the CIA or FBI), but Bush officials do in the first eight months to go after Bin Laden? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Rush and Sean went nuts yesterday in attack Clinton; Hannity went so far to say that the Clinton administration had been “totally inconsequential.”

Meanwhile, there’s more flame to the Iraqi fires that Jerry and Rich can try to explain away:

“Three retired military officers who served in Iraq called today for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, telling a Democratic “oversight hearing” on Capitol Hill that the Pentagon chief bungled planning for the U.S. invasion, dismissed the prospect of an insurgency and sent American troops into the fray with inadequate equipment.

The testimony by the three –two retired Army major generals and a former Marine colonel — came a day after disclosure of a classified intelligence assessment that concluded the war in Iraq has fueled recruitment of violent Islamic extremists, helping to create a new generation of potential terrorists around the world and worsening the U.S. position.”

That’s why Santa Maria Bill is such a great radio guest. He can come into the studio and stick to the facts and analysis and withstand call after call as people try to dismiss his arguments. They can’t counter or deny his premises, so they just dismiss it out of hand. Absolutely amazing.

So Chris Wallace is patting himself on the back to anyone who will listen, but watch that interview and the bottom line is clear: Clinton ate him alive and Wallace didn’t know what hit him.

Advertisements
  1. JerryDinAZ
    September 26, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    THE CLINTONS ARE FINISHED IN AMERICA!
    BILL CLINTON IS A PROVEN SOCIOPATHIC LIAR, MANY TIMES OVER AND IT CONTINUES EVEN TODAY.
    HILLARY’S RATING NUMBERS ARE SO LOW SHE WILL NEVER RECOVER BEFORE THE 2008 ELECTION
    BYE BYE CLINTONS! WE AS A NATION ARE DONE WITH YOU AND YOUR ATROCIOUS LEGACY.

    RECORDS CLINTON SET

    – THE ONLY PRESIDENT EVER MPEACHED ON GROUNDS OF PERSONAL MALFEASANCE
    – MOST NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS AND GUILTY PLEAS BY FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES*
    – MOST NUMBER OF CABINET OFFICIALS TO COME UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
    – MOST NUMBER OF WITNESSES TO FLEE COUNTRY OR REFUSE TO TESTIFY
    – MOST NUMBER OF WITNESSES TO DIE SUDDENLY
    – FIRST PRESIDENT SUED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
    – FIRST PRESIDENT ACCUSED OF RAPE.
    – FIRST FIRST LADY TO COME UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
    – LARGEST CRIMINAL PLEA AGREEMENT IN AN ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION CASE
    – FIRST PRESIDENT TO ESTABLISH A LEGAL DEFENSE FUND.
    – FIRST PRESIDENT TO BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
    – GREATEST AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
    – GREATEST AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ABROAD
    – FIRST PRESIDENT DISBARRED FROM THE US SUPREME COURT AND A STATE COURT

    * 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

    HERE’S WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DEMOCRATS UNDER BUBBA CLINTON:
    – GOP SEATS GAINED IN HOUSE SINCE CLINTON BECAME PRESIDENT: 48
    – GOP SEATS GAINED IN SENATE SINCE CLINTON BECAME PRESIDENT: 8
    – GOP GOVERNORSHIPS GAINED SINCE CLINTON BECAME PRESIDENT: 11
    – GOP STATE LEGISLATIVE SEATS GAINED SINCE CLINTON BECAME PRESIDENT: 1,254
    AS OF 1998
    – STATE LEGISLATURES TAKEN OVER BY GOP SINCE CLINTON BECAME PRESIDENT: 9
    – DEMOCRAT OFFICEHOLDERS WHO HAVE BECOME REPUBLICANS SINCE CLINTON BECAME PRESIDENT: 439 AS OF 1998
    – REPUBLICAN OFFICEHOLDERS WHO HAVE BECOME DEMOCRATS SINCE CLINTON BECAME PRESIDENT: 3

  2. Anonymous
    September 26, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    Santa Maria Bill Clinton is a crackpot

  3. Rich from Paso
    September 26, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    Leave it to Dave to go and get the biggest Clinton apologist in the Central Coast to do damage control on Clinton’s temper-tantrum interview. I saw the interview and it removed any doubt in my mind that Clinton is the most unprofessional man to ever hold the office. His conduct in that interview is beneath contempt and was totally unbefitting a man who once held the same position in our government as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Those were men of stature and poise, whereas Clinton acted like a bratty child lying to cover up his previous lies and then getting mad because he knows that his lies were exposed. Chris Wallace, son of Mike Wallace (who is no Bush supporter) was the one who was caught off guard by Clinton’s paranoid, delusional attacks on him. Wallace asked one simple question:

    WALLACE: When we announced that you were going to be on “Fox News Sunday,” I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I’ve got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?

    There’s a new book out, I suspect you’ve already read, called “The Looming Tower.” And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, bin Laden said, “I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of U.S. troops.” Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the Cole.

    CLINTON: OK, let’s just go through that.

    WALLACE: Let me — let me — may I just finish the question, sir?

    And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

    I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. …

    CLINTON: No, let’s talk about it.

    WALLACE: … but the question is, why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

    And Clinton spends the next however many minutes on tirade after tirade, babbling on about how he tried and failed. His red faced anger shows just how paper-thin the Clinton legacy is and just how desparate Clinton is to protect it.

  4. Bob from San Luis
    September 26, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    Rich: You say Clinton became “unglued” during the interview; can you begin to imagine how President Bush would respond if he were interviewed, one on one, no aids, without Dick Cheney sitting beside him, being interviewed by say, Keith Olbermman ? You see Clinton as unhinged or red faced because that is how you want to see him. I see an ex-President who has had enough of the right wing bashing him for years, someone who has finally had enough and responded in kind to the hostile questions and innuendoes with a forceful response that reveals the passion for which he did his job.

  5. Rich from Paso
    September 26, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    I think that Bush would be forceful and inpassioned but not become unglued like Clinton. You think Bush would get flustered like Clinton because you put no stock in his intellectual capacity. That’s your hang-up not Bush’s. Clinton became unhinged because, at heart, he is a child and he behaves like one. Clinton has worked up a story to cover his bungling and neglect and is sticking to it. He’s pissed because Chris Wallace had the nerve to ask him the question in the first place. He’s used to getting his ass kissed by the MSM.

    You need to watch this video from the CBS Early Show yesterday. A former CIA agent puts the blame for not getting bin Laden squarely on Clinton and his administration’s shoulders. He is, in a sense, calling Clinton a liar. He also states in the interview that there were TEN, not three, opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden during Clinton’s reign of incopmpetence. WATCH THE INTERVIEW, VOCE, IT’S ALL THERE. IT’s ALL THERE.

  6. JerryDinAZ
    September 26, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    CLINTON’S CRIME STATS
    – Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
    – Number of these convictions during Clinton’s presidency: 33
    – Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
    – Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

    CLINTON CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
    Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

    ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER’S
    Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn’t remember, didn’t know, or something similar.
    Bill Kennedy 116
    Harold Ickes 148
    Ricki Seidman 160
    Bruce Lindsey 161
    Bill Burton 191
    Mark Gearan 221
    Mack McLarty 233
    Neil Egglseston 250
    Hillary Clinton 250
    John Podesta 264
    Jennifer O’Connor 343
    Dwight Holton 348
    Patsy Thomasson 420
    Jeff Eller 697

    FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton’s Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
    I don’t remember – 71
    I don’t know – 62
    I’m not sure – 17
    I have no idea – 10
    I don’t believe so – 9
    I don’t recall – 8
    I don’t think so – 8
    I don’t have any specific recollection – 6
    I have no recollection – 4
    Not to my knowledge – 4
    I just don’t remember – 4
    I don’t believe – 4
    I have no specific recollection – 3
    I might have – 3
    I don’t have any recollection of that – 2
    I don’t have a specific memory – 2
    I don’t have any memory of that – 2
    I just can’t say – 2
    I have no direct knowledge of that – 2
    I don’t have any idea – 2
    Not that I recall – 2
    I don’t believe I did – 2
    I can’t remember – 2
    I can’t say – 2
    I do not remember doing so – 2
    Not that I remember – 2
    I’m not aware – 1
    I honestly don’t know – 1
    I don’t believe that I did – 1
    I’m fairly sure – 1
    I have no other recollection – 1
    I’m not positive – 1
    I certainly don’t think so – 1
    I don’t really remember – 1
    I would have no way of remembering that – 1
    That’s what I believe happened – 1
    To my knowledge, no – 1
    To the best of my knowledge – 1
    To the best of my memory – 1
    I honestly don’t recall – 1
    I honestly don’t remember – 1
    That’s all I know – 1
    I don’t have an independent recollection of that – 1
    I don’t actually have an independent memory of that – 1
    As far as I know – 1
    I don’t believe I ever did that – 1
    That’s all I know about that – 1
    I’m just not sure – 1
    Nothing that I remember – 1
    I simply don’t know – 1
    I would have no idea – 1
    I dont know anything about that – 1
    I don’t have any direct knowledge of that – 1
    I just don’t know – 1
    I really don’t know – 1
    I can’t deny that, I just — I have no memory of that at all – 1

    OTHER CLINTON INVESTIGATIONS
    (by special prosecutors and congress)
    Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

    HOW DESPERATE YOU DEMOCANTS ARE FOR A HERO…BUT THAT YOU WOULD SETTLE FOR THIS SLIME BALL?? THAT IS LOW!

  7. Rich from Paso
    September 26, 2006 at 8:11 pm

    The question: Is Clinton a failure? For conservatives, an emphatic yes. For liberals, it depends on what your definition of “Is” is.

  8. JerryDinAZ
    September 26, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    OMG! RICH! THAT WAS HILARIOUS! A PERFECT 10 ON THE SCALE! PERFECT.

  9. Dave Congalton
    September 27, 2006 at 5:24 am

    Man, it’s funny to witness this mutual lovefest between Jerry and Rich, but score the points to Bob when it comes to legitimate issues and analysis. All Jerry can do is rehash the old Clinton stuff.

    Remember by Arizona friend, WE WASTED $75 MILLION ON WHITEWATER. FOR WHAT??????? The right wing is frustrated by Clinton. He truly is the Comeback Kid, beloved by millions around the world, people who would boo and throw rocks at W. That’s how much our clout and prestige in the world has faltered under these cowboys.

    So keep it coming, boys. Bill Clinton has taken much bigger hits. By the way, Bob is absolutely right. How would W. do one on one with Keith Olberman????

  10. JerryDinAZ
    September 27, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    WELL YOU CERTAINLY CAN SEE THAT THE TIDES HAVE TURNED IN THE FAVOR OF REPUBLICANS BY THE DESPERATE ATTEMPTS BY BLOGGERS HERE AND NATION WIDE. BUT NO ONE IS SURPRIZED BY THIS…IT’S S.O.P FOR THE DEMOCANTS.
    HOW BOUT DAVE AND SM BILL COME UP WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR IRAQ. LET’S DISCUSS THAT. ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS UNCLASSIFIED A REPORT THAT SHOW WE ARE ON COURSE FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ AND THE WAR ON TERROR.
    C’MON DEMS! WE WANT A FORMAL SPECIFIC DETAILED PLAN. CAN YOU OFFER AT LEAST THAT MUCH?
    DEFENDING CLINTON WON’T WORK! HE MADE ORAL SEX LEGITIMATE FOR A NEW GENERATION…WHAT A LEGACY EH?
    A PLAN! BILL? DAVE? WE WANT YOUR PLAN…A PLAN…

  11. Rich from Paso
    September 27, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    Dave I also renew my call for you to e-mail my Iraqi friend and tell him that he and his family would be better off under Saddam because it was such a HUGE mistake to invade Iraq.

    W. would do just fine against Keith Olberman. He would invoke the rule: when there is someone making an fool of themselves, get out of the way. That is why Chris Wallace let Clinton rage on the way he did. Clinton kicked Wallace’s butt? In a pig’s eye.

  12. moquiti
    September 27, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    My, my, another upset democrat. We sure do get our panties all up in a knot, now don’t we, when those dems show up in attack mode. Don’t they know they’re just suposed to sit back, shut up and take the abuse? The GOP is fighting the good fight! How dare those traitors criticize thte administration! The nerve! The nerve!

  13. JerryDinAZ
    September 27, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    FINALLY! AFTER YEARS OF DEMANDING THAT THE DEMOCANTS PUT FORTH A BETTER PLAN FOR WHAT TO DO IRAQ…TODAY SEN. JOE BIDDEN DID PUT FORTH THE PLAN WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR. HERE IS HIS SOLUTION…(CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF)

    SEN JOE BIDEN:

    “WE NEED TO ESTABLISH THREE SEPARATE PROVINCES, GIVING THE SHIITES, KURDS AND SUNNIS PARTIAL CONTROL OVER ONE REGION EACH. THE KURDS IN THE NORTH HAVE LONG SEPARATED THEMSELVES FROM THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, FORMING THEIR OWN SEPARATE SOCIETY IN NORTHERN IRAQ, WHICH THEY CALL KURDISTAN. THE REST OF THE COUNTRY WOULD BE SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO OTHER WARRING FACTIONS
    IN ADDITION WE (DEMOCANTS) WANT TO SEE 60% OF ALL OIL REVENUES TO BE GIVEN EQUALLY TOO ALL THOSE SEPARATE GROUPS”

    THAT’S IT FOLKS…THE DEMOCANTS PLAN FOR A BETTER IRAQ IS TO SEGREGATE THE DIFFERENT PARTIES AND THEN TO SATISFY THEM WITH GOVERNMENT PROVIDED WELFARE!

    SEGREGATION AND WELFARE!

    OH! THIS IS GETTING GOOD! STAY TUNED AS THEY DIG THE HOLE DEEPER AND DEEPER.

    SM BILL? WHAT SAY YOU?

  14. Rich from Paso
    September 27, 2006 at 8:44 pm

    Moquiti, what abuse are you talking about? All Chris Wallace did, after talking at length about his CGI, was ask “do you feel you did enough to get bin Laden?” and Clinton has an anuerism. Wallace did not get another probing question in for the remainer of the Clinton diatribe and paranoia. If Democrats think that Clinton being defensive and combative is a good thing, then you all just keep right on rearranging those Titanic deckchairs. Come November you ship will be sunk.

    As for the Biden plan to split Iraq into three parts… Only liberal pinheads and academics suggest that as a course of action. The plan came out when Biden was on “Meet the Press” a few months back so it is nothing new. It was instantly rejected as unworkable and plan stupid. Spliting Iraq would create a war between Turkey, a NATO member, and a free staning Kudistan. The Turks have told the US repeatedly that they will not stand for an independant Kurdistan. Furthermore, a divided Iraq would create a terrorist safehaven in the Sunni state and a base of operations for Al Qaeda outside of Iraq. Finally, the Iraqis themselves don’t want to see a divided Iraq. One, they are used to Iraq as it is and do identify themselves as Iraqis, although it is Sunni Iraqi or Shia Iraqi but that is not any different than African-American or Asian-American, they are all hyphenated names. Second, a soverign Kurd and Shia region would be instantly more prosperous than the Sunni region creating more tension. And finally, who gets Baghdad? That would never be adequately split to where eveyone was satisfied. As plans go, this one is just as dumb as Murtha’s stupid “redeploy to Okinawa” plan. So, Dave and Bob, back to Jerry’s challenge: What would you do that is appreciably differnt than what is going on the ground? And no stealing of my idea for how to fight the war. That one’s taken.

  15. moquiti
    September 28, 2006 at 2:55 am

    As much as I’d love to see rich eat crow in November (mostly because I’m curious, and wonder how he’d prepare it), I’d much prefer to see a well-functioning democracy with a verifiable voting system in each precinct, public financing of all national campaigns, elimination of the taint of special interest groups on our elections, a multi-party system instead of a two-sides-to-one-party system, discussion of issues that Americans “should” care about (such as things that affect their future & well-being & happiness) instead of issues that politicians know will “play well” with the electorate.

    So, however you decide to roast that bird, I hope it gives you much pleasure, rich.

  16. Rich from Paso
    September 28, 2006 at 3:47 am

    Well, you are never going to find out how I eat crow because the Democ-Rats will be lucky to get even one house of Congress. I have said for some time now that the Republicans may even pick up seats in both houses. Wouldn’t that just frost all you libs out there?

    I do, however, agree with you on the public financing of elections. I think that a candidate for the senate, regardless of party, if they can get, let’s say 100,000 signatures (5,000 for the house) they can be on the ballot for the primary. Each candidate then receives a budget of $500,000 (House: $250K). If they win in their party’s primary, they get another $2 mill (House: $750K) for the general election. All outside money would be banned to the candidates, including their own money. That includes unions, 527s, individuals, every one. This would prevent the rich from buying their way into office. Both sides do it. For the presidential election… if a candidate gets on the ballot in all 50 states, regardless of how many, they get $2.5 mil for the primary run and then each party’s candidate gets another $5 mil for the general election. The cost of Air Force One would be deducted from the sitting president’s budget. Again, no personal or special interest money could be spent on the campaign. This would take the money out of the electorial process and would reduce the party apparati on both sides to signature gathering and “get out the vote” drives. This doesn’t impede free speach because people are free to speak at the ballot box with their vote not their wallet.

    My plan would enable anyone with enough seed money to get on the ballot to run for either the House, Senate, or presidency. I know that this is not a 100% solution and needs to be fleshed out, but I think it is a good and workable plan. If people want fair elections without the taint of money, if people want to elect people that are not going to spend their time in Washington repaying campaign favors then my plan is the way to go.

  17. moquiti
    September 28, 2006 at 4:22 am

    It would be a good start. Kudos to you for presenting it so clearly.

    Would you like a marinade for that bird? Spicy, perhaps?

  18. Rich from Paso
    September 28, 2006 at 4:38 am

    What bird? There is no bird.

    What are YOU going to say when the “referendum” on Bush shows that the American people show their approval of him and his policies not for the first time, not not for the second time but for a third time?

  19. Bob from San Luis
    September 28, 2006 at 5:39 am

    Rich: You have a good start with your plan for publicly financed campaigns, but I would like to point out that to really make our elections fair and open, some more points need to be addressed, the ballots and the tabulating of the ballots. I strongly feel that we need to have a nation wide standardized ballot. This would be tough to enact because at this time there are some 55,000 variations on ballots nationwide at this time. Many states will bristle at the idea that the federal government would be dictating how ballots would be written and formatted, but come on, we really need a standard. Another important point is that we need guidelines, rules or even laws that narrowly define what is legally acceptable of all states Secretary of State’s role in being in charge of counting that state’s ballots, and being connected to that SoS’s political party’s campaigns. Should a Secretary of State be allowed to participate or worse, be in charge of his party’s political campaign? Unless it is the re-election is for that position, my opinion is that each SoS should not be able to participate in any way shape or form in each Secretary’s particular political party’s campaign, period. Please notice this would apply to all political parties, period. Of course we also need to have the counting of ballots taken away from private companies, and that the balloting include audit-able paper trail. Another method to help insure that we move our political process in a direction to facilitate more than two political parties, would be to make sure that those standardized ballots be of the I.R.V. type of ballot, a type of balloting that will cut the cost of holding elections and help to insure that third or forth party no longer hold a “spoiler” type of position, but can really bring much needed diversity to our election process. One last thing Rich, the very ideal of public financed national political campaigns is the really great result that would eliminate all of the influence of the lobbyists in Washington D.C.. Can we even begin to imagine how empowering that would be for the citizens of the United States?

  20. Rich from Paso
    September 28, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    I think that the main roadblock that you will face on the standardized ballot and voting systems is the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That means that, since the balloting methods were not specifically outlined in the Constitution, or even referenced, then it is up to the States to decide. You will be creating a State’s Rights issue. Since House, Senate and Presidential elections are governed by the the Contstitution and the 17th and 25th amendments, then it does fall to the Federal government to regulate. I’m not a lawyer (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), so I could be wrong. I always had been told that it was the money in politics that was corrupting the system, anyway.

  21. Rich from Paso
    September 28, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    Let’s get back to beating up on Clinton…

    Jerry, did you notice that Clinton said that if he had more time after the USS Cole bombing he would have done EXACTLY PRECISELY everything Bush did after 9/11, except that those mean old Uzbekistanis didn’t give him basing rights? So, we are supposed to believe that the Most Powerful Man in the World (at the time) Bill Clinton was foiled in his attempt to get bin Laden and stop al Qai’da for want of a base in Uzbekistan? Total crap.

    Here are more people who have evidence that Clinton lied on Fox News Sunday.

    Bill Clinton admits he could have got bin Laden and CHOSE not to
    Richard Miniter of the WSJ
    Richard Clarke (READ HIS BOOK)
    Dick Morris

    Wow! Three Dicks in a row! Four if you count Clinton.

    Byron York says there was no plan
    Condi Rice

    So, there you are. Six people, including Richard Clarke (READ HIS BOOK! IT’S ALL THERE!) and Bill Clinton himself, calling Bill Clinton a liar other than Jerry and myself.

  22. the voice of reason
    September 29, 2006 at 3:55 am

    sorry rich

    none of those links do anything other than just confirm what an intelligent, thoughtful person Bill Clinton is. Thanks for the info.

  23. Rich from Paso
    September 29, 2006 at 5:24 am

    Obviously, you should change your name from “Voice of Reason” to Voice of a Crackhead” if you think that those links make Clinton a “intelligent and thoughtful” guy. What it does do is outline the fact that Clinton was a feckless poll-driven turd of a president he was. If that was not clear from the links, the you really are a serious illicit drug user and you need professional help.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: