Bill Clinton caught lying...again

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
The dems were NOT duped. They made a political calculation with the lives of american soldiers. That's the sad truth. They are no better than bush at using american lives for political gain.

Absolutely. Dems and Republicans are different sides of the same coin.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Oh? And if the election is among Rudy, Hillary, and Ron Paul, you're going to vote for Ron Paul? :shocked:

If those were the only choices, I may choose not to vote for President. We need the option to vote for "none of the above."

Still waiting to take your money. Put up, or shut up. :laugh:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
The dems were NOT duped. They made a political calculation with the lives of american soldiers. That's the sad truth. They are no better than bush at using american lives for political gain.

Ditch the bolded part and I think most people will agree with you.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
The dems were NOT duped. They made a political calculation with the lives of american soldiers. That's the sad truth. They are no better than bush at using american lives for political gain.

Ditch the bolded part and I think most people will agree with you.

More apologists for the Bushwhackos' LIES fed Congress and the American people. Congress shares some blame, but it was the Bushwhacko TRAITORS who created the lies and started the war that caused those deaths.

At this point, the evidence of their lies is conclusive, and sick Bushwhacko neocon sycophants like you are the only ones who continue to lie to pimp their MURDER and TREASON.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Giving Bush the Authority to choose War is not the same as Supporting the War.

What flavor is the Koolaid today? Just curious...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bamacre
Oh? And if the election is among Rudy, Hillary, and Ron Paul, you're going to vote for Ron Paul? :shocked:

If those were the only choices, I may choose not to vote for President. We need the option to vote for "none of the above."

Still waiting to take your money. Put up, or shut up. :laugh:

Yeah, God forbid you vote for someone who not only voted against the war in Iraq, but also promises to remove the troops from Iraq.

Kinda puts your non-stop harping, and constant use of the :thumbsdown: and the :| and the

into perspective.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
The dems were NOT duped. They made a political calculation with the lives of american soldiers. That's the sad truth. They are no better than bush at using american lives for political gain.

:thumbsup:

And in the interest of fairness, a number of Republicans have done the same damn thing. The politicization of Iraq has been despicable - from both sides of the aisle.

It's disgraceful and disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[ProfJohn]

Ever since Harvey posted in this thread everyone has had to put an emotion into their post :thumbsdown:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ever since Harvey posted in this thread everyone has had to put an emotion into their post :thumbsdown:

Not ME I prefer to JUST bold random words throughout MY sentence. It MAKES my arguments more COMPELLING.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ever since Harvey posted in this thread everyone has had to put an emotion into their post :thumbsdown:

Not ME I prefer to JUST bold random words throughout MY sentence. It MAKES my arguments more COMPELLING.

nahh, it's not the same without the macro'd string of emoticons to really show us how you feel.

:thumbsdown::QPlease WORK on THAT Nebor! :laugh::roll:

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bush may have made some major screw ups when it comes to Iraq, but to suggest he is a traitor, a murderer or guilty of treason is just plain stupid..

Stupid, and disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Hardly, but if it makes you feel better about your past ballot decisions, keep lying away.

Edit: I wouldn't vote for any clinton or bush, they're all criminals who supported the BS war, anyway. I was not duped, and I will not BE duped into supporting the murder of people for profits or political gain.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
The dems were NOT duped. They made a political calculation with the lives of american soldiers. That's the sad truth. They are no better than bush at using american lives for political gain.

:thumbsup:

And in the interest of fairness, a number of Republicans have done the same damn thing. The politicization of Iraq has been despicable - from both sides of the aisle.

It's disgraceful and disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Ah the old, "I'm fair - OJ and Nicole both did wrong" approach.

I agree with most of Stoneburner's posts, but not this one - which I mostly, but not completely, disagree with.

Dems are not above some of these same types of acts - in far less degree. We wouldn't have had the Iraq war with a democratic president. Which isn't to say things were perfect that way; Clinton did allow Saddam to kick the inspectors out in 1998, and Iraq under Saddam was still a tragic situation without any solution from democrats other than the terrible sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents, mostly women and children.

What's funny is to see Stoneburner's attacks on all who pushed the war agreed with by advocates of the war.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey you really need to get help. You are so detached from reality it hurts

Bush may have made some major screw ups when it comes to Iraq, but to suggest he is a traitor, a murderer or guilty of treason is just plain stupid.

As of 11/29/07 7:12 pm EDT, 3880 American troops have died and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life as a direct, foreseeable result of starting their war of LIES.

That's up one from my previous post, earlier, today. If the best you can call that is "some major screw ups when it comes to Iraq," you have lost the slightest semblance of any humanity you may once have possessed so please...

:lips: my (_|_)

I posted detailed references and links to the specific actions by the Bushwhackos that constitute both MURDER and TREASON, including links to specific statutory citations, many times, and all you can come up with is your usual song and dance of dissembling, distraction and denial.

If you're too mouse challenged to find them, that's your problem, but it changes nothing. You're still a lying POS, and your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal are still guilty of MURDER and TREASON.

I won't waste my time recommending that it is you who needs help. You're beyond any help any rational human being could provide. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[gururu2]

so what was the lie exactly...?

when did Bill ever say he was for the war?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Random analogy:

Citizens collectively authorize our police force to use deadly force, but that's not the same as supporting them shooting people just because they "look shifty" or someone said "he might own a gun."

-------

I don't see it as lying or a contradiction to have supported the authorization for war without supporting the use of the authority as it was used.

But it's a valid point that a person with principles would have said so at the time not a year later when it was clear to the public how badly the war was being run.

 

[eits]

could you give it a rest for fuck sake, pabster? honestly... what's up with your hard-on for the clintons?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: gururu2
so what was the lie exactly...?

when did Bill ever say he was for the war?

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Clinton's words are bolded

Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eits
could you give it a rest for fuck sake, pabster? honestly... what's up with your hard-on for the clintons?

How about you quit fucking trolling every thread and provide something substantive?

You may not like the fact that the Clintons are news, but that's the way it is.

 

[bamacre]

Whether or not Bill supported going into Iraq doesn't matter. I really don't care.

What I DO care about is the fact that Hillary voted for it, and Obama did not.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eits
could you give it a rest for fuck sake, pabster? honestly... what's up with your hard-on for the clintons?

How about you quit fucking trolling every thread and provide something substantive?

You may not like the fact that the Clintons are news, but that's the way it is.

ok, here's something substantive... go fuck yourself.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Whether or not Bill supported going into Iraq doesn't matter. I really don't care.

What I DO care about is the fact that Hillary voted for it, and Obama did not.

And that's why I'd vote for Obama and never Hillary. Even if I don't agree with Obama on some issues, including his vote on Iraq, he votes his conscience and stands his ground, he stands his ground with class, and I respect that.

 

[gururu2]

you guys need to read the actual quotes instead of the headlines and reporter paraphrases.

2004:
"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack"
2007:
"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning"

there is no lie here. he thought it was wrong to attack Iraq at the time. whats the problem?

 

[Craig234]

ProfJohn, stuck with the facts against him and his ideology demanding th wrong position, just proves his side wrong and pretends he proved his point. How odd. He puts up a post showing Clinton did not approve of the war, to prove he approved of the war.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: gururu2
you guys need to read the actual quotes instead of the headlines and reporter paraphrases.

2004:
"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack"
2007:
"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning"

there is no lie here. he thought it was wrong to attack Iraq at the time. whats the problem?

You forgot these two from 2004:
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,"
"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for"

You are a total fool if you don't see the 'lie'

In 2004 he supported the war, although didn't like the timing.
Today he claims that he opposed the war from the beginning... give me a break. The only thing he opposed was the timing.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Nice job on finding this interview Pabby....the only problem is that it supports everyone's position but your own. From your article:

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

In other words...if Hans found nothing....the might not have been a war!! The interviewer tried repeatedly to corner Clinton into stating unequivocally that he supported the war no matter what and he couldn't get him to say it. Every comment Clinton made had a condition attached to it.